Welcome to 21st Century Hampshire

"I truely treate that men may note and see

What blessings Navigable Rivers bee

And how that thousands are debarr'd those blessings

By few mens avaritious hard oppressings".

When the self-styled "Water Poet" John Taylor wrote these lines in the seventeenth century he may not have imagined how relevant they would remain some 400 hundred years later, or at least as they are with regard to the River Itchen Navigation.  Whilst growing numbers of the paddling public are increasingly questioning the promulgated orthodoxy of a private right to restrict navigation on English and Welsh rivers, this Hampshire waterway remains a bastion of attempts to defend the vested interests of an elite minority over the legitimate aspirations of the wider population.

This blog will return to recent work that reaffirms the historical rights of navigation on the Itchen (and which disputes the legality of attempts to restrict such) at a future date.  In the interim, what is being done today to promote canoeing and kayaking on the River Itchen Navigation in 21st Century Hampshire?

Hampshire County Council have a statutory requirement to produce a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), and have therefore addressed this in a county-wide Countryside Access Plan (CAP) for 2008-13.  In addition to the CAP County Overview document, there are seven regional CAPs.

A considerable length of the Itchen falls into CAP areas other than the Test and Itchen Plan - the fact that only two areas do not contain sections of the Itchen underlines its central importance as a Hampshire waterway -  and, as is the case with the CAP County Overview, the words "canoe" or "canoeing" do not appear in any of these, except in the context of coastal and tidal waters for the Solent.  

Five of the seven Hampshire CAPs contain sections of the River Itchen within their defined boundaries.

However, the Test and Itchen CAP 2008-2013 contains a section titled "Issue 7 - There is a demand for more access to, along and on the waterways of the area; landowners and managers are concerned about how this would affect conservation and fishing" and within this section it is stated that there is

"an unmet demand for access to the Rivers Test and Itchen by canoe and other manually-propelled craft. While there is access for canoes and other small craft along the coast and river estuaries in the south of the county, there are currently only about 3 miles of inland waterways that are publicly accessible in the whole of Hampshire. Virtually none of this is in the Test and Itchen area, although the Rivers Test and Itchen are among the few inland watercourses in the county that are navigable." [1]

That's three miles* in the ninth largest county in England.  Why?  It's simple.  Look again at the wording of "Issue 7", and it tells you who is doing the objecting, and then presents both an increasingly used and somewhat hypocrital excuse on the grounds of 'conservation', and the truth of the matter...  It all comes down to money, and the view that, if you have enough of it, you can own other peoples rights. 

*At least officially, the reality is somewhat different - see the following post.

A view from the banks of the River Itchen Navigation in 2009.

The specific subjects of paddling, fishing and environmental conservation will be returned to at a later date.  For now, we'll stick with recent efforts to come to a position of mutual respect.

The Hampshire Countryside Access Forum (HCAF) has been established along national guidelines  - "legally, the group is the statutory Local Access Forum which each county council, unitary council and national park authority must establish and support" - to represent the diverse interests of all interests in this arena, and to seek grounds for mutual compromise.

In September 2005 the HCAF was provided with a presentation [2] by the British Canoe Union (BCU) which advised that, at that time,

• there was 700-800 BCU members in Hampshire (and 90 BCU approved coaches), 8 BCU approved centres and 9 clubs;
• that the Calshot and Woodmill activity centres were respectively teaching 6-7000 and 9000 canoeists per year; 
• despite the potential for river navigation on the Avon, Itchen, Itchen Navigation, Loddon catchment waterways, and the Test, canoeists were restricted to a short section of the Basingstoke Canal or had to leave the county to go freshwater paddling.

The economic benefits of canoeing to a host area were also described.

In April 2009 the BCU provided a further presentation outlining the health and social inclusion benefits of canoeing and kayaking.  A representative from the Environment Agency added that they had a responsibility to look at the issue of rivers in the context of promoting public access.

On this occasion the Test and Itchen Association (T&IA) also made a presentation, and showed its true colours when their representative stated that it "would strongly resist unrestricted navigation due to... A potentially significant impact on income from fishing".  In following discussion the HCAF asked "what access would be acceptable for the Test and Itchen Association."  The response was that "very little access would be encouraged because...  It would cause a loss to fishery income".[3]

Perhaps it's a bit too modern, but "Just Say No" would make a good motto for the Test and Itchen Association.  A view of the Itchen navigation in August 2009, shortly after the Association stated their views on public access along a waterway that was created by Parliamentary statute expressly for navigation.

Following that meeting a sub-group of the HCAF was established to look at whether the Forum should report on 'Access on Water', and in July 2009 it duly concluded that such a role was appropriate, noting "Negotiations to establish what access might be considered should take place between relevant parties. It is suggested that initially this should be between the BCU and The Test and Itchen Association, with an independent chair. Other parties (e.g. Environment Agency, Natural England, Wildlife Trust, Outdoor Swimming Society and riparian landowners) should be informed of the negotiations." [4] 

Without dragging through the minutiae, the sub-group continued to meet throughout the remainder of 2009, and in February 2010 they had an "audience" with Executive Director Tom Davies representing the T&IA.[5]  He agreed to take the findings of the meeting to the T&IA board  meeting to be held on 18th March.[6]  By April it was reported that the T&IA was forming it's own sub-committee to look at the issue, and HCAF had requested at least an indication of its willingness to discuss water access further.[7]

By July 2010 HCAF had had their answer from the Test and Itchen Association.  In what is understood to be a tersely worded letter, the Association stated that "due to reasons ‘Forum members will by now be only too aware of’ the Association is not in a position to enter into such negotiations." [8]

With the door slammed firmly shut in their faces, the HCAF could only register its "disappointment" at this "regrettable" stance, and conclude that "access on the Test and Itchen should not be pursued at this time."[9]

However, it was also mentioned that day "that there was still a need to address what advice could be given to canoeists."    Watch this space...



[1] http://www.hants.gov.uk/rh/countryside/access/test-itchen.pdf p.22
[2] www.countrysideaccessforum.hants.org.uk/.../060905minutes.doc p.4-5
[3] www.countrysideaccessforum.hants.org.uk/.../2009-21apr-minutes.doc p.2
[4] www.hants.gov.uk/rh/hcaf/access-to-water.pdf p.2
[5] Details of the meeting at http://www.hants.gov.uk/rh/hcaf/apr-2010.pdf p.5-6
[6] http://www.hants.gov.uk/rh/hcaf/feb-2010.pdf p.25
[7] http://www.hants.gov.uk/rh/hcaf/apr-2010.pdf p.16
[8] http://www.hants.gov.uk/rh/hcaf/jul-2010.pdf p.8
[9] http://www.hants.gov.uk/rh/hcaf/jul-2010.pdf p.9