Orwell and Stour MCZ

Phoenix of Hamble

Phoenix of Hamble

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 Aug 2003
Messages
20,966
Location
East Coast
mishapsandmemories.blogspot.com
...has been announced for 2013 implementation...

or at least the consultation on it.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/12/13/marine-conservation-zones-1212/

Looks like a public body will be created which will have pretty unrestricted powers to decide what actions need to be taken to protect wildlife.... from no action at all, to full 'water column' protection, meaning no sailing through the area, let alone anchoring. Also all new moorings, and all annual renewals of moorings may well require full environmental impact assessments and approval from the public body.

There are also other areas proposed including the Blackwater, Crouch and Colne.. the Orwell/Stour MCZ includes all of the Walton Backwaters.

Worrying development, as it appears that several conservation organisations with full time lobbying groups are leading the charge.

The Studland Bay saga is about to hit the east coast and potentially wipe out all the areas for anchoring that we all know and love
 
Last edited:
You'd think so wouldn't you.

They will have a lot of power to stop activity that damages wildlife, as long as they can justify the commercial impact.... so unlikely to be able to stop Harwich or Ipswich container traffic.... but probably going to be able to hit pleasure boating pretty hard...

I expect they'll be more interested in the sea bed in the further reaches of the area covered, hence my concern about the end of anchoring at Stone Point, Hamford Water, Erwarton Ness, Plyfleet, etc, plus moorings on the Orwell, Walton Channel, etc

Overall, having read some of the documentation, i'm less concerned about the 2013 implementation, and more longer term scope creep. It appears that the only substantial short term impact on the Orwell areas is on Harwich Shelf, which isn't a great place to anchor anyway.
 
Last edited:
What I want to know is in these times of cuts who is funding these Quango's . Also wonder if I can get a job on their committee and who picks the committee, old boys network I suspect.

Also no fear of Terese Coffey MP supporting the MCZ after all she was all for transferring oil off Orford.
 
Having looked, briefly, through the site is there anywhere that shows the proposed restrictions for each area? Worried that the first round of negotiations will be used as the basis for future restrictions, so scope creep is already built into the process.
 
pioneer said:
Having looked, briefly, through the site is there anywhere that shows the proposed restrictions for each area? Worried that the first round of negotiations will be used as the basis for future restrictions, so scope creep is already built into the process.
Click to expand...

If you look half way down the link in the OP there is this - http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/mcz-i1-balanced-seas-20121213.pdf .

Presumably we are after looking at things like pages 21,73,82,94,141.

There is a lot to digest here. Perhaps this is one of the times the RYA need to do a summary, so we can see if they are on top of the information!
 
Last edited:
Not sure I could afford one of the six moorings there -

capital costs for the installation of six ecomoorings
are estimated to total £0.103m

Operating costs, including maintenance of the eco-moorings
and collection of mooring fees, are estimated to total £0.068m/yr.

So thats £17,000 to install a mooring and £11,000 annual cost?

Am I on the wrong planet or have I missed something basic?
 
I hope everybody now realises what the RYA are up against and make sure they join to support their work which cannot be cheap faced with documents such as this.

Looking the document its very wooly fact wise, the right hand cloumn giving confidence factors is a bit telling. Noticed on the Harwich section they noted that dredging would have to continue to allow the pilot boats to operate. That made me smile.
 
If I have got it right the designation of MCZs is all about compliance with various EU Habitat Directives, and is the responsibility of DEFRA, whereas the decision on what Navigation Orders may be made will be down to the MMO.

I am on their mailing list and they have today issued a round robin stating that they expect to start consultation on the draft marine Plan for the East of England in Spring 2013-date unknown (but presumably after the consultation period on the MCZs closes in March?).

I certainly am not qualified to say what species of worm need safegaurding on the Harwich Shelf, but I will have views on any reduction in my rights of passage in that area, and shall communicate my views to the appropriate consultee, whether that be the RYA or the Haven area yacht clubs-in due course when the MMO proposals are published.
 
That's a hard document to wade through, presumably it's deliberately obfuscating in order to obtain powers we wouldn't approve of.
One snippet I found interesting on page 34.
" only 1 or 2 boats anchor at Stone Point, so closure of the anchorage is unlikely to impact recreational boating"
Really?
The general impression I get is "bird-watching good. Boating bad"
 
DanTribe said:
That's a hard document to wade through, presumably it's deliberately obfuscating in order to obtain powers we wouldn't approve of.
One snippet I found interesting on page 34.
" only 1 or 2 boats anchor at Stone Point, so closure of the anchorage is unlikely to impact recreational boating"
Really?
The general impression I get is "bird-watching good. Boating bad"
Click to expand...
Which Stone Point was that? (I can't find the comment you refer to)

If it was the one in the Backwaters, then the comment is laughable.
 
Phoenix of Hamble said:
Which Stone Point was that? (I can't find the comment you refer to)

If it was the one in the Backwaters, then the comment is laughable.
Click to expand...

I have got this wrong:o [well, I did say I found it hard going]
It was Colne Point, not Stone Point, so they could be right.
Annexe 12, Option 1, Balanced Seas .

Where can I find a map showing the areas referred to in the text?
 
Of course the arguement can be reversed - if only one or two boats use the anchorage, what is the point of "closing the anchorage" as any damage must be minimal? There again that could be an arguement to close the most used anchorages. The only criteria for everyone to use is proven damage to unique or very valuable flora or fauna. Their attempt to prove this at Studland came unstuck and is likely to do so in most places. I believe we have to be ready to lose a small number of favourite places - we already respect oyster layings etc, but in general concentration on proof of damage must be the key.
 
As the RYA stuff published recently on MCZ proposals explains, the very worrying aspect of the proposals is that they do not include details on what the measures could be to 'enforce' the zones, i.e. they do not state if agreement to the proposals will be swiftly followed by sanctions such as bans on anchoring. The whole thing is potentially very serious indeed for leisure boating.
All the kinds of issues raised already in this thread were put to the administrators of the schemes over the previous few years when they were doing their initial consultations, where they talked to local organisations, clubs, commercial operators etc etc. They got told all this already. They ploughed on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top