Canoe Portage Outside Of The Navigation Area.

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/questions-over-delays-in-constructing-portage-on-waveney-canoe-trail-1-5152918

Why on earth is this scheme being financed by the Broads Authority? It is outside of the navigation area for one thing, the navigation ends at Geldeston Locks, see big notice hanging under the bridge there. It is incredibly poor value to the toll payer. BCU members pay a block payment to the Authority in lieu of a toll, I wonder what that amounts to. I also question when or even whether the Navigation Committee was asked to comment on this project. Apart from the fact that Dr Packman lives out that way and enjoys his kayaking what possible interest is this project to the Authority? Surely this should be financed by the BCU, not the Broads Authority? It benefits no one but canoeists, indeed it could be argued that it disadvantages anglers and the general environment of that area by increased usage. Serious questions need to be asked. Indeed I will be submitting FOI's on this one over the weekend.

[MauriceMynah]

If I owned a canoe and kept it just upstream of Geldeston Lock, assuming I was not a member of the BCU, would I be liable to pay any toll to anyone?

[Minifer]

As I happen to own a kayak I think this is a good thing.  MM I suspect the BA canoe toll would apply due to the BA monitary input even if it is out of the normal navigation area, but it does need clarification.   I know it is a growing sport and changes are happening but it is great exercise and fantastic to be at duck level.  I manage not to antagonise anglers too ...

[marshman]

PW - you are wrong for once I believe. I  think the BA boundary goes up to the bridge in Bungay unless it has been changed recently. I wouldn't bother to do your FOI until you are absolutely sure!!!

The BA area is NOT just limited to navigable waters but in some cases extends to other bits

[MauriceMynah]

Thanks for that Minifer.

Now, If what you suspect is true and that I'd have to pay a toll to the BA, I would expect to get something for my money. Is that unreasonable? 

[marshman]

Sorry PW - reread your post but surely you are not saying that just because it is not navigable by bigger boats, the BA should never spend money on it? The Broads is NOT just about navigable waters - if its within their boundary, which it is, then thats how it is.

[Vaughan]

22 minutes ago, marshman said:

Sorry PW - reread your post but surely you are not saying that just because it is not navigable by bigger boats, the BA should never spend money on it? The Broads is NOT just about navigable waters - if its within their boundary, which it is, then thats how it is.

I think I agree with that, in principle. It may not be an open navigation now but it certainly used to be, hence the need for the lock.

I would guess that if there is no problem with trespass on local land and the old river can still be used by a canoe, then why not? Portage at a lock is normal practice and a canoe is still a "vessel" after all.

I am reminded of similar conversations about access to parts of the Dilham canal.

Judging by the EDP photo there is already a footpath along the bank : it just needs a simple bit of quay so that canoes can be lifted out. Not much of a job, I would have thought.

[JennyMorgan]

11 hours ago, marshman said:

PW - you are wrong for once I believe. I  think the BA boundary goes up to the bridge in Bungay unless it has been changed recently. I wouldn't bother to do your FOI until you are absolutely sure!!!

The BA area is NOT just limited to navigable waters but in some cases extends to other bits

Marsh, the BA's executive area does indeed run up to Bugay, however the navigation limit does not extend beyond Geldeston Locks hence the chain across the river & notice under the bridge saying 'no boats beyond this point'. Personally I suspect that it is ultra vires unless it can be shown that the cost of this scheme was met by the National Park grant and that no navigation, e.g. toll money was used. 

[JennyMorgan]

10 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I think I agree with that, in principle. It may not be an open navigation now but it certainly used to be, hence the need for the lock.

I would guess that if there is no problem with trespass on local land and the old river can still be used by a canoe, then why not? Portage at a lock is normal practice and a canoe is still a "vessel" after all.

I am reminded of similar conversations about access to parts of the Dilham canal.

Judging by the EDP photo there is already a footpath along the bank : it just needs a simple bit of quay so that canoes can be lifted out. Not much of a job, I would have thought.

The navigation above Geldeston and up to Bungay is still owned by the defunct canal company, via an Act of Parliament. and never was a public navigation although undoubtedly the public used it. It became navigable as such after the locks & weirs were built, its flow is one way, it is not a tidal waterway with the associated rights of such.

[Vaughan]

Nonetheless, the EDP article talks of the "River Waveney Canoe Trail" which they say starts as far away as Diss.

If this has official status and is in regular use by people in canoes, I would say it is reasonable for them to ask for a simple bit of bank repair, so that the portage over the last lock in the system, can join them up with the rest of the river?

[JennyMorgan]

Just for the record I have frequently paddled from Beccles to Bungay, a delightful journey. Portage has been simple, lift our canoe out of the water on one side of the Ellingham road and relaunch it on the other, hardly a need for the proposed facility but it would be nice. I just question the Authority's involvement and the funding, not the portage itself.

[JennyMorgan]

Just now, Vaughan said:

Nonetheless, the EDP article talks of the "River Waveney Canoe Trail" which they say starts as far away as Diss.

If this has official status and is in regular use by people in canoes, I would say it is reasonable for them to ask for a simple bit of bank repair, so that the portage over the last lock in the system, can join them up with the rest of the river?

Not unreasonable at all, just a question of who should pay since it is above the head of the navigation.

[Vaughan]

This is the value of your local knowledge Peter, since the article gives the impression that access over the lock is blocked to canoes, unless the BA spend some money!

If there is already access, for those who are prepared to find it, then no problem!

[JennyMorgan]

It would be good if similar portage points were provided for the Muck Fleet and up to the Trinity Broads, a journey that Jamie Campbell & I have completed.