Sustainability Committee

Inquiry into access to inland water in Wales

Please find below my responces to your inquiry.

Questions for the access to inland waterways inquiry

What is your interest in the issue of access to inland waterways?

User for waterborne recreation (e.g. canoeing, rowing etc)
Other (wild swimming).

Are you a member of an organisation related to your use of water?

Canoe Wales (Welsh Canoe Association) and local club.

Which stretch/es of water do you own/use/manage?

Various stretches of water in Wales/Western England – including more regular trips on the Usk, Wye, Twyi, Tawe, Taff, Irfon, Teifi, Twrch, Rhondda, Dee, Doethie, Conwy, Ogwen, Tryweryn, Glaslyn, Llugwy, Mawddach

Legal rights

I have the right to access the sea and any tidal stretches of water and those that have a long established ‘navigation’ such as the wye. As a member of the WCA I also have access to canals.

As I understand the legal framework, the land either side of the river is owned by a person, upon which the riverbed is owned until the central point. Landowners may ‘sell’ the right of access and right to fish or carry out other activities on the land from these banks into the river. This right of access should therefore respond to the central point of land ownership.

The passage of water over the land is controlled by the water resources act, which does not establish ownership rights. Ownership of the water therefore can only occur if the water does not pass from your land. If this situation does not exist then I am committing the civil offence of trespass, rather than criminal offence, and under this we can only be asked to leave by the quickest route. This route will often be past the central line of the river, or down the river, although clubs may acquire the rights on both banks the land ownership maybe different, and unless they have the permission to act on their behalf I am unsure of their ability to enforce this action).

I require permission to cross land to access rivers at access and egress points, unless that route is a designated PROW or on various CROW Lands, and I abide by the rules of these statutes.

In this complex situation numerous examples exist of confrontation by people who have the right to fish from land proclaiming that they own the land. Argument over damaging the eco system, although the ecological argument of the report, “Effects of Canoeing on Fish Stocks and Angling’ Technical Report W266” would establish that spawning beds are not damaged.

Issues over the effect and right to canoe are complex and i would wish to see clarification as to navigation rights on watercourses. From my understanding France, Scotland and Scandinavia provide examples of appropriate legislation with regard to water access.

Voluntary agreements

I have paddled on a river that has a voluntary agreement. I also worked with the establishment of voluntary agreements on land, whereby it is often appears as a ‘tread carefully’ approach to ensure that the agreement happens to any extent. This in the case of waterways has produced little access to the number of watercourses and to establish a complete system would be complex and overtly costly. I would example the ‘Discovering Lost Ways’ pilot in the use of existing legislation to re-establish PROW, which although different highlights the potential problems without establishing new legislation.

Please can you briefly outline what you think are the key issues for recreational access to inland water in Wales and how you would like to see them addressed.

Ecology/biodiversity

The riperian habitat has come under increasing attention as a key resource, with the Water Framework Directive providing an effective wholistic scheme of protection and enhancement to the system. Indeed the common quoted Part 1, section 2, subsection 4 of the 1975 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act which states that any person "who wilfully disturbs any spawn or spawning fish, or any bed bank or shallow on which spawning fish may be” is guilty of an offence.

The impact of access to waterways has shown little effect on the system to date. The need to protect the system is a key consideration in passing new legislation and the level of access provided, however data exists for the majority of watercourses, with the above mentioned framework identifiying specific river requirements. In that instance opportubitites exist for education to protect the system.

Riverside/bankside access

Ownership and tresspass over land adjacent to rivers should remain, whereby access is gained from land adjacent to a PROW or other rights of access. In this situation the Local (and highway) authority in conjunction with other statute bodies could provide a resource for access. In consideration of the effort required, and expansion of the of Local Access Forums and the ROWIP for example could provide a means for local areas to address this area. I note Cardiff Councils recent invitation to a canoe representative to the forum.

Management

As detailed above the LAF provides a means of expressing local needs, and potentially a starting example for localised management. Although the LAF is strategic the relevant partners are present, with particular local authorty officers.

Payment

The issue of payment and what fishermen pay for is often confused, with both sides failing to understand what the paymnent accounts to. The EA in issuing a licence receives money, the landowner often receives money, either direct or through the lease of the land to the local club. Local fishing clubs receive money to fish controlled banks, although this is often used as a payment to the landowner. I understand this situation to be correct, although the removal or catch and release of fish provides a different perspective.

The EA publishes the revenue spend of the Rod Lisence, which is utilised to increase stock numbers, improve fish passes etc, these works can often be undertaken in association with local clubs who will also carry out additonal works, bankside clearance, access points and fishing posts.

The EA is however also, in undertaking its duty to promote water access, to increase facilities at controlled sites, Hurley Weir for example, with other examples, such as symonds yat. I personally would not object to a ‘fee’ to be payable, with as the rod lisence utilised to improve facilities.

I am not aware of thwe percentage cost of rod liscences ad the amount of work undertaken by the EA, however the works they undertake are not soley for the fishermen, with identification under the Water Framewor Directive and as a ecological enhancement. I am fully suportive of works undertaken by local clubs, who as I do respect and care for the environment.

Information
The key consideration

Conclusion

I am in agreement with the Petitions Committee's short inquiry into Access Along Inland Water, which has clearly highlighted the issues present and their recommendation that the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 provides a useful basis from which a Welsh model of legislation could be developed and assist in the delivery of

Wales; a better Country
A Winning Wales
Achieving our Potential – The National Tourism Strategy for Wales
Wales: A Better Country
A Winning Wales – The National Economic Development Strategy
Creative Future: Cymru Greadigol – A Culture Strategy for Wales
Climbing Higher – A Strategy for Sport and Active Recreation in Wales
Catching the wave – a watersports tourism strategy for Wales

Many regards,

Owen Struthers