Windermere Byelaws Consultation – Useful background to the resubmission
NEW ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY LAKE SPEED LIMIT AT 10 KNOTS
1
SUMMARY
The Lake District National Park Authority wishes to resubmit the 2008
Windermere Navigation Byelaws. We welcome your opinions, whether you are a
boat user or someone who appreciates and enjoys the lake in other ways.
Purpose:
to introduce Navigation Byelaws that are simple to
understand and enforce, so creating a safe lake
environment for everyone to enjoy.
Aim:
to measure the 10 miles per hour speed limit in
knots (nautical miles per hour) rather than miles per
hour (statute miles per hour).
The consultation will not debate the existence of a
speed limit. The National Park Authority has agreed
unanimously that the decision to implement a speed
limit, in 2005, remains valid.
The consultation relates to Windermere only. For
context section three provides a brief history of, but
does not invite debate on, the speed limit on the
other three navigable lakes (Ullswater,
Derwentwater and Coniston).
How to have your say:
Each question is outlined in a yellow box.
Underneath the box we have given you ‘the story’
and as much information as we can to help you
make an informed response. You can make your
comments in the questionnaire, from the link on the
webpage.
Consultation duration:
8 weeks – 23 January to 19 March 2012
Question 1. Do you support, and have any comments to make on the
LDNPAs attempt to clarify the speed limit on Windermere as 10 knots?
2
BACKGROUND
In 1986 the Authority developed registration and navigation byelaws to manage
use of the lake. Byelaw 11 in the 1986 Navigation Byelaws introduced a 6 miles
per hour speed limit for specified areas of Windermere. Byelaw 3.7 states “the
word ‘mile’ means an international Nautical Mile of 1852 metres”.
The byelaw amendments made in 1992 introduced a new speed limit of “10 miles
per hour” (with the existing speed limit of “6 miles per hour” in certain parts of the
lake remaining in place). It was commonly understood at that time that the
intention was to introduce a speed limit comparable to that on the other navigable
lakes in the National Park; 10 statute miles per hour. But because byelaw 3.7
was not amended, in effect the new speed limit of “10 miles per hour” became 10
nautical miles per hour, or knots, in law.
The Authority has accepted that since the 1992 byelaws came into force the new
speed limit has been 10 knots (11.5 statute miles per hour) and not 10 statute
miles per hour. The situation was further complicated by an erroneous
arithmetical conversion of miles per hour into kilometres per hour in the amended
byelaws, published after the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the byelaws.
The Authority made it clear that the ambiguity surrounding the speed limit would
be resolved the next time an opportunity arose. Accordingly, in 2008, the LDNPA,
following a comprehensive consultation, proposed amendments to the
Windermere Registration Byelaws and the Navigation Byelaws that sought to
resolve the ambiguity while also proposing other improvements. The UnderSecretary of State confirmed the Registration Byelaws in January 2011, but did
not confirm the Navigation Byelaws because he felt that the Authority’s case for
supporting a 10 knots speed limit was “unsupported by any hard evidence”.
3
THE ‘OTHER THREE’ NAVIGABLE LAKES
3.1
A brief history of speed on the lakes
Ullswater, Derwentwater and Coniston have been governed by certain Byelaws
since the late 1950s. At that time, under Section 249 of the Local Government
Act 1933, byelaws were introduced with a view to reducing noise from boat
engines. On 25 March 1965 an Inquiry was held into an application, by what was
then the Lake District Planning Board, to introduce collision rules, under the
Merchant Shipping Act 1894, in respect of Ullswater. Consequent upon that
inquiry, the Lake Ullswater Collision Rules Order 1966 was made, and came into
operation on the 1 January 1967. As well as introducing a 10 miles per hour
speed limit on certain areas of the surface of Ullswater, the Rules dealt with a
whole host of provisions including the display of lights, conduct in restricted
visibility, reckless and dangerous navigation and special provisions relating to
water skiers. The current Ullswater Navigation Byelaws, including the byelaw
pertaining to a 10 miles per hour speed limit, were established in 1978.
With regards Derwentwater and Coniston, after the passing of the Countryside
Act 1968, the Lake District Planning Board made known its provisional conclusion
that fast motor boating and water skiing should not be practised on these water
bodies and that in consequence, the speed limit of 10 statute miles per hour
(being operated under the Collision Rules on Ullswater) should be imposed on
Derwentwater and Coniston. These byelaws were established in 1978. Thus, by
1978 Ullswater, Derwentwater and Coniston all had a speed restriction of 10
statute miles per hour.
3.2
But why 10 statute miles per hour in the first place?
Prior to the 1978 establishment of the Byelaws on Ullswater, Derwentwater and
Coniston, the 1977 Michael Burke-Gaffney ‘Three Lakes Inquiry’ discussed the
notion of 10 statute miles per hour as a speed limit. The inspector concluded, “…
on the evidence presented to me, there was no particular magic about the figure
of 10 mph… it was intended as a somewhat arbitrary dividing line between slow
power boats and fast power boats… one which was compatible with that used in
the Collision Rules in force for Ullswater…”. The inspector also noted that the
figure of 10 statute miles per hour was chosen, “… in order to exclude fast power
boating and water skiing altogether from the Three Lakes”.
3.3
Different speed limits on different lakes?
When the Windermere Byelaw amendments were made in 1992 and introduced a
new speed limit of “10 miles per hour”, it was commonly understood at that time
that the intention was to introduce a speed limit comparable to that on the other
three navigable lakes in the National Park; 10 statute miles per hour. But
because byelaw 3.7 was not amended (defining a mile as an international,
nautical mile) in effect the new speed limit of “10 miles per hour” became 10
nautical miles per hour, or knots, in law. Akin to all navigable lakes in the National
Park, it was the issue of user incompatibility on Windermere – particularly
between fast power boaters and other users - that sparked speed-related
discussion and provided motivation for the imposition of a speed limit.
While the enforcement of 10 knots on Windermere over the past six years has
restricted fast power boating and water-skiing, crucially, it has not eliminated
them completely. Indeed, the different forms of recreational use which have
remained on Windermere since 2005, including low-speed powered boating and
water-skiing, have co-existed in a satisfactory way. Therefore, although in
exception to the speed limit on the ‘other three’ lakes, overtime, enforcement of
10 knots has allowed a balance of interests; economic, social and recreational. In
addition to the arguments put forward for the maintenance of a 10 knots speed
limit on Windermere, outlined in section four below, the successful
implementation of this byelaw demonstrates that there is nothing to be gained by
aligning the speed limit on Windermere with the other three lakes.
4
EVIDENCE REVIEW
The Minister, in his letter dated 25 January 2011, said that in the absence of any
firm evidence, the expert evidence considered at the 1994/95 Public Inquiry
provided, “the best basis on which to reach a logical and reasonable conclusion
as to what speed would be appropriate”, on Windermere.
To address the Minister’s concerns, we looked again at the expert evidence
submitted to the 1994/95 public inquiry. We also reviewed the past six years
experience on the ground to determine whether enforcement of a 10 knots speed
limit is effectively delivering the policy intentions the inspector considered during
the inquiry.
In light of a review of the environmental evidence (noise, wash, pollution and
wildlife) as well as the social and economic evidence presented to the public
inquiry, it is clear that the Inspector reached his recommendation to impose a
speed limit on Windermere because of a fundamental problem of user
incompatibility (Please follow the link on the main page ‘Reviewing the 1994/95
Public Inquiry Evidence’ to read this report). Our experience of 10 knots shows
clearly that imposing a 10 knots limit has neither compromised nor undermined
that conclusion. Similarly, we have explored successive Windermere Lake
Annual Reports (co-authored by SLDC and the Authority) that evidence the
enforcement of the safe and compatible use of Windermere for a variety of
recreational activity. We have also included the outcome of the 2009 legal case
(Keep Windermere Alive Association [Price and Furber] v. The Lake District
National Park Authority) which confirmed the legality of enforcing the speed limit
at 10 knots. (Please follow the link on the main page ‘Speed - The Present
Situation’ to read this report).
By resubmitting the 2008 Navigation Byelaws, which define the speed limit at 10
knots, we wish to improve clarity, reflect current management issues, reduce
conflict between users, minimise health and safety risks and make enforcement
more effective.
10 knots is the existing speed limit both in practice and in law. There have been
several successful prosecutions against contravention of the 10 knots speed limit,
but because the speed limit is, in law, 10 knots the Authority has never taken
action against boats travelling at less than this speed. Nonetheless, the Lake
Patrol Team’s effectiveness in advising lake users and in enforcing the 10 knots
speed limit has, by common consent, restored the tranquillity of the lake and
enabled a wider spectrum of users to enjoy the lake safely. The successful
implementation of this byelaw demonstrates that there is nothing to be gained by
imposing a speed limit lower than 10 knots.
The Minister acknowledged the support of the Windermere Lake User Forum for
changes proposed by the 2008 Byelaws, “as a clear indication that the Authority
has achieved the balance of interests necessary”. Within that context and
considering the Forums’ working knowledge of the current 10 knots limit, the
Forum has voiced particular concerns about the prospect of operating a lower
speed limit of 10 statute miles per hour:
businesses around the lake suffering for example:
o an adverse effect on commercial transport operators with
timetables and operating schedules badly affected and fewer
services able to run over the course of a working day.
o a reduction in the attraction for customers taking commercial lake
transport if cruise timings are lengthened. Customers would arrive
at destinations later – causing particular concern at the end of the
day when users have to be back at certain times for car parking or
fixed hotel meal times.
o The Lake District Sustainable Transport Framework wishes to
promote greater use of commercial lake transport and encourage
people to leave their cars behind and travel sustainably in the Lake
District. Slower journey times by boat are not an incentive to
leaving the car behind.
o water-skiing (currently possible at 10 knots for beginners, young
and lightweight skiers) would become impossible, adversely
affecting currently viable and acceptable business activity and
recreational use.
while the majority of vessels on the lake and their instruments work in
knots, a major difficulty for all boat users (without global positioning
systems) lies in the reliability of the pitot static tube system of forward
speed measurement when boats are travelling at low speeds. A decrease
in speed of 1.5 miles per hour would be difficult to gauge.
other important and desirable safety and enforcement amendments in the
navigation byelaws have been thwarted by the debate between knots and
statute miles per hour. Users, South Lakeland District Council, the Police
and the National Park Authority alike all maintain the difference in practice
is immaterial;
since 1986 the speed limit on Windermere has been enforced in knots.
Any modification at this stage would be unnecessary, costly and
problematic to enforce;
o year-on-year, the patrol team on Windermere have increased their
presence on the lake and continue to communicate with users, but
enforcement at 10 statute miles per hour would be inconsistent with
those parts of the lake with six knot speed limits;
o signage around the Lake is currently expressed in knots and the
speed limit is enforced in knots;
o the Authority have successfully prosecuted users contravening the
10 knots speed limit– nobody has ever been prosecuted for
travelling at speeds below 10 knots; and
o 10 knots was proved effective and enforceable as confirmed by the
High Court in 2009 and effective byelaw enforcement will be
increasingly difficult without the proposed amendments.
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
Questions 2-9. Do you support, and have any comments to make on
the LDNPAs attempt to resubmit the additional amendments?
Please take a look at the:
‘Current Windermere Navigation Byelaws’; and
the Navigation Byelaws as they would be if the 2008 amendments are
approved (available from the link on the main webpage)
In the proposed 2008 Byelaws, only section 12 relates to speed. Other proposed
amendments relate to the following;
safety;
unattended vessels;
directions of authorised officers;
notification of accidents;
removal of “knowingly” from all offences created by byelaws;
and provision of information; and
exemption from speed limits.
The proposals, if accepted as a whole, would give the Authority the ability to
consider exemptions allowing powered vessels to be driven in excess of the
speed limits. This is particularly relevant in light of Windermere Town
Council’s recent application to organise a sea plane visit to Windermere to
mark the centenary of Britain’s first successful flight from water. In addition to
consultation with users and other appropriate interest groups, the proposed
2008 Navigation Byelaws would have given the Authority the ability to
legitimately consider this type of one-off cultural and historic proposal.
In practise, how might applications for exemptions work?
When considering an exemption application, draft Byelaw 12.5 states that the
Authority, “may impose conditions subject to which any such permission is
granted”. Similarly, draft Byelaw 12.7 states that the Authority, “shall act in
accordance with such policies as are adopted from time to time”.
For that reason, it is anticipated that the Authority would provide an exemption
framework for applicants, potentially considering the following steps;
Step one: application for a specific Byelaw exemption to the Authority must
contain certain provisions for example;
event details – dates, timings, responsible owner, and explain how the
proposed event aligns with the Vision for the National Park;
health and safety concerns;
environmental protection – including risks of water and noise pollution
and impacts upon wildlife;
impacts upon the local economy; and
public safety and protection of other users’ right.
These matters would require clearly identified actions to mitigate any potential
issues. This should be the responsibility of the organiser and we would need
to ensure this is managed and undertaken responsibly.
Step two: In order to seek advice, guidance and challenge from lake users on
a proposal, any application which is otherwise consistent with the Authority’s
policies, the safety of lake users and the general tranquillity of the lake would
go out to public consultation.
Step three: The Authority’s Committee would receive the consultation’s main
findings and, providing any potential public safety and environmental concerns
are anticipated and mitigated against, the proposed event aligns with the Vision
for the National Park and would provide excellent opportunities for the local
economy, grant permission for the one-off event.