The Response From Ba.

[ChrisB]

The-Future-for-England-NPs-BA-response.pdf

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

I won't comment on the self styled Broads National Park tag but I will on this paragraph:

c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required.

I have underlined the obvious flaw and ask 'can we really trust the Authority to judge standards in a manner that reflects the needs of their stakeholders rather than as a sop to the aspirations and agenda of the Authority's CEO? It's all about trust, or lack of, that is the crux of the matter.

 

[MauriceMynah]

Peter, I have to say that I would have hugely more confidence in your posts if you were to use slightly less inflammatory language. Your distrust of the man in his position is well known and thoroughly documented, but your arguments would be so much better served if delivered with ice cold accuracy and facts without the personal rhetoric.

11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required.

I believe you are perfectly correct in highlighting that paragraph, and to ask if that which you have underlined is either good enough or indeed a reasonable standard to be targeted, further highlighting "appears to the authority to be reasonably required "

I would further ask the doctor if he personally or as CEO of the BA, would do business with a company who had set that as a performance standard.  

[JennyMorgan]

John, the underlined text is open ended. The BA appears to be of the opinion that it should be able to set the standards as it sees fit, whether that standard be one of improvement or abandonment, so long as it appears to be reasonably required. JP has a long history of interpreting policy in a manner that supports whatever it is that he is currently promoting. Yes, it is sufficiently important as to warrant concern. If accepted as policy it would allow a level of control that would be open to abuse. What is reasonable to one man, JP for example, might be an anathema to the boating public. Unfortunately dealing with the present BA set up is like playing a game of chess, we need to be able to out-guess the power behind the hand  by at least several moves ahead.

[Poppy]

Canoes don't draw much....

[TheQ]

21 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Canoes don't draw much....

This one does, 1000mm plus hull draft..

[Poppy]

4 hours ago, TheQ said:

This one does, 1000mm plus hull draft..

It's a Canoe Jim, but not as we know it    I'm not sure the well known Broadland canoeist Would have a clue either

[JennyMorgan]

43 minutes ago, Poppy said:

It's a Canoe Jim, but not as we know it    I'm not sure the well known Broadland canoeist Would have a clue either

He paddles a kayak, bless him!

[Guest]

6 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Unfortunately dealing with the present BA set up is like playing a game of chess, we need to be able to out-guess the power behind the hand  by at least several moves ahead.

I always thought it was only our friends from 'across the pond' who spent to much time thinking up conspiracy theories, seems like it's contagious...

[marshman]

There is a bogeyman beyond every door , every comment and (almost! ) everyone associated with  or at, Yare House.

What more would you expect Andrew? 

[Polly]

I think the standard should have objective measures attached.

3m depth x 10m wide channels across the navigation  as a minimum for example, and where that is an issue eg. The Ant then the nearest width possible.

Leaving this issue to opinion is unprofessional, I think.

[JennyMorgan]

In fairness, Polly, the BA has set itself various minimums to work to. You sail, I sail, in doing so we tend to use what water is available to us. I quote from the December Broads Briefing: 'Recently, we have mobilised some rather impressive machinery to Hickling Broad and are busy dredging material from the navigation channel.' Please note the reference to the 'Navigation Channel', a channel that was originally created so visitors to Hickling could find the pub & the village, not as a limitation as to where folk could sail. The whole article makes it clear that the dredging is for conservation so I do wonder what account will be paying? That aside, are navigation channels going to become the norm? That we can only go where such channels exist, that we shall be excluded from areas that are not designated as such? They tried it on at Horsey! They certainly tried it on on Oulton Broad when they suggested that they needn't dredge the North Bay because the bay is outside the navigation channel. That argument failed when it was pointed out that Oulton Broad does not have a navigation channel. 

[BroadAmbition]

3m x 10m?    You can wish - If only.

Publishing statements like 5000m3 removed from a given 'Area ' sounds a lot, well it used to do so to me until FairTmiddlin explained it.(Thanks again)  I suspect the Ba publish the m3 figure coz it looks impressive and sounds a lot when in reality it is far from it

Griff

[marshman]

Did none of you read Robin's excellent post yesterday on another thread? Whats the point in living in a dream world by talking about 3m depths? Of course at Hickling they are dredging " the channel" - do you really think that dredging Hickling generally is even dreamt about given the huge cost even if it could be done. I doubt you could even get the channel to that depth - lets be realistic!!

And Griff - a m3 of mud might not be a lot but stuff that inside your van and it would seem bigger I guess! And 50000 of those a year would make a large pile of cr*p methinks - and of course the only people who could pay for the extra dredging on top of the existing programme are the boat owners themselves in larger tolls! Not especially popular I guess.

P.S. If you did NOT read Robin's post, then I strongly recommend you do - its under the low tide thread. Someone reproduce it here for an old git please!!

 

[ChrisB]

This is a 10 m3 Hino. 5000 cubic metres would require 500 movements of this truck, I think that is a lot of dirt.....certainly to get rid of.

 

[BroadAmbition]

5000 - Not 50'000 does sound a lot doesn't it? 500 movements of that truck is a lot of mud, BUT as FairTmiddlin explained, taken from a river bed it ain't much in the grand scheme of things.

Of course I read Robins post, most of which is his opinion, just like the majority of the rest of us in here have opinions.  Btw an area the size of Hickling ain't impossible as big as it is, they managed to clear out Barton Broad over a number of years and that ain't exactly a puddle.  Where there's a will, there is generally a way

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, my point was not so much that ONLY the channel was being dredged rather that boats might one day be limited to areas that are deemed acceptable, e.g. navigation channels. No, I'm not suggesting a total dredging of Hickling, or Oulton for that matter, but something at least on the lines of the Barton restoration.

[JennyMorgan]

This is worth a read, it should also be the yardstick for future projects:

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/404268/Darkness_to_Light.pdf

[riverman]

Not to further BA bash, but doing piling and dredging for a living gives me some insight. 50000 cube, for an operation on that scale is pathetic. Toll payers are already paying for an efficient dredging solution, however (and this is fact rather than just BA bashing) certain individuals within the authority have decided on a preferred method irrelevant of efficiency. 

[marshman]

Pete - perhaps you could persuade a few farmers around Hickling to read that then - methinks there could lie a major issue. A limited trial last year has not been continued and possibly was not as successful as had been hoped?

P.S. Not sure what the total cost of Clearwater was, but you can be sure that the supply of money from Europe for such projects looks like it might dry up in the future!

P.P.S. I would hope Riverman could expand a little on his last sentence to enable others to understand more fully!!

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you for that insight, Riverman. I have heard from other sources much the same comment and that there is good, useful kit moored up at Thorpe, now seemingly redundant. This is gear that could and should be in use, it is not as if there is not work for it to do. However, perhaps there is some merit in trying new, innovative techniques but surely not to persist if they proves less efficient. With absolutely no relevant experience whatsoever I must say that the use of suction to shift spoil to suitable disposal sites does make sense to me. Certainly the Dutch have shown what can be done in that respect.

[JennyMorgan]

19 minutes ago, marshman said:

P.S. Not sure what the total cost of Clearwater was, but you can be sure that the supply of money from Europe for such projects looks like it might dry up in the future!

The fore mentioned BA report tells us that it cost three million at 2000 prices. Perhaps split between conservation and navigation, only right and proper, the probable cost of Hickling would be as much as five million in total. Where there is a will there is often a way.

[BroadAmbition]

I would hope Riverman could expand a little on his last sentence to enable others to understand more fully!!

We may not fully understand his last sentence but from someone who knows we now know only to well that 50'000 let alone 5000 (As on the lower Bure and Bure loop) below:-

Not to further BA bash, but doing piling and dredging for a living gives me some insight. 50000 cube, for an operation on that scale is pathetic.

Griff

[LondonRascal]

Years ago the Broads Authority asked for help on ideas for dredging options, I think there was some EU grant they were after and a Dutch method was tried which I think involved doing work, dredging up silt and allowing the outgoing tide to take it away while still suspended in the water. 

My idea was rather large and new. I have no idea if it would really be workable, but the idea is to have a large boat and barge which work their way around the rivers - day in and out. It would work by a way to cut into the river bed and this be 'scooped' up - or by suction but a large amount of silt would come onboard the vessel for the first stage of the operation.  This would involved the heavy, water logged mud to be placed in a centrifugal separator.  This would help separate the heavier parts from he mud, like stones and heavier clay compounds. Finder silt and a lot of the water would then be 'spun out'.  The two streams would then be pumped to the next stage.

Here very high temperature boilers - think steam locomotive - would have the solution pumped through a series of tubes, this would boil off the water content to a large degree, condensers cooled by the river water would then return the steam created back to water - this pure water would be returned back to the river. Meanwhile the hot sludge devoid of a lot of its water content would be eject and then the final stage would be these being pressed by a hydraulic method to form bricks - similar in size to breeze blocks.  This would have the consistency of ground coffee after it has been used in an Espresso machine.

Because it is a uniform manageable size, and because it has a great deal of the water content removed these bricks are lighter to move, more can be kept on the barge that can then be loaded with far more 'area' or spoil than otherwise could be, the bricks can then be deposited easier in various locations - but I suspect not be able to have much use for agricultural as the boiling process will likely have left the mud bricks sterile.

Such a system would cost a lot in energy to keep the boilers going, and that would produce a fair amount of Carbon which people would surly say was a bad thing. However I think such a system could be built - refined and might be a 'goer'. It could then work along an entire river during a season, all the users of the river would see it, know what it did, and understand the money they had paid into such through Tolls was being used - not just here and there sometimes but constantly, with tangible results.

 

[grendel]

I recall reading that the hickling spoil would be pumped into an area bounded off by a membrane, to recreate a reed bed, surely as this is not on farmers land, they can keep at it until that area is full of spoil, irrespective of farmers - maybe this is why they are now able to do the dredging. so farmers permission is maybe not so much of an issue, if reed beds can be created - I do understand this will restrict the amount of navigation, but I would think that the area would have been too shallow to navigate in any case.