Paladin

I think those who try to maintain wild and not-so-wild moorings in a better state for boaters are to be commended. Apart from Griff's efforts, that wild mooring near Neave's Mill has been worked on by others (not members of this forum), with particular focus on reducing the amount of burdock, the seed heads of which will attached themselves to the fur of (in particular) long-haired dogs, to the extent that a trip to the vet might be necessary to get them cut out, as well as gradually extending the mooring towards the mill. I am also aware of a small group of dedicated 'gardeners', who have kept the wild moorings on Fleet Dyke available, by judicious strimming/hacking. Not to mention the EA moorings in Fleet Dyke, which a few years ago were overgrown with thistles and burdock. The parish council used to mow along the back of those mooring once or twice a year, which helped, but lack of finance has put an end to that. If such moorings can be given attention by those who are about in the Winter and early Spring, holiday makers in their hire boats WILL make use of them during the Summer and they become almost self-maintaining. Every little helps and it is really nothing more than an extension of the activities of the wherrymen of days gone by, who carried out 'gardening' during their voyages, simply to keep the wind available to them.

Some posts reproduced from 2018. John Packman was a member here, long before the Ask JP sesssions on NBF, and left, as batrabill pointed out, the behaviour towards him by some members was unacceptable. There were two Ask JP sessions in 2016 (at least). I have copies of them, as I collated the two threads, and there were no untoward posts. But, as Meantime and JennyMorgan point out, John Packman misled the forum members and the Broads Authority members, for his own purposes. Having broken the trust placed in him by the NBF owner and the NBF members, he wasn't invited back. But I find dragging up old history when Richard is unable, due ill-health resulting in the unavailability of his forum, to make any reply, is distasteful. It's time for chips to be removed from shoulders and move on. I wish Richard a good recovery and hope his forum reappears before too long.

Not defending the BA, but there are ‘designated areas’ in which permitted development rights are more restricted. These areas include conservation areas, National Parks, AONBs, World Heritage Sites, and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. So being a National Park, would, in this instance, have made no difference.

It seems sight has been lost of the simple fact that the Broads Authority has no responsibility under those criteria. Their legal obligation is to protect the interests of the Navigation.

No, that is the mooring at the entrance to Crome's Dyke. The dyke, which is still part of the navigation but is now unnavigable due to neglect by the Broads Authority, goes away from the river to Crome's Broad. There is a footpath alongside the dyke. About 100 yards or so up the path there is a right-angled bend. Crowe's staithe is on the outside of that bend. Totally delapidated but just about recognisable. There is quite a bit of information on here about it. Just put the word Crome's in the search box. Let's try not to lose Broads history by misnomers.

The earliest document that may have some relevance that I have been able to find is from 2008. See attached. It clearly shows that the Bure Loop is a substantial bottle-neck, being as shallow as the upper reaches of the system. This is something the Broads Authority have acknowledged in the past. It wouldn't matter so much if the only source of water in the Broads was from the sea. The loop would restrict the flow in and out by the same amount. But add rainfall, run off from the land, input from sewage treatment works, output of grey water from boats, etc., and it's obvious that more water enters the Broads than leaves it. There is a cumulative effect and over a long period of time, that will have the effect, on the Northern Broads, of raising the river levels. I've looked at the changes in bridge heights over the years. Those below the loop, and on the Southern Broads are unchanged. The airdraft of the Northern bridges has decreased. [report] Sediment Management Strategy draft ActionPlan nc240408.doc

Here

The BA now distribute (on request) recordings of minutes via the Internet. This is the link (provided by a member of BRAG) to the download of the relevant section of the BA tolls meeting on 24 November 2023. It runs from the beginning of the meeting to the end of the tolls agenda item. But don't delay. The link expires in 6 days time. https://wetransfer.com/downloads/9495eef876eaaacd51b678291e9edfb920231128094705/0cb9ac?utm_campaign=TRN_TDL_05&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&trk=TRN_TDL_05&fbclid=IwAR0kICuNdG105EfWaFi-nIfYl1qptVYm_xezt0FvOueNUfrE-emWGx5Sl94

It's you who is making the assumption. I have had many, many dealings with the BA over the past 23 years of boating, and my name is well-known to them. There are some very good people there, who would love to speak out, but are fearful of the consequences. Make no mistake, Dr Packman will brook no dissent, from any level. He's even got rid of Authority members, so what chance do the employees have. Regarding salaries, you only have to look at the remuneration for the recently-advertised post of Head of Planning - £47K. That is about £20K short of what a Local Authority Head of Planning might expect, but, in local government, one planning officer would be expected to deal with the same number of applications per year as the 11 members of the BA Planning Department deal with.

May I point out that the whistle-blowers who blew the whistle have been removed. Those who are left tend to keep their heads down, such is Packman's control

As far as I can ascertain, the last survey that included private boat owners was conducted during August and September 2014, with the results published in January 2015. I suggest any data obtained then is well out-of-date. I have attached a copy of the results, the reference to the tolls being only 10% of overall costs is on page 19. Fewer than 10% of registered private owners reponded to the survey. The numbers on page 7 are interesting, with half the PBO respondents owning boats less than 25ft long, and 72% having a boat less than 34ft long. The system for calculating the level of tolls was radically changed in 2016, resulting in smaller boats paying less and larger boats paying substantially more. Thus the answer to what proportion the tolls make to the overall costs is likely to be very different now. The tolls increase for the 2015 season was 1.7%. Yes 1.7%. Given the swingeing increases that have been imposed since then, I fail to see how John Packman can continue to use a figure that is so demonstrably inaccurate. Stakeholder-Surveys-Analysis-Appendix-1.pdf

The Acme Thunderer sounds nothing like the whistle attached to a life jacket and, bearing in mind the bridges that are most often used (Wroxham and Ludham) have vehicles passing over them, it will never be mistaken for a car horn. The purpose of the sound signal is to attract attention and it certainly does that.

The COLREGS don't apply on the Broads. Navigation Byelaw 5: "The Collision Regulations as hereinafter defined shall not apply in any waters to which these Byelaws apply."

‘Whistle’ is defined in the byelaws as “…an efficient whistle, siren horn or other sound signalling appliance capable of producing such blasts as are prescribed in the Byelaws.“ I’ve used an Acme Thunderer for years and, believe me, it is louder than the puny single-tone horns fitted to many boats.

Where is the incontrovertible proof? Navigation Bye Law 87 says: "An act necessary for the proper execution of his duty by an Officer of the Authority (or by any person acting on the instructions of an Officer of the Authority) shall not be deemed an offence against these Byelaws." The photo doesn't explain WHY the ranger was moored in such a position. Nor does the innuendo.

I don't know whether the recipients of the letter were those who mudweight on the broad or the ones who trespass moor along the Ant, but five boats belonging to the latter have just moved onto Sutton Staithe (yes, the bit with the water and electricity). The shooting-oneself-in-the-foot season is well and truly open.

Can you really not see the differences? Gt Yarmouth/Norwich both side-on moorings tidal flow can make mooring difficult as can the tidal range dedicated staff whose prime function is the safety of the boaters practical advice and assistance given (e.g. which way to head into mooring, taking ropes ashore and assistance in setting ropes to account for tidal range) both are closed when unmanned during the winter months Safety is clearly a factor in the provision of attendants Ranworth stern-on moorings no tidal flow and very little tidal range staff's primary function is to deal with customers in the tourist information centre and drive the trip boat. Moorers come a poor third in the list the 'mooring assistant' is not expected to have much expertise in boat handling and can only take ropes once the stern of the boat is almost touching the staithe i.e the difficult (but not dangerous) manoeuvre of reversing between two moored boats has already been accomplished. Tales are told that they don't even take ropes and assist with tying up, simply hold their hands out for the mooring fee will remain open during the winter months when the TIC is closed, which proves there is no safety requirement for there to be an attendant. That is just a red herring to get more money to prop up the flat-lined government grant.

Therefore, whether or not it is a historic boat is completely irrelevant. It is exempt simply because the bye laws regarding the discharge of "polluting matter" (in this case, human faeces and urine) don't apply to such vessels, no matter how old they are. But thank you for providing that information. I wouldn't like to think that users of 'historic' motor cruisers might think they could just dump their dumps overboard, as your original post seemed to suggest.

I believe the quotation is from the BSS requirements (please correct me if I'm wrong) and only relates to the nature of the fittings, not the discharge of waste. The byelaws which prohibit the discharge of "polluting matter" applies to "any craft using mechanical power as the principal means of propulsion", which would include electrical propulsion. There are exceptions for "vessels which ordinarily proceed to seaward beyond the Port of Great Yarmouth", but I doubt whether the electrically propelled vessel mentioned by the OP would be one of those.

Really? So you discharge human waste into the Broads, and suggest you are exempt but can't substantiate that claim. Seem that you don't care, either, that you are causing such pollution (not as much as the water companies, but every little helps).

I'm always willing to learn, so where does the exemption for 'historic boats' from putting human waste into the Broads come from? Nothing in the extant byelaws give such an exemption.

If you value your health, or your life even, do not consider the cost. A hat alone will not give sufficient protection. A high SF cream (SF50) should also be used and keep out of direct sunlight when possible (difficult for those who like to take their holidays in the Med). Remember, tanning is the body trying to protect itself. Read this, from the Australian Government (and they know a thing or two about sunshine) https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/sun-protection-hats Also take a look at this leaflet. The photos are of my face during the treatment. It hurts, believe me! Efudix-leaflet--with-pictures-.pdf

Meantime, you have fallen into the trap of believing that the Broads Authority decisions are made on a rational, or even legal, basis. I wish you luck in getting the answers to your questions if that is your view. That you find it necessary to ask why this and why that is an indication that I would be wasting my time in giving any more explanations.

Statute law overcomes private arrangements. But if the staithe went back into private hands, the covenant would still be of effect. Is that strictly true? Yes, it is. There is a legal principle "For the individual citizen, everything which is not forbidden is allowed; but for public bodies, and notably government, everything which is not allowed is forbidden." [Sir John Laws]. That was somewhat negated by the Localism Act 2011 which gave local authorities a ‘general power of competence - “A local authority has power to do anything that individuals generally may do.” However, while the Broads Authority is considered to be a local authority for certain limited functions (e.g. planning) it is NOT included in the definition of ‘local authority’ for the purposes of the general power of competence. This means they can only act in accordance with the legal powers bestowed upon them. In this example, if the bye laws, or any statute, don’t grant the power to impose a mooring charge, then it cannot be imposed. Regarding the restriction on certain boats, no, they cannot discriminate in this way. Navigation Bye Law 59(1) says “The master of a vessel shall not moor the vessel at any place where the Authority has prohibited mooring by a Notice displayed at or near that place." That is a blanket ban. It cannot be used to allow some vessels to moor while prohibiting other from so doing. I had this argument with John Packman over the mooring at Beccles that was ‘reserved’ for vessels too tall to navigate the bridge. He tried to justify the discrimination with this bye law. The LGO disagreed with him and agreed with me! It is possible to over-think these situations. In law, words have their usual meaning, unless specifically defined in the statute in which they are used. Trying to winkle out every possible meaning or scenario is simply counter-productive.

At the time the covenant was agreed by the parties, the staithe was in private hands. When the Broads Authority obtained it in 2003, it passed into the hands of a public authority. The covenant is a civil agreement between consenting parties. The 1995 bye laws, made under the 1988 Act, take precedence, so the 24 mooring restriction trumps the covenant. So regardless of any interpretation of the covenant, mooring is limited to 24 hrs maximum. But the bye laws do not allow for the imposition of a mooring fee.