Low headroom bridge on Trent

Inland paddling
Post Reply
User avatar
quicky
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Wirral,

Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by quicky » Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:23 pm

http://www.songofthepaddle.co.uk/forum/ ... iver-Trent
Angry Bridge over the River Trent

Inspired by the new logo CE/BC are getting ready to sell us down the river. Catton Estates are proposing to build a low headroom bridge over the Trent effectively blocking the PRN on one of our Great Rivers.

From: Chris Page <chris.page@canoe-england.org.uk>
Date: 14 July 2014 15:46:36 CEST
To: Ben Seal <ben.seal@canoe-england.org.uk>, nicholls_mike@sky.com, stuart.briggs@lineone.net
Cc: Richard Atkinson <richard.atkinson@canoe-england.org.uk>, Kevin East <kevin.east@canoe-england.org.uk>, Chris Hawkesworth <chris.hawkesworth@canoe-england.org.uk>
Subject: CRI Canoe Trail Update



HI all

Just wanted to send through an update, after a few site visits with CRI on the proposed Canoe Trail. Thanks for all the efforts people have already put in on this.

Positive Landowners – There are several landowners along the proposed route that are very open to the idea of canoeing, including –
· Tamworth Borough Council – very keen, see below
· Elford Walled Gardens – Stuart, I believe you went to see their landing stages and they were ok?
· The National Memorial Arboretum – very positive, but tricky to get a decent egress close enough for parking etc
· Other farmers

Landowner Objections – While most landowners have been very open to the idea, a couple (Catton Hall and a farmer just downstream) are both potentially (likely) going to object to the trail going past their land. This obviously puts the full Tamworth to Burton trail at some jeopardy. Different views of the law are one thing, but it would be hard to promote a trail with active hostility, especially for CRI, who need these landowners on side for other projects. Some thoughts on the situation:
· Catton apparently are installing a bridge over the Trent, which is only 6in above the top predicted flood height on the river – presumably this would be low enough to require portage? If so, this could potentially cause problems with or without the trail, as people do currently paddle the river.
· The landowner of the opposite bank (Hanson Quarrying) are very receptive to the idea – and already have provision in their landscaping plan to have stop-offs on their bank (alongside the farmer’s land). However, there is a stretch at Catton where the estate owns both banks, preventing us using that to extend the trail through – and the farmer also suggested she would fight the quarry on those plans – and I’m not sure how much they’d want to be seen to be against other local landowners?

Barton Quarry - There are huge lakes here, and they are very open to paddling on them. I spoke to their restoration manager, who has planned for watersports use from the start, and is keen to see paddling on the lakes. Long term (8 years?) the lakes could be used as an easy way to by-pass Catton and therefore reinstate an advertisable full-route trail.
· Who would speak to them about getting boats on the water? They already have sailing and windsurfing. I’m happy to.

Canal & River Trust – they aren’t on the partnership (you need to cough up £2k – we are in via Sport Staffordshire, and as a stakeholder in the trail. It would be good to bring them in, even if via us, as the canals could be a strong feature of the proposed trails, and would be a good opportunity for us to strengthen our partnership with them.
· Ben – will discuss with you in relation to the West Mids Partnership.

Tamworth Borough Council – They are very keen on paddling, and are looking to set up hire facilities regardless of the eventual outcome of the CRI trail. I’m sending them info through on how to progress with this. They have agreements in place with anglers on the riversides – but feel these have the room to allow them to allow paddling on the rivers. There is a large pond in Tamworth that would be great for beginners, and the long term aim is open that too. That is leased to anglers, and the feeling is it would be harder to alter the terms on that one.

Some ideas on loops/trails – based on the above, I’ve done a Google Map with some ideas about where trails and hubs could operate even if breaking the full trail.
· See – https://mapsengine.google.com/map/ed...thuser=0&hl=en

If anyone has any thoughts on any of this, please fire away.

Best wishes

Chris


We need to throw everything we have got at this one. I am beginning my researches now.

User avatar
quicky
Posts: 2986
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Wirral,

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by quicky » Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:27 pm

There has been an exchange of e-mails with BC
Chris Page To Me

Today at 3:16 PM
Andy

I have seen the thread started on Song of the Paddle. Can I request you remove the actual email from this thread? This contains private and confidential information which was intended, for feedback, from the people who have been involved in the CRI project. Many relationships are being put at risk from this information being made public, and I would refer you to the following statement made on our emails:
This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the British Canoe Union or Canoe England. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone.

British Canoeing has not disputed the PRN on the Trent. In all discussions with landowners and others I have been clear to relate that we believe there to be a right of navigation, defined by the river’s capacity for your craft - plus, that even without this there is a great deal of evidence to suggest adequate historic usage under even the Woolrych interpretation, which other organisation’s base their understanding on. I have always been clear to say in site visits / communications that excluding areas from the promoted trails does not revoke the right to navigate the whole stretch in our view if people choose to do so. However, there is a clear difference between the right to navigate and a partnership project aimed at actively promoting canoe trails. In this situation people need to be onside, and the Central Rivers Initiative has made real progress in bringing a variety of bodies onboard to work towards:
· Improved facilities for paddlers on as much of the river as possible;
· Promoting clubs in the area to turn occasional paddlers into regular participants in active clubs;
· Developing hubs for paddling in different locations to make the sport more accessible to as many people as possible;
· Further demonstrating that paddling can be promoted and be sustainable

The post current on Song of the Paddle jeopardises the relationships needed to see the project come to light, meaning we cannot put in place the improvements we are working towards. Again, I would ask you to remove the email from Song of the Paddle. I do not wish to stop you expressing your views, but the email contains so much confidential information it really does put at risk a lot of very positive relationships.

I have also just noted your follow on posts on SotP, which are incorrect on two counts –
· We are not asking for your first post to be removed, just for the email with the confidential information to be removed.
· We have not conceded the right of any bank owner to restrict navigation, regardless of how many banks they own.

As the above shows, British Canoeing has no intention of selling paddlers down the river. We are working to secure improvements for paddling on our rivers, and are working with all stakeholders (from councils to landowners) to do so. The team at Central Rivers Initiative have, in my view, done a great job at getting people together to talk about promoting canoeing, and it would be a real loss if the project fails because information from/about partners has been made public in this way.

Thanks

Chris


Me
To Chris Page

Today at 5:27 PM
Hi Chris,



The short answer is no.


I can't be doing with secret deals that give away our rights. My first experience of the Waterways and Environment team was a secret deal with Wanda Fojt that gave away our rights. They were very proud of it.


For this statement "Landowner Objections – While most landowners have been very open to the idea, a couple (Catton Hall and a farmer just downstream) are both potentially (likely) going to object to the trail going past their land. This obviously puts the full Tamworth to Burton trail at some jeopardy. Different views of the law are one thing, but it would be hard to promote a trail with active hostility, especially for CRI, who need these landowners on side for other projects. Some thoughts on the situation:
· Catton apparently are installing a bridge over the Trent, which is only 6in above the top predicted flood height on the river – presumably this would be low enough to require portage? If so, this could potentially cause problems with or without the trail, as people do currently paddle the river." to be made, clearly gives away any negotiating position we may have had.



A PRN makes the river a public place. Hostility from anyone against persons going about their lawful business in a public place is a public order offence and is a matter for the police. If the local ramblers publicised a trail that went down my street and I started harassing them I would be arrested. What is your problem?

Your explicit rejection of the rule of law is inexcuseable. The only way to get peace on our rivers is the rule of law. Your remit is your members interests not the comfort of CRI. While I support the proposed rewilding at Catton Hall, giving away our rights is not a price worth paying.

Passive acceptance of the bridge as a lethal obstruction defies belief.



We already have everything you appear to be negotiating. Why not just set up the trails with the support you have got as a BC initiative? Assert the PRN on Catton Hall and just tell them the Tamworth to Burton trail goes past them. There is nothing they can do. If you had done your homework and checked out Caffyn before you started you might have had a better chance. How long did it take for us to find the case law you needed?

The irresponsible attitude of BC is the reason why rather than increasing access you are loosing it or do you want canoeing confined to BC negotiated trails? If you give away everything else to get a moiiety of what we already have that is where it will end up.

Of course that would look good on your next scrounge for public money.

Andy

User avatar
Big Henry
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:31 am
Location: North East

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by Big Henry » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:35 am

I agree with you, Andy. Well said!

User avatar
StillNewish
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:31 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by StillNewish » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:44 pm

I 100% agree with you Andy; very well phrased response eloquently written.

User avatar
Mark R
Posts: 24133
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:17 pm
Location: Dorset
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by Mark R » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:17 am

I also received a request to take this down, from Chris Page.

Whilst I appreciate his embarrassment at having his email revealed, I think that he is missing the wider point; Canoe England's role is to represent recreational paddlers, something which absolutely revolves around open communication and dialogue on issues like this. Open communication and dialogue is something that they have always woefully failed at, preferring instead to pursue such 'secret deals' which are secret precisely because they know they will be regarded by paddlers as unacceptable.
Mark Rainsley
FACEBOOK

User avatar
Mark R
Posts: 24133
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:17 pm
Location: Dorset
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by Mark R » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:20 am

I should add that all concerned are welcome to respond here and clarify the situation, openly and freely.
Mark Rainsley
FACEBOOK

Keith Day
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by Keith Day » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:03 am

It looks like the issue is resolved anyway. Robin Neilson, at the Estate Office at Catton Hall has confirmed that the proposed rope bridge is intended to be two meters above the maximum flood level. He has also confirmed that he has no objection to the public exercising their legal rights.

User avatar
Mark R
Posts: 24133
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 6:17 pm
Location: Dorset
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 13 times
Contact:

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by Mark R » Thu Jul 24, 2014 2:20 pm

Keith Day wrote:Robin Neilson, at the Estate Office ... has also confirmed that he has no objection to the public exercising their legal rights.
I'm sure that we agree that his objections, or lack of, are irrelevant.
Mark Rainsley
FACEBOOK

sundaykayaker
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:42 pm

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by sundaykayaker » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:24 pm

Ok.. I am an ignorant. Sunday kayaker with limited knowledge of the Law. Can some one explain the basics plz.

Keith Day
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by Keith Day » Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:08 pm

sundaykayaker wrote:Can some one explain the basics plz.
See River Access For All

sundaykayaker
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:42 pm

Re: Low headroom bridge on Trent

Post by sundaykayaker » Fri Jul 25, 2014 11:57 pm

I see. :(

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”