Meeting Notes
Present
Cllr June Lumley (Chairperson) (JL) - Rochford District Council
Keith Powell (Vice Chairman) (KP) - Business, Maritime Community/ Independent
Angela Hutchings (AH) - Rochford District Council
Paula Chapman (PC) - Rochford District Council
Helen Quinnell (HQ) - Chelmsford City Council
Cllr Paul White (PW) - Hullbridge Parish Council
Cllr Glen Dryhurst (GD) - Ashingdon Parish Council
Ken Wickham (KW) - Crouch Harbour Authority
Doug MacEwen (DM) - Crouch Area Yachting Federation
Rachel Fancy (RF) - RSPB
Cllr Simon Wootton (SW) - Rochford District Council
Darren Braine (DB) - Natural England
Cllr Nick Skeens (NS) - Maldon District Council
Matt Mason (MM) - Baltic Wharf Distribution
Cllr Alan Shearing (AS) - South Woodham Ferrers Town Council
Apologies
John Lindsey - Environment Agency
Alexis Corless (AC) - Maldon District Council
David Overton - Natural England
Absent
Cllr Mike Halford - Canewdon Parish Council
Cllr Roy Hart - Battlesbridge Business
No nomination received - Rettendon Parish Council
Awaiting new nomination - Burnham-on-Crouch Town Council
No nomination received - Burnham Chamber of Commerce
Notes
Lauren Morris
Duration
11:00 till 12:20
Note 1/21
Welcome and Introductions
Cllr Lumley welcomed members of the Steering Group to the meeting.
Note 2/21
England Coastal Path
DB provided an update on the England Coastal Path and advised that the published proposals from Wallasea Island to Burnham on Crouch had not moved any further forward from what was published. Four of the five individual stretches received a series of objections and were therefore resting with the Planning Inspectorate who were waiting to conduct site visits.
Note 3/21
Notes of River Crouch Coastal Community Team Meeting and Annual General Meeting Held on 24 November 2020 and Matters Arising
JL felt that it was not appropriate to approve the notes of the Annual General Meeting at a group meeting, however the notes were agreed as a correct record.
AH advised that it would be worth Members having a look at the notes and passing any comments back through herself.
Note 4/21
Working Group Updates
(a) – Footpaths Group
KP advised that they were seeking clarity as he felt that the Footpaths Group were fragmented in their operations. He felt that they were currently at a standstill due to the inspectorate needing to look into lodged objections but not currently being able to. KP further advised that the Paths to Prosperity project was currently in the hands of HQ and PC who were regularly updating the group.
KP asked Members for some direction and comment as to what this particular group should be dealing with. AH advised that the terms of reference were already set out and would happily recirculate these, but the key thing was that where there was a topic that fell within the terms of reference of the group and where the group had decided to take this forward, there should be a working group set up for this on a very specific basis. AH advised that it was a matter for this group to decide what it would like to spend time doing and that there was no budget as things stood currently. KP felt that the terms of reference were clear and felt that there was overlap and duplication of work in the projects that were currently being undertaken.
(b) – Digital Group
Cllr Skeens gave apologies in advance that he would be joining the meeting late and therefore KP gave an update. KP advised that the group was in an information gathering stage at the moment and stated that he had had difficulty in identifying a way to upload information to the main Coastal Community (government) website. However, it had been identified that there was a way to have a microsite off from the Visit Essex site, which would be beneficial to the group.
KP advised that some content had gone missing and asked if DM would be able to provide a copy of the content that had been produced for the north of the river.
DM advised that a piece of work had been done in conjunction with the digital group regarding information on safety and advised that the RNLI had a video on walking safety and water safety, which they were proposing to add to the website.
PC reminded the group that the last AGM notes had mentioned showcasing businesses, and asked MM from Baltic to contact her with their information so that PC could identify what room there was on the site. It was also recognised that there was a lot of information to gather, and it was likely that there would need to be different elements of RCCCT on different websites to ensure that the information was best placed to suit the different audiences accessing those specific websites, whilst ensuring good promotion of the River Crouch.
Note 5/21
Update on:
- Proposal for Latest Stretch of Wallasea to Burnham Coastal Path
- This update was covered by Natural England in 2/21.
- Path to Prosperity Project
PC advised that this work was continuing and reminded Members of the Go Jauntly app that had previously been discussed and advised that this was not currently being promoted due to lockdown and not wishing to inadvertently encourage visitors from outside the area.
Each district as part of this project was allocated £8k each to promote their coastal area, which would take different forms in different areas over and above what funds remained after the Go Jauntly commissioned walks. However Chelmsford, Maldon and Rochford have expressed a desire to work together to promote the River Crouch jointly without recognising the LA boundaries, which did not matter to businesses or visitors. Therefore PC confirmed that the three officers were currently commissioning some drone and video photography of the whole area (with the cost being split three ways) to create a lasting legacy and material to continue promoting the River Crouch after the project finishes.
The Hopper Service had a significant change, as this had not started in March 2020, due to lockdown. This was originally due to be a six-month pilot in the summer on Saturdays and Sundays, however due to commercial operators believing the Hopper service would clash with commercial offers on a Saturday, this had now been restricted to Sunday only which was not financially viable. PC advised that they were in discussion with ECC to determine what would happen with the unspent funds. PC emphasised that they were looking into how this could be best spent, as a main aim of this project was to assist businesses, so officers were exploring whether it was viable to develop apprenticeships or trainee places, when hospitality reopens. GD queried if it would be possible to channel this money into cycle routes from Rochford/Rayleigh station out to Wallasea Island. PC advised that cycling was a ‘shelf project’ which was always being considered, but the costs were estimated at £2 million which was significantly more than the £8,000 that had been allocated for the Paths to Prosperity project. JL advised that there may be future funding opportunities through County Council funding.
AS highlighted that it was particularly disappointing that the Hopper bus would not be running, as residents may be put off by needing to walk back through town in order to get a bus. HQ advised that conversations were being had with existing rail and bus networks. PC highlighted that the positive of this was that by having passing footfall going back through the town, this may help businesses recover following the pandemic to attract new customers . KP queried if PC thought it would be okay if there was funding from somewhere else that resulted in the Hopper service being a commercial service. PC advised that this was a pilot, so if the demand could be proved then this would become a commercial service eventually. The Hopper service was supposed to be an addition to the service that already existed and operators were consulted, so was unclear as to why this had now been objected to. HQ also advised that under the current conditions, the capacity on a bus was hugely reduced with social distancing and therefore passenger numbers were not seen as being viable.
MM queried if using the river to travel had been considered in terms of having a water bus. PC confirmed that this was definitely something that could be considered and had previously been explored, so if it was something everyone was in agreement with, funding could be applied for. KP advised that the number of landing sites may be an issue, as creating a new landing site would be a very expensive operation. DM referred to the Fambridge Ferry project and advised that they were able to secure an 80% grant providing that it was a not for profit organisation, so therefore the potential operators withdrew and it was shelved. RF advised that as previously stated, there needed to be enough passenger need for ferry operators to have the opportunity to operate viably. RSPB have secured planning permission for a new jetty at Grassland Point on Wallasea Island, but as yet had been unable to access the funds to install it.
PW advised, regarding funding, that he had been looking into government papers and found that on environmental projects, 4 MPs within the area had secured funding and queried if it would be possible for RCCCT to have some of this money. KP advised that he did not know what these funds were for and if they were applications or grants. PW also advised that Boris Johnson had stated that a large amount of money was going to be funnelled into cycling tracks, and again queried if some of this would be available to RCCCT. JL stated that we were not aware if the money promised had been made available at this point. AH advised that whenever grants became available, every effort was made to try to secure these grants and advised that the cycling grant was more high street related and therefore, not applicable to the RCCCT. Grants come from all avenues and RDC were keeping an eye out for further opportunities.
Note 6/21
RSBP Wallasea Island – Latest Developments
RF advised that things had been quieter lately due to the ‘keep local’ orders and advised that the latest hide had still not been opened due to lockdown, but was hopeful that closed spaces on the reserve could be reopened in April. RF advised that because of wet weather, the paths were useable but not in brilliant condition for wheelchair users and clear signage would be displayed.
Regarding portaloo toilets, these would be installed when restrictions permitted. RF also advised that the geocache that AH suggested Wallasea for was due to happen this year having been postponed and there would be various places across the Essex coast where these particular coastal geocaches would be available. RF advised that this would be installed at the Beagle Viewpoint later on in the year.
Advised that the One Show had filmed at Wallasea too, with bird watchers from London.
GD queried if a walk/cycle could be made to the southern side to see Paglesham and queried if the trail around the perimeter of the island had been opened. RF advised that the trail around the side of the island was open and had been for some while and advised that the Beagle path was in The National Coast Path had also been approved with the infrastructure being installed over the next 18 months. RF advised that the path across to Lion Creek would only be open at certain times of the year due to wildlife preservation.
Note 7/21
Coast to Coast Path – Hullbridge Ford/South Woodham to Maldon Quay
GD advised that this old railway link had been included on agenda to keep on the front burner. 82% of the route was already public right of way and the remaining 18%, could become public right of way without raising much concern. PC advised that AC had informed her that Maldon Council welcomed the route and were happy to work with the footpaths group to take this forward with possibly a funding bid. It is included in their key council documents, which will help as AC understands that ECC have already done a fair bit of work on it and her perception is that it is just funding that is holding up any progress. PC suggested that this be a key project of the footpaths group. AS asked if a map of the proposed route could be shared with the group and KP advised that this could be shared in the notes. JL queried if this was indeed business for the footpaths group which was agreed and KP will co-ordinate and report back to the future RCCCT meetings on.
N.B. Due to alternatives needing to be sought to the old railway track which has now ceased to exist, the map of the route is currently not available to be shared.
Note 8/21
Coastal Footpath 9 Hullbridge to South Fambridge – Work to Fix a Breached Riverbank
PW reported that some years ago, ECC gave a talk on where work had been completed to South Fambridge along the seawall, which seemed to stop. The footpath was breached, and PW wondered why they didn’t continue to fill the gap in. The Environmental Agency had sent over pictures to show how the wall was constructed, which PW felt seemed quite simple and highlighted that part of the wall was constructed from rubbish so queried why they were having so many issues with continuing to fill in the breach.
JL asked if this had been discussed previously and KP advised this was discussed at the last meeting of the footpaths group, where the quality of the wall was questioned and highlighted that the wall was subject to an insurance claim which was unfortunately taking some time. KP advised that it would take some negotiation to resolve, and the question of who was responsible for what was quite a complicated one. He assured the group that this was a recognised problem, but could not get anywhere at the moment, but would keep trying.
Note 9/21
Water Safety and Public Access to the Waters of The Crouch
KW reported that they were trying to get a notice put up in Hullbridge and had eventually found out that permission was needed from RDC, which they were currently awaiting. KW advised that they had an issue with water safety, and last year there was a rapid increase in the public accessing the water at Hullbridge and South Woodham Ferrers, which was becoming a safety issue. It had been brought to KW’s attention that in Kent, the local authority took charge of the access to the water and advised the public that they would have to join an association and pay a fee for access to the water. This was an issue as the river was under jurisdiction of the harbour authority, while the road and slipway were a public highway, and queried if this access to the water could be put back to the Parish Councils.
KW had been liaising with the local marine police who would start to monitor safety breaches on the river, along with more patrols and even looking at putting a craft up at Hullbridge to try to keep everybody safe. KW reported that they had registered paddle boards and kayaks so that if there is an accident and craft gets parted from the pilot, they can determine if this was just a lost piece of equipment, or if the pilot may be in danger.
AH advised that she was happy to speak with KW offline regarding the RDC signage issue and would find out what was going on. PW reported that at the time, there was somebody in the office who had COVID-19, who would have been helping with the signage, which had contributed to the delay in this.
Regarding water safety, PC reported that information had been put out on social media and referred back to the Crouch Aware campaign which was being looked into using the unspent money from Paths to Prosperity. PW advised that he had contacted the Head of Safety in the Fire Service and made them aware of the issues on the river, who in turn alerted the two closest Fire and Rescue stations to make them aware that this is a high risk area.
KW raised an incident that had happened at Paglesham the previous weekend where a young girl had gone missing after being with her grandfather. This ended with a helicopter, RNLI, coastguard and police search, who eventually found her safe and well. KW felt this proved that the system worked and commended the various organisations for their speed of response. JL agreed that it was essential to prevent this from happening in the first place, as if it got busier, they could not respond to everyone.
NS advised that people in Burnham were concerned about needing to register their paddleboards as this meant that they would then have to pay the Crouch Harbour Authority. He reported that there used to be free public access to the water in Burnham but now a fee had been introduced, which meant that the river was used much less than it was due to this reluctance to pay.
NS queried what KW regarded to be a ‘breach of safety’ and was advised that this was simply where the public was put into a dangerous position. NS felt that this was more a ‘breach of law’ and was concerned about the approach that was being taken, feeling that there was a communication issue that he hoped the Crouch Harbour Authority would improve upon as the public were unhappy with the way that this was being dealt with. JL suggested this concern was taken up outside of this meeting as not an RCCCT matter.
Note 10/21
Any Other Business
GD referred to the national website for coastal communities and advised that he had many photos of the River Crouch in various parts, which he would happily send to Paula outside of the meeting.
KP asked that ‘any other business’ was not included in the future and all members submitted their topics to the agenda before the meeting to be discussed. There was no objection and JL agreed to remove AOB from future agendas.
Note 11/21
Date of Next Meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting would take place on 8 June 2021 at 11.00am.
The meeting ended at 12:20pm.