Bridge Inn, Acle - Changes To Mooring Policy

[kfurbank]

58 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Well, actually I do think it fair. Whilst some moorings have been approved others have not.

But the ones that have been approved didn't have an existing covenant on the land, whereas Jenners does. Never let the facts get in the way of a good BA bashing

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, kfurbank said:

But the ones that have been approved didn't have an existing covenant on the land, whereas Jenners does. Never let the facts get in the way of a good BA bashing

If I, and others, understand things correctly then a covenant is not a planning issue. A covenant is between the purchaser & the vendor. That aside, if it goes to court, then it has to be shown to be reasonable. A previous judgement was that the purchasers should quite reasonably expect to see moored boats on the river. Anyway, all that aside, it's up to the courts to decide, not you or me. 

[kfurbank]

Just now, JennyMorgan said:

If I, and others, understand things correctly then a covenant is not a planning issue. A covenant is between the purchaser & the vendor. That aside, if it goes to court, then it has to be shown to be reasonable. A previous judgement was that the purchasers should quite reasonably expect to see moored boats on the river. Anyway, all that aside, it's up to the courts to decide, not you or me. 

It is, and they did  or so I thought? high court judgement and all that.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, jeffbroadslover said:

If I were in the situation of having a pub with moorings I would possibly allow a mooring to be reserved with a specified arrival time limit.

If someone wanted to reserve a mooring for say 1:00 pm. then I would allow them up until say 2:00p.m and then  "unreserve" the mooring and allow it to be used by someone else.

Jeff

By which point they probably won't want to stay for lunch.....

Say £50 of takings per boat 3 times a week- soon totals up!

[JennyMorgan]

Keith, just in case you missed this, by the way it was written by a F.R.I.C.S.

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2017/06/thorpe-island-planning-policy-update.html

[Islander]

You beat me to it Peter but I'll post mine anyway.

Seems it's up to the BA planning dept. Link is to proposed new local plan.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/953406/App-G-Broads-Local-Plan-TSA2-Thorpe-Island-Thorpe-St-Andrew-Revised-policy.pdf

Should these moorings ever happen then it won't help the need for more 24Hr moorings. It is unlikely the BA would want to lease the river front from the new owners having just handed back Thorpe River Green to the local council due to lack of use.

Not wishing to sidetrack this thread as I can see both sides for reserved moorings. I too find it annoying to see 'Reserved' signs on moorings that appear to stay empty all day when we could have stopped and had a drink and maybe a snack, only staying for an hour. On the other hand, next year, I hope, my daughter, her husband and my grandchildren will be camping at WRC and we intend rent a mooring there for the duration of their stay so we can take them all out on our boat. This would mean a mooring that is empty during most of the day. Having paid for the use of the mooring should anyone else be allowed to use it while we are out for the day and may return at anytime.

I have no answer to this problem other than the obvious. We need more moorings. Free 24Hr or pay to stay.

Colin

[kfurbank]

30 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Keith, just in case you missed this, by the way it was written by a F.R.I.C.S.

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2017/06/thorpe-island-planning-policy-update.html

Who hasn't taken the issue to court and been proven right or wrong. I grant you, a learned man who also knows how to play the planning system to his advantage and has the odd axe to grind. I feel sure if you or James had purchased properties opposite Jenners, with full knowledge of the covenant, and that had been part of the basis for your decision to purchase,  you would both have a different view on the matter.

[ExMemberBobdog]

20 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

This is not the fault of the establishments, but comes back to the Broads Authority not having an ongoing strategy so far as mooring provision goes especially on the norther rivers in high season.

Classic ill informed comment of the "let's bash the BA" genre.  The BA do have a strategy/policy.  The problem is in implementing it when they are not significant landowners and don't have unlimited buckets of money.

 The BA policy, essentially, is that there should be a free 24 hour mooring provided approximately every 45 minutes cruising time along the river.  That's a target, and the BA seek to implement it, but sometimes struggle to do so.  Nonetheless they keep trying, even if we do not see the hard work going on behind the scenes.

On the Thurne/Bure the policy was thrown into disarray when the owner of Boundary Farm refused (for what might have been perfectly good reasons) to renew a lease agreement with the BA.  The BA have been trying to resolve the loss of this facility ever since, but these issues do not have instant solutions.  That's not due to lack of strategy/policy, but difficulties in negotiation.  

Recent visitors will see that a new free 24 hour mooring is currently being created just downriver of the old Boundary Farm/Thurne Mouth mooring, albeit not as extensive as the previous facility.  I also understand that negotiations are in hand to create another free facility closer to Acle Bridge.

[LondonRascal]

Quote

Classic ill informed comment of the "let's bash the BA" genre.

The reason I am willing to bash the BA over mooring issues, is because there could be a lot more done by them about this. They have decided not to and this leads to one of the leading points of criticism that pops up of peoples reviews - even left in individual boat reviews of hirers - not being able to enjoy places due to lack of available moorings, or having to scramble to places far earlier than they may wish to try and get a mooring for the evening.

In the Broads Authority's Navigation Committee "Mooring Action Plan update" of 10th  December 2015 there is a lot of big words and numbers spoken about, but here are the basics.

It starts off pretty positively:

"The Broads Authority originally published a mooring strategy in 2006. The need for a strategy to guide the provision of Broads Authority free 24-hour moorings was identified as a priority in the best value review of navigation and supported through the public consultation for the Broads Plan 2004...."

"....The 2006 strategy was reviewed in 2009 and in 2013 the Authority adopted an Integrated Access Strategy (IAS) for the Broads which sought to make improvements to the connectivity and use of access facilities on both land and water. The overarching objective principle of the mooring strategy: “to maintain as a minimum the present number of moorings available for visitor use” was included in the IAS aims and objectives...."

And even decided that:

"...if possible, the Authority should continue to maintain a policy of no net reduction in mooring length..."

Once you have got past the silly names and abbreviations, you could be thinking that they have this in hand and their overriding aim is to not loose moorings, but to maintain as a minimum the present number of moorings available for visitor use.  However they then go on to say:

"...the mooring workshop did not recommend that the Authority should seek to take on new mooring sites if the acquisition of those sites would result in an increase in its piling responsibilities..."

So now the talk turns to money, and while they did provide a recommendation for an additional £150,000 to be put aside for maintaining existing mooring sites piling, it is clear to see that formal moorings, with piling and nice quay headings are not going to be something the Broads Authority seeks to have more of frankly due to cost.

But what of existing areas where the Broads Authority lease areas?

"...For example the landowner of the moorings at Woodbastwick and Perci’s Island has given the Authority notice to terminate those leases so they will need to be removed from the action plan..."

Oh. Ok then urm, what about where there is a Lease in place, that is coming to an end and the landowner (just like any commercial Landlord) gives notice to the Tenant (Broads Authority) that they can renew the Lease but on either new terms or at a new premium usually based upon current market conditions and values. What would normally happen in such a case is the Landlord says it will be for a term of x number of years at a price of x amount. The Tenant then makes a counter offer which will be a result of a Surveyors valuation  which usually the Landlord rejects on the basis of being too low a premium and after much arguments and negotiations if nothing has been sorted out a Tribunal reviews the matter and makes a decision.

So what does the Broads Authority do in such cases? Landowner wants to extend the Lease, offers x amount to the Broads Authority - and ... The Broads Authority have a policy to effectively not enter into any negotiation about the price and walk away - mooring is then lost.

"...Members will recall that they gave officers strong advice that the Authority should not considered entering leases that required the payment of annual fees higher than those recommended by our property advisers and this clear advice is informing our negotiations on those leases..."

They go on to say:

"...Given that members also consider that, as a minimum, the Authority should seek to maintain its current number of moorings there is clearly a need to identify possible new sites to replace any that are lost due to failure to negotiate appropriate lease terms..."

So here is why I have joined in BA bashing.  Strip this all down and you come to money.  But the Broads Authority should have more money in the pot than ever before because they have recently made such a hike in annual Tolls - especially affecting private owners with larger craft.  The Broads Authority want their cake and eat it, they do not want moorings to be lost but will not pay any more for the Leases of such moorings should a Landowner ask for too much more for the Lease.

Not only this, but what makes so many of the current formal Broads Authority moorings so attractive to many is the way they are maintained, the nice safe and level pathway to walk along, the quay heading and piling associated with it.  But the Broads Authority have made it clear that even if they acquire more moorings they would not be of the piled type - as they do not wish to get involved in ongoing liabilities for these piles. 

Now call be a cynic, but with the Environment Agency decided that the piled river banks which had been used for countless decades were now no longer required. They pointed to studies about bank erosion and the wildlife etc etc and came up with a new way - remove them, re-profile the river bank and allow Reeds to grow making a nice natural looking bank.  Lovely - it also meant once the work had been done and paid for, no more ongoing costs to replace and maintain the piling (bonus).  I can just imagine that instead of working with the Environment Agency to, oh I don't know keep areas of piling and the Broads Authority come to an agreement to maintain smaller sections of it for moorings nothing of the like was done.

So countless moorings were lost - but of course they were not moorings - they formed part of a flood defense system - the bonus was they could be used for a boat to moor alongside.

So you see, their is no 'joined up' thinking. The Broads Authority want to save money but they also do not wish to loose moorings. They are aware of an problem, but have no long term solution to dealing with it.  They have ideas of where moorings could become leased so long as no piling was needed to be an additional financial burden on the them (I would not put it past them to refer to such new moorings as 'natural moorings' since they did not look to formal and tidy).

This is not a good state of affairs as more boatyards close and those moorings are lost for visiting hire craft, more areas are created for the mooring of private craft and I can see why Landowners also might want to capitalise on things - note that the moorings at Ranworth Island have increased to £10.00 for 24hrs now.

I've spoken about a system of automated payment collection at moorings, and funds raised from such to pay for their provision with some money going back to the Landowner and while this may not be popular it would at least create more moorings with better facilities at them and mean less worries about where to moor.  A great example of moorings that could be used in high season were those on the inlet leading to Womack Water when the stern on moorings at the Staithe were taken, and the Broads Authority formal moorings were full too you could still moor with your Rhonde Anchors easily and still manage to walk to the village. Now no more.

 

[jeffbroadslover]

Just trying to work out how a comment about "reserved moorings" outside a pub turns into a BA bashing session.

I did not realise that the BA controlled the short term reservation of a mooring so that Fred Bloggs could be sure to get his lunch where he wanted to.

Jeff 

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Robin, for your constructive and apt comments. A pity that reality is seen as BA bashing.

[Broads01]

Thank you Robin, a very well written piece and I now feel better informed about some of the detail on this. The under-investment in both new moorings and lease renewals is plain to see. As Peter says you've made constructive comments and bashing is completely the wrong word.