Broads Authority Integrated Access Strategy

[kpnut]

This was posted as a BA notice, but comments are closed so I’ve started it as a new topic.
 

Quote -

We are launching a review of the Broads Authority Integrated Access Strategy (IAS), a key document which relates to the Broads Plan.

and - 

As the first step in the review process, we would like to ask for your comments on the attached scoping paper. This scoping paper describes the values, principles and aims of the new strategy.

 

But - the scoping paper doesn’t seem to be attached to the original post.

Can it be attached,  or is there a link I can click to get to it on the BA website?

Many thanks. 

[ExSurveyor]

Not sure if this will work, trying to copy from the email on my phone. This is way above my training 😁

1692737905713_Broads Authority Integrated Access Strategy scoping paper.docx

[kpnut]

Thanks Mark. Yes it did work. I downloaded it to my email address and it opened there. 

[grendel]

integrated access strategy- does that mean letting nettles invade the quay headings at short dyke?

I dont like the look of item 5.8, maintain the free use of Broads Auhtority unstaffed moorings.

that sort of implies that if they throw a staff member onto a mooring they consider that they will be able to then start charging

[grendel]

I would suggest that maybe boat syndicates could formulate a response to the section 11, on behalf of their members as this mainly seems to be directed at organisations, though I am sure individuals could also respond.

[kpnut]

I’m sure anyone who is interested and feels strongly about moorings/public access/linked up facilities etc can respond, although the questions to respond to are rather odd!

As well as the Broads Local Access Forum playing a part in this strategy (that forum is to do with public access to land, from either land or water), more importantly the paper states that the navigation committee is part of the consultation and strategy delivery. That committee is the one that we as boaters need to make aware of our needs and concerns. 

I too picked up on item 5.8 Grendel and my thoughts were along exactly the same lines. 
Also about the bit of encouraging double mooring at appropriate sites. It would be one way for the BA to state they have increased mooring meterage, even though they know that nowadays it is a very unpopular way of mooring and has an incredibly low take-up rate. I don’t think that’s the way to go at all. 

 

But I do think every one of us should at least read the paper, as it is chock a block full of all the stuff we discuss on a very regular basis. If we want boating interests to be represented, we ought to be proactive in contributing when offered the chance. 

[YnysMon]

Hmm, some initial thoughts.

5.2 Non-powered boating is more sustainable than powered boating. Yes, but!

5.6 Whilst I sympathise with people with mobility problems, and am all behind improving accessibility, it sometimes appears that projects that are not accessible get the thumbs down even though many people who don't have accessibility issues could benefit. 

I like 5.8 (maintain free use of BA unstaffed moorings) but does that mean they still have a charge for Reedham in their sights? Also like 5.9. Maintain a policy of no net reduction in publicly accessible mooring length directly managed by the Broads Authority.

5.12 is maybe a hostage to fortune...(Project design should consider the potential impacts of climate change, including changes in water levels to support climate change resilience and adaptation.).

Also like 6.1.4 (Generate a strategic delivery plan for installation of Electric Charging points).

Like 6.1.7( Identify and promote the development of new access routes to improve the connectivity of the existing public access network, including rights of way, permissive paths, and long-distance routes).  - They could improve the signage for public footpaths for a start, as well as work with local councils and other landowners to ensure that footpaths are kept in good order. There have been several posts here over the last couple of summers highlighting footpaths that are virtually impassable due to overgrowth. 

6.2.2 Access points - how about a de-masting area south of Ludham Bridge? Whenever we've been on a sailey, that's been a real bugbear. 

6.2.5 - Oooh! That sounds hopeful! (Extending access to new areas of navigable water space where appropriate.)

6.2.6 Sounds good (Work in partnership to protect, staithes rights and the access benefits they bring).

6.3.3 Errr...? (Seek contributions/ establish charges for ancillary services e.g., water). More access to water during winter months would be helpful, but I'm not sure what their wording implies. 

6.3.6. (Promote double alongside mooring at appropriate sites). No thanks.

6.3.7 (Work in partnership with third parties to maximise publicly accessible short-stay mooring provision.) Well that would be good. 

6.3.8 (Review de-masting provision in the Broads and develop a prioritisation methodology to guide future investment in new provision). Yes please!

Flip - now I'll have to submit some proper feedback.

 

 

 

 

[Meantime]

The integrated access strategy is all very well, but, how much money has been spent so far, and will be spent, debating, reviewing and producing a nice white paper that achieves absolutely nothing.

Now if they actually spent that money on leasing moorings, say for instance renewing the lease at Langley staithe, something that produces some tangible useable benefits, then it would get my vote.

[Ray]

I don't know if it is just the current method of drafting such documents but this and others I've read (coastal defence for example) seem to be worded in a way which can so easily end up (and often does) with a result somewhere down the line along the lines of "We would have liked to [fill in the blank with an idea popular to users] however our consultation revealed this to be unfeasible/not cost effective/have a negative impact on the lesser stripped giraffe goose. Therefore as an alternative we shall (do excatly as we planned all along) and (ban engines/access/holidaymakers) as far as we can with this consultation as proof of necessity if there is a pesky complaint/enquiry.

[Mouldy]

1 hour ago, Ray said:

I don't know if it is just the current method of drafting such documents but this and others I've read (coastal defence for example) seem to be worded in a way which can so easily end up (and often does) with a result somewhere down the line along the lines of "We would have liked to [fill in the blank with an idea popular to users] however our consultation revealed this to be unfeasible/not cost effective/have a negative impact on the lesser stripped giraffe goose. Therefore as an alternative we shall (do excatly as we planned all along) and (ban engines/access/holidaymakers) as far as we can with this consultation as proof of necessity if there is a pesky complaint/enquiry.

My thoughts exactly, the benefit for them is being able to say that they asked us for our opinions (and will probably chose to ignore anything that doesn’t fit with their agenda).

My God, am I getting cynical?

[Ray]

1 minute ago, Mouldy said:

My God, am I getting cynical

Not so much cynical, we all just become experienced!

[bucket]

I too have some doubts........but if I don't participate I can't complain about the outcome can I?

So I shall.

Thank you Kate and Mark for bringing it to the forum.

[floydraser]

19 hours ago, Ray said:

I don't know if it is just the current method of drafting such documents but this and others I've read (coastal defence for example) seem to be worded in a way which can so easily end up (and often does) with a result somewhere down the line along the lines of "We would have liked to [fill in the blank with an idea popular to users] however our consultation revealed this to be unfeasible/not cost effective/have a negative impact on the lesser stripped giraffe goose. Therefore as an alternative we shall (do excatly as we planned all along) and (ban engines/access/holidaymakers) as far as we can with this consultation as proof of necessity if there is a pesky complaint/enquiry.

Agreed. But when all the replies are collated I wonder if the unedited replies will be available through a freedom of information request? Probably only after all the guilty parties have retired with benefits.