Navigation Committee News, A Must Read!

[JennyMorgan]

Designed to inform rather than entertain, well worth reading:

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2016/11/navigation-committee-report-27-oct-2016_2.html

[Hockham Admiral]

I read it last night, Peter. very informative, as you say, and also saddening for peeps on fixed pensions... "Only the cost of a tankful of diesel" indeed!            

[ranworthbreeze]

3 hours ago, Hockham Admiral said:

I read it last night, Peter. very informative, as you say, and also saddening for peeps on fixed pensions... "Only the cost of a tankful of diesel" indeed!            

Hi John,

Sadly the Broads Authority have no concept of the costs involved with boating.

There are or were? some boats fueling up at Brooms fuel station taking on 1500 to 2000 litres of fuel, gladly my worse case was £186 and that included a dual  pump out.

Regards

Alan

[Hockham Admiral]

I've been amazed at the line up of big Broom boats for sale this year, Alan. I can only think that more will follow.

We are seriously considering our future on the water.         

[ranworthbreeze]

Hi John,

Since we have been moored (2007/8) at Brundall we have seen many boats for sale both at Brooms and NYA, most seem to eventually sell, I assume that many of these boats will have been sold to go on other waterways. 

It has always been a case of trading up on boats, but the time will always come that is not cost effective to keep them if they are not fully used.

I was talking to a chap a couple of years ago at the Yacht Station at Oulton Broad, he had only been out for a couple of days totally in the season and I he was talking about boat share as a future option, he was thinking about advertising his boat for shares to help cover the cost.

Over the years we have come across a few boats that are shared by a group of owners, a prime example is Broad Ambition.

Regards

Alan

[JennyMorgan]

Having worked at a big marina, Chichester, I can well believe recent claims that there is rarely less than 40% of the boats at Brooms being for sale at any one time. I would guess the same can be said of big boats at other marinas too, an alarming thought! Problem is that apparently there is something of a glut of similar big boats up for sale across the country. People can often afford to buy a boat, seemingly not so many can afford to run them.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

In my opinion, a lot of the problems re boat ownership are down to marketing. How many boat builders build boats smaller than 30ft, not many now, or those that still do, are either abroad or very small companies.  It`s the same in the hirefleets, or what`s left of them, how many 4 berth boats are there less than 32ft, not many at all. It`s all very well building bigger and bigger boats, but fhe end result will be big boats being unable to be sold, because nobody can afford to run them anymore.

The outright cost of ownership is becoming out of reach to the average working man, that`s why we bought into the Lightning syndicate. We have a large boat which costs us less than a weeks hire on the same boat for our share of maintainance each year. To own even a small boat like a Hampton 25, would have cost us a realistic minimum of around £3,500 per annum, and that`s not even counting the cost of fuel and pumpouts etc, so shared ownership works perfectly for us. The only down side to shared ownership is peoples perceptions of it, and so dismissing it outright.

There`s a 50 footer moored in front of Lightning at Brooms, and it`s up for around £300,000, and has been so for many months. I wonder, who can afford to keep a boat like that these days, so, with that in mind, what will happen to them, and if they can`t sell them, what will they eventually do with them?.

Maybe the boating public should start demanding smaller boats again, to keep the costs down, and hopefully keep them boating.

 

[Oddfellow]

There is a simple fact that is overlooked generally. Boat Builders often build big boats because there is more profit.

There are still small boat manufacturers out there: Hardy, Haines, Shetland, Viking to name four. There are plenty in Eastern Europe too. They are small companies because the profit margins and demand is relatively low and, frankly, to make it into the big market is a massive investment that they likely don't have. I am sure that if there was perceived to be a big market for smaller boats on the Broads, more would be built. The marker responds to demand and there clearly isn't enough. 

Let's face it, if you can afford £300,000 for a boat, you have probably got enough money to keep it (or not enough sense to realise your don't). I don't hold with this idea that people can't afford to run a big boat; the cost of boating has never been low and never will be. 

The problem comes in when your costs rise unexpectedly. If you have a £300,000 boat, it's probably no great shakes. But if you have a 44ft 40 year old ex-hire boat worth a tenth of the £300k vessel, the price hike is probably significant. It's about affordability which is not something that the tolls review has considered at all. 

 

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Here`s a thought,  The Broads are getting smaller and smaller, and the boats are getting bigger and bigger, soon, the way things are going on, everybody will be only going out on their boats for the day, because there`s no room to moor anywhere, due to too many big boats taking up what little available moorings will be left. In that case, the BA might think (with their small narrow minds), that the best way to reduce river traffic is drastically increase tolls?. Then everybody tries to sell an unusable large white plastic lemon.  I don`t think it fair to blame it on "demand", if these big boats were not around, the problem would`nt exist.  Before the introduction of high topped dual steer, non bridge passing hire boats, no hirer ever "demanded" a hire fleet builds them. No, the boatbuilders "create" demand to make bigger and easier profits. Sometimes, you have to look at the bigger picture, and do what`s best for the location, and NOT what`s best for the bottom line. And that does`nt mean i`m advocating that buisnes needs to run at a loss before anybody suggests such.

[marshman]

Strange that, the Broads I use don't seem to have got smaller, except in the 60's I used to go up to Honing Common quite a bit, but sadly, like me, my boat has got fatter!!!

[Oddfellow]

Speedtripple has a point to an extent. 

However, as living standards rise, so do expectations. Smaller boats have less space; people prefer more space. New, luxurious boats book quickly, despite their high price tags. They still get you from A to B like an older one, are rarely any more comfortable (in real terms) than an older one. Many are no less fuel hungry than older ones either. But they are shinier than older ones and they do convey a degree of "status" too. 

Bigger and easier profits? Don't you believe it. A brand new boat is only likely to earn 4-5 times the revenue of an older boat but costs 4-5 times the amount of the older one to buy or build. The boats are being built for future-proofing the business and to meet the demands of the customer. It makes good sense for an operator to have four or five £30k boats to spread risk and increase opportunity than one £150k boat.   

[JennyMorgan]

Well, I got to the meeting at Yare House yesterday, met up with Richard from the other side as well as a number of friends from the rhond. I don't think that any of us were impressed with the way the meeting panned out.  Our local rag has produced a rather truncated report, regretfully. It was a highly controlled meeting where it was quite clear that only helpful to the cause letters of praise where read out, letters of objection being ignored. The NSBA, the boaters organisation, was criticised at every opportunity and whilst the NSBA Chairman was at the meeting no right of reply was given which I thought was disgraceful. It was quite clear that various members had failed to read their briefing notes or do any research. One even referred to the Broads as being a National Park which it isn't, blame Parliament for that! With one exception a weak committee that was easily lead. In the meantime some boat owners will see a rise in their tolls of up to 50%.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/changes_to_boat_tolls_on_the_broads_are_approved_1_4783204

[Oddfellow]

Having had my comment to the EDP24 news story denied publication by the EDP, I shall reproduce it here: 

"What an appalling news story. Badly constructed, it lists people's comments without stating who they are or represent. It fails to mention the widespread condemnation of the changes from stakeholders as well as local boating groups and ignores the protest. Did JP go to university with the EDP editor or something as this kind of reporting would register a very low grade in journalism coursework."

[MauriceMynah]

I am flabbergasted that they didn't print that !

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Ther`s an old saying,, "sling enough mud and it sticks". Well there`s another one in a similar vein, and that is "deny the truth for long enough, and the people will eventually believe the lie". By witholding all the letters of condemnation, and the FACTUAL figures, people without an insight to the authority will understandably believe all the lies and decete from the hierachy.

[JennyMorgan]

Hilary Franzen, one time BA press officer, was married to the editor of the EDP. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Just now, JennyMorgan said:

Hilary Franzen, one time BA press officer, was married to the editor of the EDP. 

Peter, you old synic...................  seriously though,it speaks for itself does`nt it?.

 

[Timbo]

So this morning...I was getting a bit desperate for news having had to turn back at Sleaford after discovering Uncle Albert had been discharged and admitted once again to hospital so I never made the meeting...I had a look at the other channel.

Two things popped out at me...

The first that having 'used' the forum as a by-line to tick the 'consulted widely with boat users' box, received some critical comments on his stupid scheme and made a huge gaff, JP left the building saying he might return if asked.

The second was the gaff...now unfortunately for some reason I cannot access the other channel so I cannot reference the exchange but JP admitted spending £45,000 + on a consultation excercise on getting more tolls due to lack of dosh. The response from the owner of the site ran along the lines of 'Are you sh****g me?'. This caused me to laugh out loud whilst drinking hot tea...which I sprayed over my good friend who is also Uncle Albert's solicitor.

I explained to my legal friend my personal grievances regarding Dr Doom and how he was sailing close to the edges of, but not quite ticking all the boxes of, all manner of things beginning with 'M' in a public office. My legal friend offered another 'M' for consideration. Misfeasance.'You don't necessarily have to win to obtain your desired outcome!'. Solicitor's eh?

[JennyMorgan]

Obfuscation is another apt, none The Sun word where Dr P is concerned. 

[dnks34]

Just because the Authority will raise Tolls it doesnt mean that those of us adversely affected actually have to stump up the extra cash. 

I am in two, well 3 minds,

do i take her out of the water for the season so a toll is not due

send a toll payment of the 2016/17 amount plus inflation and then let them persue for the rest (at more cost) 

put the boat up for sale before the Broads Authority destroy any future sale price even further. 

Those of us against the level of toll increase need to do something.  

We roll over this year what will the next seasons increase be. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Trouble is, Dnks, you will be cutting your own throat to spite yourself, and Packman knows that. In my opinion the only route open to us is a legal challenge, The Authority is also a Harbour Authority and there are clauses within that Act that might be useful. I understand that the NSBA and at least one individual are exploring the possibilities..

[Timbo]

Misfeasance in a Public Office. This is the act that gave Stephen Byers a headache with Railtrack in 2001.

"Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff."

The Broads Act gives equal weight to wildlife, navigation etc which implies an equality in duty to stakeholders.

As I said above you wouldn't necessarily win but... a vexatious litigant like Dr Doom will soon make his position untenable.

[MauriceMynah]

I've sort of asked this before but what is exactly you are challenging?

If Packman can put forwards the argument that this review was to instigate a fairer system, and if he gets any support, (which he will) then nobody has any reasonable grounds to mount a challenge.

So those who have to pay more may well feel hard done by, but those who gain might well say "About time too"

It has often been said "Be careful what you wish for." and many on this forum and on others have for years been saying that the tolls for dinghies are outrageously high. This it now seems is being addressed. About time too.

I have little liking for JP and his methods, but I'd prefer any fight with the man be a winnable one and that it be for something more deeply routed for the good of the broads as we know them.

What he is achieving here is to draw the teeth of his main perceived opposition. As soon as he can prove that most of the people who oppose him are self centred boat owners who have no thoughts of fairness as long as they can continue riding roughshod over the Broads National Park, then he WILL be calling the shots. ALL the shots.

At that point all his friends in Natural England and the RSPB will be able to get their way. Do we want that?

[marshman]

MM - the voice of reason yet again!! A totally lost cause - as you say all he is doing is what many asked for. And of course the charges are totally unreasonable.

So all this talk of people leaving, my guess in reality is you will be able to count on one hand, or perhaps two, those that do. Where would I go? 

Yes of course I could go to the Fens and plonk it on the Gt Ouse - like the Ouse a lot but not sure about the other connected bits. High banks and pretty uninspiring landscapes except in places. OOps - my toll for 16/17 is some 20% higher. What a bargain the Broads seem.

Lets try elsewhere - how about the Medway. Ah here we go this is cheaper about 60% cheaper . Any snags? Is a 28km waterway length a problem - only if i want to go anywhere!! Yes I know I can go downstream into the tidal waters but its not quite the same is it in my boat!! And its pretty tidal - did i say pretty? Pretty down from Allington to the Medway Towns so i will stay overnight in the Dockyard at Chatham. Its only £34 but thankfully I get free electricity

Of course I could go to Lowestoft but i gave up the sea for something more leisurely. However lake Lothing is very nice and there is lots of places i can go in my twin screw Princess  I can go out and turn right to that spectacular place up the coast or better still go for the weekend in Southwold. Great like that idea - trouble is overnight charges come in at £31and overnight the weather changed and I have to leave the boat down there. Only cost though a taxi there and back next weekend.Or is it the weekend after as the weather gets no better. Oh and the cost of a marina berth in Lowestoft is about 20% more than I pay now.

I too do not like the increases but to talk of court action.......! Fantasy Island and not a leg to stand on comes to mind, even if I have complained too!!

[marshman]

Oh and if you think i am being selective, the Thames licence is 40% higher (and yes i know that includes Lock keepers!!!)