Dysfunctional Broads Authority Continues Persecution of Whistleblowers

The dysfunctional and unaccountable Broads Authority plumbed new depths last week, as they took the extraordinary step of removing me from the Navigation Committee - for telling the truth about members being misled.

Disappointing as this might be from a personal perspective, however, the more important issue is the Broads Authority’s continued determination to cover up wrong-doing and incompetence, their contempt for free speech, and the censuring of whistle blowers.

For 16 months, the Broads Authority has expended what must be considerable sums of public money on investigating my blog posts - involving not one but two barristers. But, instead of looking into my “very serious” claims,  all they’ve investigated is whether I breached their internal code of conduct by making them.

It’s obvious that they know what I said was true; why else would they have spent so long avoiding the questions and finding time-consuming ways of shooting the messenger instead? If John Packman had really believed I was wrong, he would have revelled in proving it. Instead, he refused to meet me and argued semantics like whether a mooring is a mooring when a boat isn’t tied to it.

Having spent money on a barrister, you would expect the BA to take their advice. But the barrister’s recommendation was for an informal resolution, rather than disproportionate sanctions. There should be talks, and reconciliation. And that obviously didn’t fit with the Authority’s overall objective, so they refused to meet me and altered the complaints procedure to remove informal resolution as an option.

This meant taking the complaint to a full hearing, with a Panel made up of the same people who brought the complaint in the first place.  Can there be a more obvious breach of the rules of natural justice - which require there to be no appearance of bias, and for nobody to be a judge in their own case?

Continuing this theme of transparency, they refused to hold the hearing in public, refused to allow a recording to be made and refused to allow me to cross examine the officers who misled the members. And then took a week to issue a decision, which should have been made on the same day.

That decision ignored the advice of the independent investigator, and instead proposed a raft of sanctions personally requested by the Chief Executive, who should not even have been involved in the process.

I was given 7 days to retract my statements, apologise to all concerned, remove the blog articles and promise never to do it again. If I failed to comply, they would remove me from the Navigation Committee - in breach of the Broads Acts, the Localism Act and their own constitution.

I did not comply, because I will not be bullied into retracting the truth and supporting a cover up.  And so, last Friday, just two days after their deadline expired, the Chairman of the Authority asked members to vote to remove me.

My offence was a failure to show “leadership” - which according to the Broads Authority means promoting confidence in itself and its officers at all times. This is pretty much the opposite of the definition of leadership in the Nolan Principles of public life, which requires members to challenge poor behaviour.

In an unelected quango like the BA, considerable trust is placed in members by stakeholders - who rely on them to challenge and scrutinise the advice and recommendations of the officers, to protect the public interest. I have presented clear evidence of wrong doing - anyone reading the articles can tell that members were misled - but, unfortunately, the majority of members seem more interested in protecting the reputation of the Authority than they are in investigating poor behaviour. Because they are trained to believe that’s what they must do.

This Authority is utterly out of control. They would sooner remove a member than admit that they got something wrong, and in any event it is simply not in their gift to remove an appointed member of the navigation committee. But they did it anyway - because there is nobody to stop them.

This leaves toll payers with one less voice on the navigation committee for the next 6 months, until the next round of appointments. And it sends a clear message to stakeholders, local authorities and government that the BA can - and will - do anything it likes.

Adjacent waters - to toll or not to toll

Following recent coverage in the EDP, I would like to talk about tolls for static vessels in adjacent waters. In particular, I would like to talk about an ongoing disputed case which has cost over £35,000 of public money in pursuit of a £500 toll, and which has not been properly brought to the attention of Members for a balanced, informed discussion or decision for over 5 years.

In 2009, the Broads Act gave the Broads Authority some additional powers. These were primarily aimed at ensuring boat safety and adequate third party insurance cover for vessels moored in “adjacent waters”, such as marinas which are attached to the navigation area but don’t form part of it. All boat owners - whether in the navigation area or adjacent waters - are now required to have an up to date boat safety certificate and insurance policy, a move which has significantly raised standards and safety on the Broads.

Additionally, it was argued that vessels moored in adjacent waters should pay a toll, because some boats had been “hiding” in marinas and pretending never to use the river, avoiding payment of their dues and placing an unfair financial burden on other toll payers. Tolls in adjacent waters were therefore set at the same level as those in the navigation area, on the basis that such boats had full access to the navigation area and it was up to the owner whether or not they chose to do so.

Unfortunately, this adversely affected one very specific type of vessel - static boats, such as barges which never move. A reasonable person would conclude that, if such a vessel cannot use the navigation, then they really should not have to pay a navigation toll. Please bear in mind that the definition of a “toll” is a payment for passage, such as on rivers and roads, and is not a parking charge. However, rather than simply charge a registration fee for a static vessel in adjacent waters, instead of a toll, the Authority has embarked upon a legal battle which has so far run for over 5 years and cost tens of thousands of pounds of public money.

In 2012, I attempted to raise the issue at navigation committee, but failed because it had apparently “already been decided” by members at a previous meeting. However, this was not strictly true - whilst members had agreed to the general principle that charges in adjacent waters should be the same as those in the navigation area (for the reasons above), there was no consideration given to the potentially contentious case of static houseboats within the context of this policy. Subsequent events have demonstrated that this type of vessel should have received special attention in the debate.

I also tried to raise the issue again during the Tolls Workshop a few months later, and was shot down by the then-Chairman on the instructions of the Chief Executive, on the basis that members could not possibly debate such tolls because of an ongoing court case between the Authority and Alan Fry - the owner of a Dutch barge - who was being asked to pay a toll of over £550 to moor his static vessel in a private marina. I should at this stage point out that the marina is at Waveney River Centre, of which I am a Director.

Whilst it would clearly have been wrong to discuss the merits of an ongoing court case, the Chairman incorrectly took the view that sub-judice rules should be invoked in order to prevent a debate on that category of tolls in general. It is possible that the Chairman was not aware that there were a number of other vessels affected in a similar way, but the stifling of debate was unhelpful. This is why it is important for Members of the Broads Authority to keep an open mind at all times.

After Alan Fry won his case in May 2015, I asked for it to go on to the navigation committee agenda for discussion. Surely now the committee could discuss the matter, come up with a fair system for static vessels in adjacent waters (a small registration fee, perhaps) and stop wasting money on persecuting people?

Instead, the Authority announced its immediate intention to appeal, but reluctantly agreed to include a report in the navigation committee agenda for 4th June. However, the Chief Executive conspired to ensure that I could neither listen to the officer’s report or contribute to the debate, by bringing in a solicitor who alleged that I had a financial interest in Mr Fry’s toll.

Self-evidently, I cannot have a financial interest in the payment of Broads Authority tolls by my customers. Mooring fees yes, BA tolls no. And in any event, it would be up to me to make that judgement call and to take the consequences. It’s not up to the Authority’s solicitor to accuse me of having a financial interest and to tell the committee that I could be prosecuted if I stayed in the room whilst the matter was being reported. This is a complete misrepresentation of the law and a breach of due process. But again, it had the desired effect, because I was forced to leave the room (under protest), whilst members were told that the Court judgement was wrong and that the Authority must appeal it because it would undermine their right to charge any tolls at all in adjacent waters. Which wasn’t remotely what the judgement said - but how many members do you think took the trouble to read it?

No doubt realising that the Authority’s standing orders had been breached - as well as the law - I was leaned upon not to make a complaint, on the basis of a promise that the issue of tolls on static vessels in adjacent waters would be brought to the next tolls workshop meeting. The minutes record the concerns of members and an agreement that this would need to be discussed at a separate meeting.

Of course, there was no “separate meeting” - and the “tolls workshop” permitted no ideas to be put forward by members, instead paving the way for a hand-picked “tolls review group” to formulate a new system for calculating tolls.

At the October 2016 navigation committee meeting, the Tolls Review Group announced their proposals - which included a rushed last-minute confirmation that adjacent waters tolls would remain the same as those in the navigation area, and that a Court decision had confirmed the Authority’s right to make such charges. This was true, but does rather ignore the important principle that such charges should be reasonable and fair.

Members were also told that it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss adjacent water tolls, due to the ongoing dispute with Mr Fry which remained in the Court system after more than 4 years, but that they would be allowed to discuss it “in the future”. This was a year ago.

Nevertheless I raised my concerns and called for members to be allowed to debate the subject, resulting in the Chief Executive once again accusing me of having a personal financial interest in the case. He later denied having said this and produced a set of meeting notes which sought to prove that he had not - but his notes bear no resemblance to what was actually said in the meeting, and I can prove this as I have a recording.

In the middle of all this shenanigans, in September 2014 the Authority started a new battle front at a marina on the River Yare, by attempting to draw more floating things into the tolls net. Notices suddenly appeared on floating pontoon cabins, telling the owners that their properties were in fact “houseboats” under the “strict wording” of the Broads Act 2009, and needed to pay a toll.

In fact, houseboats are not mentioned anywhere in the Act. The Act says that tolls must be paid for “vessels”, and I can find no definition of “vessel” - either in the 2009 Act or any dictionary - which would include these floating cabins. The 2009 Act requires any such vessel to be capable of being used for transportation by water, which obviously wouldn’t apply to these houseboats, so the Authority decided to extend the statutory definition by adding the words “or being moved”, in an attempt to justify their position. It was even claimed that the inclusion of sailboards in the 2009 Act’s definition of “vessel” must mean that it was open to the inclusion of anything else!

Unfortunately, the 2009 Act provides no mechanism for appealing against these charges (unlike navigation tolls which can be appealed under s31 of the Harbours Act 1964). So the Authority has dug its heels in, safe in the knowledge that the organisation could never be held accountable for its actions.

The 2009 Act is, in fact, so badly drafted in relation to the nature of adjacent waters charges that it has been impossible to get the Courts to agree with one another - which is why Alan Fry’s case has gone on for so long. The most recent judgement (from July 2016) declared that the tolls regime - and the navigation charges - were “reasonable”, but the transcript of the case makes clear that the Court relied upon the Authority’s evidence that these toll charges had been considered by members. I wonder if the Judges would have reached the same conclusion had they known not only that tolls for static vessels in adjacent waters had never been discussed by members, but that they’d been prevented from doing so for the previous 4 years?

Since 2012, the Authority has pursued this case without ever allowing members to debate the issues or re-consider the charges for static houseboats in adjacent waters. The focus has always been on whether the law allows the Authority to make such a charge - and not on whether the toll charged is fair or reasonable. As a result, tens of thousands of toll payers’ pounds have been expended on batting the ball back and forth over the net and, the longer it’s gone on, the more difficult it has been for the Authority to consider reviewing its entrenched position. Even the courts who have found in the Authority’s favour have largely done so reluctantly, agreeing that the charge “seems to be unfair” but finding that the law is “unfortunately” unarguable.

And so it goes on. The ridiculous cost of pursuing this case has far outweighed any benefit to toll payers, and the executive have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent members from scrutinising their actions - including false allegations of financial interests, inappropriate use of sub judice rules, falsification of meeting notes, broken promises and general obfuscation & procrastination.

How can a publicly funded authority be allowed to run up legal bills over 5 years and yet prevent its members from holding it properly to account? Another spectacular failure of governance.

Note - this article represents my personal and private views, and not those of the navigation committee. I attest that I am not acting in my capacity as a member of the navigation committee, as the committee has not been allowed to discuss this matter, and 5 years is more than enough time for it to have been permitted to do so.

Passenger boats rocked by 27% tolls increase

I’ve been intending to expand upon the passenger boat tolls controversy for a few weeks now, though sadly it seems that I was beaten to the line by that other well known “disreputable channel for infantile sniping at the Authority”. However, now that the tolls demands have landed on doormats, this seems like an appropriate time to revisit it.

Back in October 2016, the Tolls Review Group presented the navigation committee with the fruits of their considerable labours. This ran to 42 pages and, by and large, the navigation committee went along with the proposals which were intended to simplify the system and provide a more flexible charging structure for Broads tolls.

Readers will recall that the main proposals were to move from a "fixed & variable charge" to a variable charge based on the size of the vessel. Different categories of vessel (there are 14 under the new system) would have a different rate per sq.m - so for example £12.85 per sq.m for private motor cruisers, £28.95 per sq.m for hire cruisers and £38.10 for passenger vessels.

The net effect of this was that small boats would generally pay less, and big boats would pay more.

The owners of some larger boats in particular (and remember that “big” does not have to mean “expensive”) were quite cross about this, and the Norfolk & Suffolk Boating Association made a strong challenge for the variable rate to be retained. This was supported by some members, who could see the potential PR disaster of imposing significant toll increases in one go - but the TRG were determined that the fixed rate would be abolished on the basis that it was unfair and too complicated to understand.

In all the discussion over private boat tolls, however, what everyone on the navigation committee (including me) completely failed to notice was the effect of the new system on large passenger boats - this was hidden away on page 35 and unfortunately we rather let down the passenger boat operators by overlooking a proposed 27% increase in their tolls, using the proposed figure of £38.10 per sq.m.

This was brought to the attention of the full Authority on 18th November 2016, when they discussed and ratified the recommendations of the Tolls Review Group, as amended by the Navigation Committee. In fact it was left to one of the affected passenger boat operators to raise the matter a few days before the meeting, leading to complaints from some Members about the last-minute nature of the challenge.

This might have been a fair criticism had passenger boat operators been consulted in any way at all about the proposals. But it seems a little harsh to hide a 27% tolls increase away in a spreadsheet and then blame the victims for not spotting it.

Consider also that, due to the decision to re-interpret the wishes of Parliament so that “persons who are likely to be required to pay ship, passenger or goods dues” was re-defined as “any toll payer”, passenger boat operators no longer have any representation on the navigation committee at all. So it was a miracle that they even found out before the tolls demands arrived.

At the full Authority meeting, several members spoke out strongly in support of passenger boat operators and voiced concern at the proposed punitive increase in their tolls. Members highlighted the important role that passenger boats play in accessibility to the Broads for people on lower incomes, education through schools, and their generally lower environmental impact.

Sensing that the meeting was moving strongly in favour of reducing the increase for large passenger boats, the Chief Executive moved quickly to ensure that no formal proposal was made to vary the recommendation of the TRG. In a classic example of telling each side what they want to hear in the same sentence, he managed to convince the meeting that he would go back to the Tolls Review Group and ask them how to implement the clearly expressed wishes of members, whilst giving them enough wriggle room for those concerns to be dismissed without having to come back for approval.

Here's what he said:

“ In terms of timing I do believe you need to take decisions today. I think if you want a further look at passenger boats, what I suggest you do is to give delegated authority to me to decide what might happen about passenger boats after a further discussion with the Tolls Working Group. What I would suggest is either it remains as in the paper, or - it’s not a huge amount, it’s about £20 to £23,000, so in the grand scheme of the tolls, this is a relatively small bit. I don’t believe it would be fair, if you wanted to reduce that, to shift any of that burden on to the private boats. I do think the principle of both private and hire going up by 3% is right, therefore if you wanted to shift some of that, you could reduce the proposed charges for the passenger boats so that the income increase was say 3% and shift that to the weekly hire fleet, because I think that there are only 16 passenger boats whereas there are 789 weekly hire boats. If you were shifting say £3,000 in one direction, it would make a significant difference to the passenger boats, but not much difference to the weekly hire boats. If that’s what you would like to do then my suggestion is that I work with with the tolls working group to look at that and you give me delegated authority to make a decision on the lines of what they suggest. Because I think we actually need to get on with this. ”

Anybody listening to this would have been in no doubt of the clear intention to reduce the huge 27% hike to a more manageable 3% - but by avoiding a vote and instead asking Members to give him delegated powers to “work with the TRG”, he was able simply to ask them whether or not they would like to change their recommendation on passenger boat tolls, and they declined.

In approving the overall recommendations of the tolls review group, the Chair (Jacquie Burgess) closed with the following words:

“ we can go back to the TRG to work out how that [the reduction in passenger boat tolls] would be distributed between the commercial fleets, because the new system allows us to do that ” (my emphasis on how)

However, the official minute reads thus:

Following discussion about the precise wording, the Chairman proposed that recommendation (ii) within the report be accepted with an additional clause “to delegate powers to the Chief Executive to consult with the Tolls Review Group and set the charges for passenger vessels and any redistribution of charges within the commercial fleet.”

All of the above is an object lesson for Members in the importance of clearly worded resolutions, with a vote, especially when any variation to an officer recommendation is being considered.

But it didn’t stop there. After it became apparent that the TRG were intent on sticking with their original recommendation, the Chief Executive took the unprecedented step of asking individual members to approve the minutes in advance of the next meeting, despite the clear fact that they were not a true record of members’ wishes.

We considered this again at Navigation committee in December, and by this point we were debating the semantics of individual words, with the Chief Executive arguing that there had been no decision by the full Authority to reduce the increase for passenger boats, that there had been no mention of 3% or any other figure, and that Members had merely given him delegated authority to consult with the TRG on whether there should be a reduction. Hopefully, now that all meetings will be officially recorded, there will be no room for such disagreements in the future!

Following the December navigation committee meeting, we were provided with the reasons for the Tolls Review Group deciding not to make any change to their recommendation. Some of the remarks are rather revealing, not only of the intention to ignore the concerns of members, but also the cavalier attitude towards the operators of these vessels:

“ It was absolutely right of John to adopt the position he did at the meeting. It averted a possibly damaging debate, and in no way committed the TRG to any particular course of action beyond taking another look. ”

“ these big boats are worthy of their toll. ”

 “ the BA meeting was not the place to commence a secondary debate and create a distraction from the main thrust of getting the papers proposals adopted. ”

“ I agree with our initial view on this, that it is a very lucrative business for some. ”

“ focus was specifically placed upon the passenger toll and not the overall toll costs of the business, the latter being the method used to test our proposals. ”

This last comment is interesting for the fact that it demonstrates that, in order for a toll on a passenger boat to be fair, it would have to be operated as part of a larger fleet which saw other tolls reduce. This is not a remotely safe assumption, and demonstrates beyond doubt that tolls for this class of boat are now intrinsically unfair - especially for small individual operators.

It's a great shame that this Authority, with which I became involved due to my passion for the Broads and a strong desire to improve governance and stakeholder engagement, seems determined to continue along a path guaranteed to fuel mistrust and to generate further resentment. It would have been so easy to admit to making a small mistake, and move to correct it, rather than treat it as “a distraction from the main thrust of getting the proposals adopted”.

As a result, instead of scoring a PR victory with a simpler and fairer tolls system, we are seen to have heavily penalised anyone with a large boat - and especially those who provide low cost access to the Broads. Sadly, this could easily have been avoided, if only we would get into the habit of listening instead of being stuck permanently on ‘transmit’.

Navigation Committee - Report from 15th December 2016

This navigation committee meeting turned out to be quite exciting, for unexpected reasons.

With Michael Whitaker still unwell, Nicky Talbot took the chair again and the first job on the agenda was to thank Trudi Wakelin for her sterling service to the Broads, as this would be her last navigation committee meeting before her departure to work at the Marine Management Organisation in Newcastle. She has been a friend to navigators and will be greatly missed.

The next task was to approve the minutes of the previous meeting (October 27th). The accuracy of BA minutes has long been a cause for concern, and whilst vice chairman I spent days correcting draft minutes and adding things which had been carefully omitted. The defence has been that the minutes "do not have to be a verbatim report" - but the funny thing is that we always have a detailed account of the officer reports and recommendations, but virtually no record of member contributions. The Chairman & I would usually end up negotiating with the Chief Executive over what would be included and what would be left out.

And so it was with the October minutes, which set a new record for the distillation of constructive and useful debate into one sentence or less. They didn't remotely do justice to the meeting, with almost 90% of the minutes being composed of the presentation and defence of the proposals - whereas in truth about 80% of the tolls debate was made up of contributions from members, who might justifiably have hoped that their input would be acknowledged.

So I'm rather afraid that I told the Chief Executive and Chair what I thought of their minutes, giving several examples of important matters which were entirely absent. Happily, a number of other members supported my view and we ended up having a surprise debate on the importance of good minute taking, which (even more surprisingly) resulted in the Chief Executive suggesting that maybe the Authority should consider recording our meetings - an idea which I've been championing constantly for the past 5 years, in the face of fierce resistance.

In support of this, we heard from the monitoring officer who'd been on a fact finding trip to the Brecon Beacons National Park, where they have video recording of meetings. Members learned that this had made the operation of their Authority more transparent, reduced considerably the number of Freedom of Information requests & code of conduct complaints - and disputes over accuracy of minutes had disappeared at a stroke. Hurrah!

Finally we got back to the matter at hand (the approval of the October minutes), and I voted against because they were frankly rubbish - which led us neatly into the next discussion item, which was the review of waste facilities.

Progress with this project is unfortunately rather slow. In principle, there is a possible solution which would involve the parish councils taking a lease or ownership of "strategic sites" - though it is still unclear which sites are defined as "strategic". The idea is that these strategic sites will be operated by the parish council, the district councils will transport the waste and the county council won't charge the districts for disposal. In practice, however, it appears that progress has been made with only two sites (both in North Norfolk), leaving most of the Broads without proper waste collection facilities - and the new boating season is only a few months away.

Next up was the finance report, which included a small nugget of good news for the navigation budget. Following an increase in staff costs within the operations budget - caused mainly by a rise in pension contributions - the contribution split between national park & navigation funds has been altered from 44/56 to 67/33 -  better reflecting the balance between the three statutory purposes. Other central and shared costs, however, continue to be split 60/40 between national park and navigation funds. One item of serious concern though was a projected reduction in hire boat toll income, due to an anticipated decline in hire boat numbers by a further 20 vessels in 2017. Even this reduction could be optimistic, and this would of course have a further impact on the budget.

Further expenditure on the dockyard has been budgeted, including the relocation of the existing upstream wet shed on to one of the existing slipways at a cost of £60,000 (£42,000 from navigation income).

There was a question about the impact of paperless tolls, and whether the Authority had collected less tolls from small boats due to the difficulty in identifying them without toll plaques. It seems that the Authority may have lost some tolls income - but probably not very much - and is looking at how to mark small boats in a more effective way.

We moved on to the asset management report, from which the Authority's vice chairman was "horrified" to discover the amount of money which is to be spent on the dockyard (£483k) and the Fieldbase (£251k) over the next 10 years. Having received an offer in excess of market value last year, it had been decided to retain the Fieldbase on the basis that it would produce an income - so it was disappointing to learn that it might end up costing us money to keep it. Members therefore sought clarification over what work was being considered - at both locations - over the coming years and the committe expects to receive this information in the very near future. I was particularly keen for the "Masterplan" for the dockyard to be presented to members, as many of us have no idea what the long term plans for this site might be.

The Chief Executive reported that there has been considerable interest in the vacancy on the navigation committee and that it's intended to interview candidates in February and make an appointment on 24th March. There were queries over the intended duration of the appointment, which would only be for 2 years (so that the appointment would finish at the same time as the other members). There was concern that having all (or many) members replaced at the same time was detrimental to the functioning of the committee and that here was a small opportunity to avoid the simultaneous turnover of members every 4 years. Eventually, the Chief Executive conceded that "perhaps we can have another little look at it".

We then moved into another piece of un-planned controversy, concerning the proposal to impose a 27% tolls increase on large passenger boats. We'd completely overlooked this at the October navigation committee meeting, but it was highlighted by a couple of passenger boat operators in advance of the meeting of the full Authority. Members were extremely concerned about this huge (and hopefully unintended) increase, and gave the Chief Executive delegated authority to go back to the tolls review group and ask them to figure out how to re-distribute the increase across the rest of the commercial fleet, so that the increase would be limited to 3% instead of 27%, in line with the average tolls increase across the board.

Unfortunately, the Chief Executive interpreted this as an instruction to ask the tolls review group to decide whether they would be willing to re-distribute the increase, and they declined. He even denied that he had mentioned 3% or any other figure - though this is hotly disputed by many of those who were at the meeting.

There had been a strong view advocated by a number of members (repeated at navigation committee) that it was unfair to impose such a huge increase on passenger boats, which provide an affordable and sustainable means of accessing the waterways - regardless of whether the toll could be "afforded" by the operators. Some members strongly believed that the Authority had asked for the tolls review group to decide how to re-distribute the increase amongst the rest of the commercial fleet, rather than if it should be re-distributed - but other members were less certain of exactly what they'd agreed. There was also strong criticism of the way that the Chief Executive had communicated the Tolls Review Group's response back to members, and the lack of transparency in explaining the reasons for their decision.

A number of us continued to press for the issue to be reconsidered, as we seemed to be in agreement that the 27% increase was unjustifiable and would inevitably result in bad PR for the Authority.  This was resisted a) because we couldn't possibly discuss it without having a paper in front of us with all the options; and b) because, by then, the schedule of tolls will already have been printed.

In summary, the Chief Executive stated that if everyone had been 'smarter' at the BA meeting and made their intentions clearer, then there would not have been any subsequent disagreement, and concluded that this matter reinforced the need for clearer recommendations and minutes…

Eventually, the committee were horsed into accepting the recommendation that large passenger boats should be subjected to an average tolls increase of 27%, subject only to the Tolls Review Group explaining their reasons, and a promise that it would be reviewed in 3 years time. The proposal was passed, with Greg Munford, Brian Wilkins and myself voting against. We are still awaiting the explanation from the TRG.

Moving on to slightly happier things, the committee were asked to consider 2 planning applications (this one and this one) for the removal of almost 400 metres of piling along 3 sections of river bank down stream of Thurne Mouth, and a re-grading of the river bank to give natural erosion protection now that the rollback banks have become established. 300 metres of the piling proposed for removal was leased to the BA for 24 hour visitor moorings but the lease has now ended, with the controversial loss of a significant length of moorings in a strategic location. Following negotiations with the BA, however, a late amendment to the application proposed that the bank be cut back by a further 2m to allow room for the BA to install around 240m of floating pontoons - offering the prospect of renewed moorings at this important site, albeit at a significant (and as yet un-budgeted) cost.

Many members spoke of the vital importance of this stretch of moorings, both for cruising and for racing, and their support for the principle of floating pontoons as a safe and practical alternative to the traditional piled wall. It was felt that this was one of those occasions where the money simply had to be found, in order to avoid the permanent loss of the moorings. It became apparent that the BA had already budgeted for the future replacement of the piling - at a cost of around £350k - and so it made sense to allow the Environment Agency to pay for the piles to be removed and for the BA to spend £150k on pontoons instead - albeit sooner than anticipated. The landowner is also amenable to rubbish bins being placed on the site for the use of moored boats, with the BA reimbursing the cost of disposal. So, hopefully happy days are ahead of us on that front.

There was some further good news in the shape of an amendment to the proposal to remove piling along Upton Dyke. A culvert linking land drains either side of the dyke would have left a kink in the river bank with a solid structure forming a potential hazard to navigation. Fortunately, however, the Internal Drainage Board have, just in the nick of time, decided to re-route the drain completely under the Dyke, removing the need for the culvert. Accordingly, the flood bank can now run straight & level along the entire length and the hazard can be removed.

As we neared the end of the meeting, Trudi gave an update on the Hickling Broad project, and in particular the expression of interest which has been approved by the CANAPE project (Creating a New Approach to Peatland Ecosystems, please don't laugh at the acronym). If the bid is successful, it will provide significant additional funding to the Hickling Broad vision - especially in the re-use of dredged material to improve habitats at the littoral margins of the broad. Meanwhile, work on the enhancement project has continued, with the geotextile walls constructed in the Churchill and Studio Bay enhancement areas. Some dredging at Rockland Boat Dyke is also underway as part of this winter's planned dredging programme.

After thanking Trudi once again for all her efforts over the years (there was even a suggestion that a new bay at Hickling Broad might be named in her honour), the meeting finished just in time for Christmas.

Navigation committee report 27 Oct 2016

Once again in the interests of openness and keeping stakeholders informed, I offer my own account of the navigation committee's most recent meeting - which was chaired by Nicky Talbot, in the absence of Michael Whitaker who was unwell.

The agenda was certainly action-packed, primarily because this was the day when we were asked to consider the output of the Tolls Review Group, which had met 10 times during the year to consider changes to the tolls system with the aim of making it fairer and more transparent.

There's no doubt that a lot of effort went into this tolls review process and I think that most stakeholders would agree with the majority of its underlying objectives. However, as always, the devil is in the detail!

As is usual when important decisions are to be taken at the Broads Authority, we were presented with a lengthy report (41 pages), which required considerable resolve to plough through in advance of the meeting. In my opinion, the report was rather too long and overloaded with detail which wasn't relevant to the tolls re-structure.

The first proposal was to agree a new set of guiding principles:

The basis for the appropriate navigation charge is that the payment of a toll buys the customer a time-limited right of access to the waterways in the Broads

The guiding principles said that the tolls should generate enough income to maintain and improve the navigation, and should be flexible, fair, simple and efficient. Who could disagree? Nobody did.

It was confirmed, in response to a member question, that 'commercial' referred to all boats used for financial reward (not just hire boats) but that ferries would continue to benefit from a lower toll, as is currently the case.

Members then got stuck into the principle of a simple charging structure. There was a great deal of statistical data from the Insight Track stakeholder survey, but I couldn't see how it had any bearing on the proposal, which was to remove the fixed rate and only charge a variable rate per sq.m. Discussion points included:

• The possibility of phasing any changes - this was rejected by members of the review group who said that they had considered this and decided that it would be "confusing and difficult to administer". 
• The danger of changing the structure for laudable reasons, whilst at the same time plugging numbers into that new structure which had very extreme effects. This could result in stakeholders missing the point of the exercise simply because 'some of the numbers had gone ridiculous', which might generate negative feedback.
• The risks of proposing very large increases in terms of reputational damage to the Authority and boats leaving the Broads. The Chief Executive felt, however, that although some owners of large boats would pay a higher toll, the spotlight should shine on the large number of small boats who would benefit from the proposals, and did not feel it likely that very many boats would move away as a result of the proposal.
• Members of the TRG felt that even a toll increase of £100 was less than the cost of filling its fuel tank and therefore unlikely to have a material effect on boat owners.
• One member offered an alternative scheme which had been prepared by the NSBA, which supported the principle of different charges for different vessel classes, but retained a fixed element for private vessels so as to avoid the extreme results generated by the proposals.
• I supported this approach, pointing out that the 'ultimate' objective of the TRG could still be achieved by gradually reducing the fixed charge over say 3 years - effectively phasing in the changes. There didn't seem to be much appetite for this idea, however, and it wasn't pursued.
• A comparison with charges on other inland waterways - which revealed that the Broads was much more expensive for small boats than on EA waterways, but that larger boats enjoyed a much cheaper toll on the Broads. The new proposals would bring smaller boat tolls into line with EA charges, whilst larger boats would continue to have an advantage compared to other waterways.

A proposal to ask the TRG to re-consider the tolls for private craft was lost, and the committee went on to accept recommendation 2 of the TRG in its entirety.

Already we'd been over an hour on this subject, so it was time to move on to the next recommendation, for a flexible charging structure which scrapped the hire boat multiplier (and various discount arrangements) in favour of a system of independent costs per sq.m for different classes of vessel. The idea was that the fixed link between private and hire boat tolls made it very difficult to make desirable changes in the tolls for one fleet without having unintended consequences for the other. There was concern about the continuing decline in hire fleet numbers, and an acceptance that the multiplier was never about 'use' but about the hire industry paying higher tolls in exchange for the provision of additional visitor moorings - many years ago. There was particular concern about the sensitivity of the Authority's finances to a continued decline in hire boat numbers, bearing in mind the contribution of each hire boat. The BHBF has indicated that there will be a further reduction of about 20 boats next year, and the committee were told that one operator intended to mothball some of its fleet for part of the season, making them available for just 10 weeks of the year. There was unanimous support for the recommendation to introduce this flexible charging structure.

After a well-earned break, we turned to the subsidiary matters, which included charges for wherries (a low flat rate was proposed, which seemed non-controversial for these 'iconic' vessels), early payment discounts for hire boat operators (withdrawn as no longer justified) and continued encouragement for electric propulsion. In respect of the latter, the recommendation included a proposal that diesel/electric hybrids and boats with a diesel generator to charge batteries should pay the same toll as any other conventionally-powered motor cruiser.

It was suggested that an electric boat with a backup generator - which could cruise for a day on pure electric power and only required the generator to recharge batteries when a shore based hookup-up was not available - should be considered to be an electric boat for tolls purposes. This amendment was agreed.

The trial of paperless toll plaques is to continue for another year - it seems to be a success so far, and there is no evidence that non-compliance has increased, but the Authority wants to continue the trial for a further year to be certain that there will be no issues.

The next thing was tolls in adjacent waters, and the proposal was that tolls for vessels moored in adjacent waters should continue to be the same as for boats in the navigation area. The idea is that if you're moored in a private marina, you have access to the navigation and so you should pay the appropriate toll. Which is non-controversial, unless your boat is a static vessel incapable of using the navigation - such as a houseboat. I'm afraid that I had a bit of a set to with the Chief Executive on this subject, because I believe that the Authority is on another one of its persecution missions where it sticks to its guns regardless of common sense or cost.

The Authority is currently pursuing a prosecution over a £550 toll on a houseboat, which has cost some extraordinary sum in the tens of thousands so far. Judges have found variously in favour and against the Authority, with a common theme that the charge seems unfair based on the fact that the owner cannot use the navigation. It's now set for the High Court, and who knows how much that will cost. I asked (for the umpteenth time) that the navigation committee should be permitted to discuss setting a different level of toll for a static vessel moored in adjacent waters, and the Chief Executive simply would not permit it. He felt that it would be 'wise' for the Authority not to change its position and to continue the battle through the Courts to the bitter end - regardless of the cost. I feel that the current charge is unreasonable and morally indefensible, and I said so. I simply do not understand why we can't even debate this and must continue to waste tollpayers' money instead of considering the possibility that we might be wrong. It was finally agreed that this would be discussed at 'some point' - but not until after the Authority had spent thousands more in Court.

After that bit of controversy, we were asked to consider Mutford Lock. The costs of operating Mutford Lock have been rising, and the use has been declining - so the proposal was that the cost of a passage should rise from £13 to £30 (£45 return). It was unclear to me - and to most other members - how this could do anything other than reduce the number of vessels using the lock still further, until we reached a point where the lock would be closed though lack of use.

Mutford Lock is the southern gateway to the Broads, but the cost of entry is typically around £100 by the time you add the short visit toll to the lock passage fee. Putting that up by another £20 or more would do nothing to achieve the goal of encouraging more visitors through the lock on to the southern Broads - which by coincidence had been featured in the EDP on the day of the meeting :-)

Fortunately, common sense prevailed on this one and we reached agreement that, whilst our aspiration would be for revenue to cover operational costs if possible, it would be better to do this by increasing usage rather than doubling the cost. The clear message from the committee was that Mutford Lock is an important asset, it is a gateway to the southern broads and that the Authority might have to continue to subsidise it for the wider benefit.

Finally, we agreed that the structure for short visit tolls should remain the same, but that this would probably result in a small reduction in tolls income because most short visit tolls were for small vessels.

In closing the debate and thanking the tolls review group for their work, one member pointed out that most stakeholders seem to be concerned with value for money - and that it was difficult to justify rising tolls whilst visitor moorings are being lost. It was agreed that there should be a renewed focus on this issue.

So, having spent 2.5 hours on tolls, it was time to whistle through the remainder of the agenda at breakneck speed before tea time.

Next up was the preferred options for the Broads Local Plan. This is the Local Plan required to be prepared to support the Broads Authority's role as a planning authority, which is currently going through a consultation period. It's an extensive document (over 200 pages) and covers a huge amount of ground. There wasn't time to do the report justice in the meeting, but I would urge all stakeholders to read the full document and feed their thoughts back into the process, because it will dictate how planning policy is formulated over the coming years.

There was then the chance to have a look at the detail of BESL's proposals for pile removal and erosion protection at Upton Dyke. The planning application had already been approved, but this was an opportunity to consider the methodology - which included driving the existing piles into the river bed to a sufficient depth that they would not be a hazard to navigation. It was confirmed that no existing moorings would be lost as a result of this project. One issue of concern was the use of coir matting to hold the newly graded bank together, which has proved a hazard to navigation in the past if knocked and can get caught in propellers. Members were particularly concerned that BESL's responsibility for the flood alleviation project will end in 5 years time, and there is no clear indication as to who will take on responsibility for the maintenance and monitoring of the flood protection works after that time.

In closing, it's important to remember that the Navigation Committee is a consultative body and all its decisions are merely recommendations to the full Authority. The Broads Authority can make whatever decisions it wishes, but would not usually go against the advice of the navigation committee without good reason. It will be interesting to listen to the debate on Friday!

Navigation Committee report 8th September 2016

Last week, the navigation committee met for an action packed agenda at Yare House.

There's usually a long delay of several weeks before minutes are published and things have often moved on by that time. So, I thought I would produce a summary of what happened whilst it was still fresh in my brain.

My intention is to be accurate and to present a balanced narrative rather than just my own opinions. It's not an exhaustive report, but I have tried to cover the substantive items. Here are the key points from the meeting.

Broads Plan Review

This is a big project which comes around every 5 years and sets the strategic direction of the Broads (the whole Broads, not just the BA). Officers have done a good job in dividing this up into digestible "bite size chunks" and this week we were asked to consider the revised navigation and recreation sections, which were largely non-controversial. You can read the draft here, as it puts lots of things into context. For example, although the engineering team manage to pull 50,000 cu.m out of the system every year, there is still an estimated backlog of over one million cubic metres to be removed!

Waterways Specification Update at Instead Shoals (River Ant)

The river depth at Instead Shoals was first discussed by navigation committee in June 2015, again in December and once more this week. There seems to be a clear determination to reduce the waterways specification depth at this location from 1.8m to 1.5m below Mean Low Water (MLW) on the basis that the agreed specification requires dredging the 'natural hard bed' of the river and that this would be capital, rather than maintenance, dredging. Capital dredging requires landowner consent as well as lots of licensing and compliance requirements, which officers say would be difficult and expensive, for little benefit.

Although the report was well argued, there are notable differences between the December 2015 and September 2016 reports. For example, in December, water levels were said to be above the MLW of 0.26mOD 90% of the time. But the new report increased this to 95%, reinforcing their view that low water levels rarely fall to MLW levels. This suggests to me that the 'mean' low water level is not actually the mean, and we therefore don't know the true extent of the issue.  Last year, officers also said that the Irstead Shoals area was the location where "boat users have expressed most concern" whereas the new report says that the "level of complaints has been low".

The thing which most concerned me in this report was the presentation of costs, which seemed to be over-inflated to support the recommendation. For example, river engineer & environmental officer costs were included at £245 per day, which is far more than the wage cost. When the Authority wants to demonstrate how affordable something is, it will often omit staff costs on the basis that the wages have to be paid anyway. The in-house solicitor's salary is not usually included when presenting the costs of legal action, for example. But this time they've included the full charge-out cost to push the figures up. So some consistency is needed, here.

I was also concerned that the construction team cost of £54k assumed mobilisation and site preparation, rather than the marginal cost of digging deeper when equipment was already on site. I requested details of the likely cost of going deeper as part of a routine dredging operation in that location, rather than a one-off visit and a figure of about £30,000 was given.

There was a lively debate over the need for a depth greater than 1.5m, with one member suggesting that it was only modern extreme racing yachts which draw more than 4ft, that they were not fit for purpose on the Broads and their owners should just accept that they can't sail to Barton. Another member pointed out that in fact many of these racing yachts with deep drafts were built over 100 years ago and all (including the new ones) were most certainly designed for racing on the Broads!

One member was concerned about the possible impact on fish spawning grounds if the natural gravel bed was removed, suggesting that mitigation measures could be required to replace lost habitat. However the corollary to this was that digging gravel would only reveal more gravel below, so the impact was likely to be marginal.

Two useful suggestions were a) that the trees in the area should be cut back as a matter of urgency, as they restricted the manoeuvrability of sailing boats which could be forced into shallower areas to avoid hitting overhanging branches; and b) that the engineering team could consider a less expensive deeper 'V' channel in the centre of the river at this location, rather than the wider trapezoid shape, as a compromise.

It was also agreed to provide water depth information boards as a priority.

Hardley Flood and The River Chet

This was another issue which had occupied the minds of members considerably, back in April. Norfolk County Council had proposed to extinguish a section of the Wherryman's Way trail along the River Chet at Hardley Flood, because of the deterioration of the river bank and the collapse of a bridge. They took the view that, as highways authority, they were only responsible for the surface of the path rather than the land supporting it.

Because this land does not form part of the flood defence (which is further back, behind Hardley Flood), the Environment Agency are not responsible for it either and it was unclear whether the land owner would have the resources (or willingness) to fund repairs.

Last time, Members felt that the Authority needed to take a lead in facilitating a solution for this problem, whilst acknowledging that it didn't have the ultimate responsibility for maintaining the bank. There was some officer resistance to getting involved, due to the possible cost of repairing the whole bank which was put at as much as £3million if we wanted to do the job properly. But members were mindful of the Authority's second purpose of promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public, and didn't want to see such an important footpath lost.

This time, officers came back with some better news - the Broads Local Access Forum had guided the County Council to work with other public bodies (including the BA) to come up with a partnership project to protect the route. The BA & County Council are also looking at a jointly funded tree & scrub clearance project as a first stage in protecting and restoring the bank. In the mean time, the County have agreed to place a Traffic Regulation Order on the route rather than extinguish it permanently. And further good news was that the likely cost of repairing the flood bank is nowhere near the initial estimate.

There was also a presentation on the removal of navigation posts along the Chet, which had been installed as part of the BESL flood bank works. These posts were generally seen to be unattractive and a potential hazard to navigation now that the bank was properly established, so members agreed to have them removed at a cost of £60k, with the Environment Agency hopefully making a contribution towards this.

Waste Collection & Disposal in the Broads 'National Park'

I had mixed feelings about this agenda item. The fact that officers have recognised this to be a pressing issue requiring resolution, is marred by frustration that we've had to endure fly tipping and all the bad PR that goes with it throughout 2016.

To be clear, the problem was not originally of the BA's making but is, rather, an unfortunate effect of changes to waste classification regulations, which defined waste from hire boats as commercial, whereas waste from private boats continued to be classed as domestic. The upshot was that some local authorities decided to remove bins from riverside mooring locations on the pretext that most of the rubbish probably came from hire boats.

Throughout 2015, the navigation committee was pressing for a stakeholder workshop (scheduled for last November) but the workshop didn't happen, and - in December - officers said that they didn't think it was necessary, and that continued monitoring was the answer.

The navigation committee was not happy with this and made clear their unanimous view that leaving the issue for another season was simply not an option.

Unfortunately, this view was completely misreported to the full Authority in January (navigation committee minutes were still not available 6 weeks after the meeting) and I was unable to persuade members of what had actually been agreed. The minutes were released two days later, confirming the committee's view that urgent action was needed but by then the full Authority had been led to believe that the committee supported the officer view of continued monitoring during 2016, with an internal workshop at some stage.

Since then, as we all know, we have been faced with the inevitable problems caused by a lack of waste disposal locations and - following an internal workshop in July - it seems that the Authority have finally recognised this and have some plan up their sleeve to deal with it.

Part of the policy is to try to encourage visitors and residents to "minimise the creation of waste and recycle as much material as possible" - which is of course a laudable aim, but visitors don't tend to buy large quantities of white and brown goods with lots of packaging when on holiday, most of their waste is food packaging, bottles and cans. So basically the policy is to encourage people to eat and drink less on holiday, which strikes me as unrealistic.

The report also proposes applying pressure via MPs to change the regulations. I agree that the regs are completely counter-intuitive (why does your domestic waste become commercial just because you are on holiday?) but it would take a nationwide campaign to achieve this and it would no doubt be opposed by all the district and county authorities whose collection and disposal costs would rise as a result.

The most promising proposal was to work in partnership with the district and parish councils to resolve the situation. The Chief Executive seemed reluctant to go into any detail over what was being considered - presumably because of commercial sensitivity - but under those circumstances, the proper thing is to go into closed session and inform members of progress. Otherwise, members will be completely in the dark until a decision has been made, with which they may or may not agree. A more cynical mind than mine might think that this was deliberate.

Hoveton Great Broad - planning application for variation of conditions

This is is a bit of a sad one and forms part of the most dreadful missed opportunity in a generation for the Broads.

Hoveton Great Broad - a huge expanse of water second only in size to Hickling - was open to navigation until the late 19th century when it was closed by the owners - illegally, according to expert legal opinion. But once a right of navigation has been established, it cannot easily be extinguished - and many (including me) believe that the right to navigate remains, prevented only by the landowners refusing to allow access.

This would be bad enough by itself, but - in 2014 - Natural England obtained almost £5m of grant funding to dredge the broad (which had become silted up and turbid through lack of management or usage) - but without any measurable public benefit. This would have been a perfect opportunity for the Authority to step in and open negotiations for a restoration of navigation rights and public access, as consideration for the huge lump of public cash. But, sadly, members were not even alerted to the scheme until it was fully developed and planning consent was sought for blocking the entrances and pumping mud from the broad on to the ever receding Wroxham Island, to help bolster and re-establish it.

This latter part of the project was probably the only piece of tangible public benefit provided by this publicly funded scheme, and now Natural England have applied to remove this part of the project - on the basis that they no longer need to remove as much mud as originally thought in order to achieve 'lake restoration' and were unable to achieve grant funding for this part of the scheme. Members appeared to be united in their disapproval of this change, but were powerless to challenge it. In fact, the changes are theoretically of benefit to navigation in the short term (albeit marginal) because there will be no mud pipe laid across the river. But it seems that the opportunity to gain some betterment from a project which provides public funding for a private property has been lost.

But here's where it gets interesting. It turns out - according to one member - that Natural England already knew that they couldn't get funding for the Wroxham Island improvements as early as January 2015 because the island was outside the designated site - and yet they continued to promote the improvements as a material consideration in favour of the scheme as late as June 2015. The NSBA are investigating, so keep an eye on the papers!

In other news, members welcomed the master plan project for the enhancement of Hickling Broad, the tolls working group will be reporting a new proposed structure for tolls in October, and there is a new strategy for the River Wensum to deliver a vision for the river corridor within the City boundary and Whitlingham Country Park.

The next navigation committee meeting is on 15th December 2016.