Paladin

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.

The news item can be seen here https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2018-05-04/catch-up-watch-the-most-recent-edition-of-itv-news-anglia?fbclid=IwAR1DaYg4DQgsZ5nmPCpcZDvyZWhy0ZNkka0LoIofQLqk0Y91ZipdYjEHE3o Only for the next 9 hours or so, and only for UK viewers.

The Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association has around 1,000 individual members and a few dozen affiliated organisations. Having a subscription model and their own web site seems to work for them. The Broads Society, too, has a similar model, but is a registered charity. Neither seems troubled by members trying to impose their views, but both of these organisations appear to have become moribund over the past few years, lacking the vitality needed to hold the Broads Authority to account. BRAG has got a bit of catching up to do. I don’t know what options they will be discussing, but, in my view, the discussion forum format simply won’t work.

The group hasn't imploded, nor has it been closed. The Facebook group has been paused, i.e. no new posts or comments, while other options are considered. Existing content remains. The BRAG committee will be meeting tomorrow night (Wednesday) to consider those options. Facebook was never going to be a long-term platform for the group. Simply too lawless.

Lulu, the situation becomes more and more convoluted. When the agreement was made for the claimant to have the sole use of the 24hr mooring, he became responsible for the maintenance, or so I was told by the BA. The senior planning officer's subsequent report to the Planning Committee said, among other things, that a 99-yr lease had been agreed between the BA and the third party, and signed by both parties. After the withdrawal of the doomed planning application, I asked for a copy of the lease. I was then told that it did not exist and had never existed. I presume that the question of maintenance would have been covered by the (non-existent) lease. So now, it's anybody's guess.

No, it doesn't actually make sense. 1. The mooring subject of the covenant was located where the large black boatshed now stands. Wherries used the parish staithe, which is where the wherry Hathor is on display during the summer. 2. The covenant dates from 1964, long after the last wherry ceased trading. 3. It is only a claimed right. There is nothing in the covenant that suggests the right was passed on to any successors of the original beneficiary. The Broads Authority chose not to challenge the claim, instead giving up one of the public 24hr moorings, which was provided and maintained out of the tolls income. 4. The Authority initially failed to consider that planning consent was needed, failed to find a way of overcoming the objections that were made against the retrospective application they submitted and withdrew the application, and have failed to remove the boat that is moored, in my view, unlawfully i.e. no planning consent for change of use and very much over the 24hr bye law restriction.

1. Several years ago, I conducted a considerable amount of research into Johnny Crowe’s Staithe and published the results on NBN. The first thing to reiterate is that the place where the heron is standing is NOT the staithe. It is simply a trespass mooring at the mouth of Crome’s Dyke. The remains of the actual staithe are about 100 yards along the dyke, where it takes a right-angled turn. Back in 1978 Catfield Parish Council laid claim to the staithe and there was a Commons Commissioner’s hearing. The commissioner’s decision was that "In the absence of any evidence that any other person could be the owner, I am not satisfied that any person is the owner of the land, and it will therefore remain subject to protection under section 9 of the Act of 1965." He was referring to the Commons Registration Act 1965, section 9 of which says "Where the registration under section 4 of this Act of any land as common land has become final but no person is registered under this Act or the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936 as the owner of the land, then, until the land is vested under any provision hereafter made by Parliament, any local authority in whose area the land or part of the land is situated may take such steps for the protection of the land against unlawful interference as could be taken by an owner in possession of the land, and may (without prejudice to any power exercisable apart from this section) institute proceedings for any offence committed in respect of the land." So the parish council can protect the staithe as an owner might do, but is not actually the owner of it. 2. The trespass mooring where the heron was standing is, however, parish land, as is the river bank adjoining it, heading upstream. It is not a parish mooring, formal or otherwise. The Parish Council have, in the past, requested long-term moorers to move on, and it is to the PC that any comments/complaints should be addressed. 3. The toll checking facility is not to be relied upon. While it gives an indication of whether or not a vessel is tolled, if an owner has difficulty paying the full toll, an arrangement can be made for the amount of the toll to be paid in instalments. Until such time as the full amount has been paid, which might well be at the very end of the toll year, the vessel will show up as ‘Toll Unpaid’. The rangers are very well aware of these untolled, or partially-tolled boats. The ultimate sanction is prosecution (expensive) and you can’t get blood out of a stone. Unlike CaRT, who can remove unlicensed boats from their canals, the Authority has no authority to remove untolled boats from the Broads.

I am having difficulty with what the Online Safety Bill actually says when compared with what the NBN official line is. It must be remembered that it is only a Bill at the moment and there are no legal sanctions available against anyone who doesn’t comply with it. It is also liable to further amendment before it passes into law. While it is as well to be prepared, members are being criticised and posts are being edited and/or removed, supposedly because of what the Bill contains (but the Act might not). But while there have been numerous references to the Bill as a reason for the moderation, what has been noticeably lacking is any specific reference to a clause in the Bill which would justify such moderation. The latest offering, in justification of editing the content of a photograph of a heron, is simply to refer members to the Online Safety Bill, with a vague reference to the protection of privacy. This is what the Bill says about the protection of privacy, in clause 19: (1) This section sets out the duties about freedom of expression and privacy which apply in relation to regulated user-to-user services as indicated by the headings. (2) When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law. (3) When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant to the use or operation of a user-to-user service (including, but not limited to, any such provision or rule concerning the processing of personal data)… This is repeated in section 29 and in other clauses throughout the Bill. I would simply make the following comments: 1. I have seen very little enthusiasm for the implementation of the clause (repeated several times in the Bill) “When deciding on, and implementing, safety measures and policies, a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law.“ As far as I have seen, none of the moderated or removed posts have breached any existing law, so freedom of expression is being suppressed unnecessarily. 2. The clauses that say “…protecting users from a breach of any statutory provision or rule of law concerning privacy that is relevant…” make it clear there must be a breach of an existing statutory provision or rule of law before any action is necessary. The right of privacy stems not from this Bill but from the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8), which was introduced in 1953. So to claim the Bill gives any right to privacy is simply wrong. The conduct of this forum since its creation hasn’t invoked any sanctions for breaching Article 8 and there have been very robust discussions, and even ‘naming and shaming’ (horrible expression used, IMO, to make raising a complaint seem unacceptable), so why should it be any different in the future? I fear a forum haunted by fear of offending will wither, due to lack of contributors.

I don't intend to argue law with you, but the sections of your post I have emboldened show how easy it is to misunderstand. 'Near enough' is never near enough for law. There are usually strict definitions and specific points to prove. If an action causing damage or injury was judged to be deliberate, it would come under criminal, not civil, law. I didn't make any reference to 'deliberate' though. The question is 'was the action, or inaction, negligent?' In practical terms, any such incident is judged by the criteria I have set out. There is no such thing as 'usual' when it comes to these incidents. They must always be judged on the specific circumstances. What this thread has highlighted, though, is how dangerous it can be to rely on forum lawyers. What might be very well-meaning advice could well be totally wrong, and I include myself in that.

Not exactly. If the damage, or even serious injury, was caused accidentally, the 'victim' is very unlikely to get any recompense. An accident is an incident which no-one could have reasonably foreseen and for which no-one should be held responsible. It is very different if negligence can be proved. This is a concept that goes back 80-odd years, to the case of Donoghue v Stevenson. 'Negligence' is based on whether you do something which you can reasonably foresee will injure someone else (or someone else's property) who is likely to be affected by your actions, or your lack of action. Hence the importance given to risk assessments. It also explains the proliferation of No Mooring, No Swimming, No Diving, No Doing-Anything-Else signs.

It's remarks like that which lead me to stop posting. But I could not let the misinformation about insurance companies never resisting legitimate claims go unchallenged, given my recent personal experience. I'll calm down and not bother you any more. Well done.

Well, you do now, unless you’re inferring that my claim is not legitimate - despite all the independent evidence.

I can promise you that that is not the case. 14 months ago my moored boat was hit by a hire boat. My wife was on board and was injured, and is still suffering the results of that injury, as well as the boat being damaged. The other boat didn’t stop. Despite very clear video evidence of the whole incident (dash cams fitted fore and aft), three independent witness statements, a full admission from the person helming at the time (once he was traced) and a written warning being issued by the Broads Authority, the very-well known, and ‘prestigious’ Broads hire company is STILL contesting the claim. Fortunately, I have legal assistance insurance, so I have engaged a firm of solicitors to represent me. Otherwise, I hate to think what level of legal costs I would have incurred by now.

Purportedly? That suggests the report of the 'noises' might not be true. The source of the information was the minutes of the relevant PC meeting. It's a pity that concern is now only being expressed on here because a favourite mooring has been adversely occupied. If the same fervour had been focussed on getting the Broads Authority to fulfill their obligation to keep the whole dyke open, as part of the navigation, the PC may have been able to move forward on this more swiftly. Dr Packman has said that keeping the dyke open for navigation is not a priority. Today a small dyke, tomorrow...? For some reason, I cannot upload either a pdf or docx of the minutes, so this is the relevant part of the minutes of that meeting: MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF CATFIELD PARISH COUNCIL HELD at 7pm ON WEDNESDAY 7th October 2020 via ZOOM. Attendance: Mr Beckley, Mr Filgate, Mr Harris, Mr Hill, Ms Johnson, Mr Jordan, Mr Read, Mrs Wickens and Dr Bacon in the chair, Mrs Millership and Mrs Grove-Jones (District Councillors), Richard Price (County Councillor), Paul Savage (Broads Society) and four parishioners. Apologies for Absence: Mrs Walker and Sasha Walton (Mushroom site). Dr Bacon proposed that the Agenda items relating to Paul Savage’s presentation on Johnny Crowe Staithe should be covered next. Broads Society – Paul Savage. Dr Bacon sent round a map showing Johnny Crowe Staithe. Mr Geoff Bishop (a parishioner) had sent an email regarding this matter. Mr Bishop commented about the Broads Authority and the lack of any clearance on the dyke at Crowe’s staithe and also mentioned that about four years ago on the Broads Forum there was a conversation in October 2016 about the Crowe’s Staithe where somebody had written about the staithe and the state it was in, unnavigable, John Packman, Chief Executive of the BA responded to that comment and several things which indicated that the BA would be supportive, if not financially supportive, about doing something to it. Paul Savage stated that Mr Hill keeps a boat near the top end of the staithe and Mr Savage understood that this is done in order to make sure that the BA does not suggest that the planning use has been abandoned. However, getting in and out is very difficult because probably twenty or thirty years ago there had been a line if trees, they are all now coppice stools so instead of a single trunk there are probably six or seven and many of the stems have grown out towards the light across the boat dyke and that makes it very difficult for anybody to get in and out unless they take pair of loppers. Dr Bacon clarified that this is along the north side of the boat dyke, marked orange on the plan, the narrow strip where the line of trees is growing and obstructing the boat dyke. Paul Savage stated that there are approximately twenty trees all of which have been coppiced between Mr Hill’s boat and the entrance, it is quite noticeable that the north bank at the entrance has worn away due to a lot of use by passing boats which stop there for the day Mr Savage had been told by Phil Heath who has worked for the BA for many years that twenty-five years ago it used to look as it does on the Ordnance Survey map. Mr Savage suggested that the Parish Council should bear in mind that if it is made obviously feasible for mooring purposes it will be necessary to have a notice to make sure that people realise that it belongs to the Parish Council otherwise it will be colonised probably by squatters quickly. In between each of the coppiced stool there is a tendency for the top soil to have washed away and it even make the trees appear to be growing out of the bottom of the dyke, they are not actually, if a stick is poked in the water it is only about a foot deep and on this occasion Mr Savage suggests taking the brash, the small twiggy pieces that arise when trees are pruned or cut down, pack them together tightly and pin them in place and that acts as a sieve as the tide comes it in it should collect sediment and the wood will eventually rot. It should be packed down a little higher than the height of the riverbank or the boat dyke bank and then over time it should turn back into top soil and it can be used conveniently to get on and off a boat. Dr Bacon pointed out that Mr Savage is chairman of Broadsword which is the part of the Broads Society which carries out practical work of mainly tree and scrub clearance along navigable waterways. Paul Savage stated that they have been doing this for about twenty-five years but latterly for insurance reasons, the Broads Society do have insurance, apart from this particular project they have not considered doing anything for anybody other than the BA in recent times but it is the same function. Mr Savage suggested to Dr Packman, when he was asking for people to make suggestions for useful projects, would the authority like to do this work and he declined to get involved obviously because of money but if the Broads Society do the work there is not any financial cost to the BA. Dr Bacon stated that John Packman does state on the Forum an important point which is as far as the BA is concerned tress along the riverbank or along a navigable waterway are the responsibility of the landowner, that the BA is supportive of keeping them clear but it is not their job. This is where hopefully Broadsword can do the necessary work on behalf of the Parish Council. Mr Savage stated that the only issue the Parish Council ought to satisfy themselves about is that if this was hundred acres of woodland for example the Forestry Commission should be approached for permission for a licence if you wanted to fell the hundred acres of woodland and they probably would not give the licence. Mr Savage did not think a felling licence is required here, he is not suggesting clear felling, it is more a case of pruning but just to be on the safe side, as suggested in correspondence to Mr Filgate, it would not do any harm to pick up the phone and have a chat with the local office just to run it past them and make sure that they are happy. Other than that there are no licences that are required, the BA does this sort of work but they spend months going through all sorts of paperwork to get Natural England to give permission. For a private landowner on a small scales Mr Savage did not think that is necessary. Dr Bacon stated that this is clearance of the line of the boat dyke, the top end where the large staithe area is John Packman again said on the Forum that he would not be opposed to the idea of having that staithe completely restored but it would be a very expensive job and one that the BA could not prioritise but he did regard the boat dyke as being part of the public navigation up to at least as far as the staithe. Mr Savage stated that if the Parish Council could generate some income from charging people to moor then gradually over time that would provide the Parish Council with some resources and some restoration work could be done on the staithe itself from a historical point of view that would be an attractive proposition, but that is in the future. Mr Harris asked firstly if Mr Savage owned the land what would he do, is there a possibility that this could be converted into an income generator and secondly one of the concerns that has been raised is that the BA would not allow you for planning and other reasons to put in berths in there which could then be let, is there a problem with the BA for doing that? Mr Savage replied there is always a problem with the BA as mentioned in his email to Mr Filgate earlier, he did not know if people were aware that there was a planning application at the New Cut which was dealt with during the summer in which the landowners had used their part of the New Cut for many years as a permanent mooring site until it became impossible because of the poor condition of the quay heading, not something which applies to the Parish Council because there is no quay heading but the New Cut is retained by quay heading. Eventually the landowners persuaded the Environment Agency, whose responsibility it is, to replace the quay heading because that is an engineering process they have to apply for planning permission, the BA granted it but imposed a condition that it should not be used for mooring purposes which seems to have been done in very bad faith. Subsequently an application was made successfully to remove that condition but even then the head of planning said that in the opinion of the BA there was not planning permission so she was taking away with one hand what had just been granted with the other hand. Dr Bacon thought that the answer here with the BA on this particular site is that the Parish Council could offer a combination, there could be a mixture of some let moorings and some open twenty-four hour public wild mooring which the BA is always keen to find. If the Parish Council is offering that deal of say fifty/fifty of wild public mooring and private mooring that the Parish Council let out they would probably be happy with that. Certain officers would be happy with that arrangement because they like to increase the amount of public wild mooring available. That is a very popular area for people to pull up for the night. For many years the Parish Council has let moorings so there is a long history of using part of that as moorings that are let out. Mr Harris said that given that the Parish Council probably could get some moorings in there provided it is handled properly with the BA what would Mr Savage do, would it be economically sensible to consider actually trying to restore this for some form of moorings which could be let. Mr Savage replied yes, but in the process of doing it he would suggest that the Parish Council does not do anything which could be described as building or engineering. The Authority when somebody wants to replace their quay heading, which is often timber faced, they take a very fussy attitude and they ask people to put in a planning application. If you don’t do anything beyond as what Mr Savage would describe as gardening then there is no work which requires planning permission so the only issue then would be is there an established use, as Dr Bacon had just explained there is an established use. Mr Harris stated his question was slightly different, he understood that Mr Savage was saying that Dr Bacon very helpfully suggested that the Parish Council could probably get over the planning issue. Mr Harris said his question then becomes an economic question is it sensible for the Parish Council to try and use this to generate income both generate income and to generate amenity for parishioners by creating some more berths there whilst also possibly making some more public berths for the Broads which is in all of our interests. Mr Savage replied that the answer to both questions is undoubtedly yes because especially on the northern Broads moorings are in acutely short supply and where people run mooring basins for commercial reasons they make a lot of money out of it. Mr Savage’s boat is moored at the Adventure Centre and pays for the year about £800, across the other side of the river is Cox’s boatyard where there are more facilities it would not surprise him if the bill would be double that. Dr Bacon said that this is just in the short-term, in the long-term by getting that dyke cleared the Parish Council is opening up the possibility of restoring the actual staithe end which would open up the possibility of several moorings. Mr Harris stated that this was an added bonus, then surely the question is how does the Parish Council develop an action plan with a business plan in terms of spend x to get y to take this forward. Dr Bacon replied that the first thing is to get Broadsword to clear that bank so that it is navigable and then move from there, as long as the Parish Council does not get involved with quay headings, as long as the parish Council stick to soil bank moorings we will not be running into all the technical and planning problems that go with quay heading etc. Mr Hill stated if someone could explain what would be the procedure regarding mud in the dyke because the water there particularly as you enter the dyke from the river is very fleet and the boat is normally on the mud. Mr Hill understands, but stands to be corrected, this is classed as contaminated waste. How would we go about increasing the depth of the water which would be fundamentally essential in its current condition. Dr Bacon stated that in a way that would not be the Parish Council’s problem because the boat dyke is part of the public navigation and Dr Packman said as far as he is concerned that is part of the public navigation therefore it is the BA’s duty and problem to deal with the mud, at the moment their excuse is there is no point sending a mud pump in there because there are lot of overhanging trees so once the trees are cleared there is a good case for saying this is public navigation please include it in your program of mud pumping. Mr Hill also stated that since his boat has been at Johnny Crowe’s Staithe every last thing has been stolen from it and vandalised, everything that is possible to steal has been stolen including the steering wheel. Dr Bacon asked if it was land based or waterborne crime, Mr Hill thought land based. Mr Harris clearly from what Mr Savage has said the Parish Council should go ahead and clear it but he would like to see, if someone could do this, a business plan in terms of if the Parish Council did this we get four berths or six berths and if so we could perhaps get £600 each this would give an income because it would then scope the project in a way that the Parish Council could then see how attractive it was and therefore we could then see that it develops according to a plan rather than ad hoc. Mr Harris proposed if there is someone who could do that that would be helpful, he would be happy to work with Mr Savage to try and look at the numbers. Dr Bacon asked in the meantime are councillors happy for Broadsword to go ahead with the clearing. Mr Beckley replied that if Broadsword are happy to do that work on behalf of the Parish Council he would support that. Dr Bacon stated that Mr Bishop had written to the Parish Council would he like to make a comment. Mr Bishop replied when the BESL did the flood defence improvement on the Broads Authority side, on the How Hill side of that dyke they did take out quite a lot of the silt from Chromes they used to build up the flood defences and the water depth at that stage was round about four feet deep since that happened the reeds have encroached from the BA side across the dyke and it that which is preventing a lot of the ingress because the trees have not grown that fast that is what need taking out to bring the dyke back to the width that it was when the work was done originally. Mr Bishop has photographs. Mr Bishop asked stated that Mr Hill’s boat draws more than one foot so if he can get up and down there so there is depth in the middle but a lot of obstruction is being caused by the reeds. Dr Bacon stated that if the work starts with the trees which are in the control of the Parish Council we can then start to put pressure on the BA about their aspect of it. Mr Bishop stated that the other benefit from having people moor on there it should cut the crime rate down, if there are people mooring overnight there is more discouragement for thieves to go down and take things. Mr Beckley said that a decision needs to be made, there is a proposal that Broadsword do the work for the Parish Council. Mr Filgate declared an interest as a member of Broadsword and the Broads Society, Dr Bacon stated that it was not a financial interest, but the interest was noted. Mr Harris stated that clearly there would be a majority to clear it and it would be sensible to do it this winter if we can but Mr Harris is very happy to sit down with Mr Savage to try and scope it as a business plan would that get support as well because Mr Harris thought that would actually give some sort of context to the whole thing, why are we doing this, what could we make out this, he is willing to do that. Mr Beckley commented that on a point of order, Mr Harris is quite right and Mr Beckley would back him up on that but Mr Beckley had made a proposal that Broadsword should carry out the tree clearance along the boat dyke could we have a seconder and a vote please. Mr Hill seconded the proposal with all in favour. Mr Harris proposed that he sits down with Mr Savage to scope it to see how much it could produce and how much as a financial proposition. Mr Savage stated he was happy to help on that, he had picked up what Mr Hill was saying about theft and as Mr Bishop said earlier with the idea of the public mooring there being a discouragement because it shows people are about add that to an offer to the BA telling them there are some mooring space which the Parish Council would allow overnight mooring on then they would be very keen on doing that and might even pay a modest rent. Mr Beckley seconded the motion with all in agreement. Dr Bacon stated that Mr Harris would get together with Mr Savage and possibly one or two others if they wish to get involved to discuss a business plan. Mr Hill asked if there was anything the Parish Council could do to help the team with the project. Mr Savage replied that because of the virus numbers are uncertain as to how many can be used and this affects the length of time it is going to take, if anybody wants to join in they would be welcome. Dr Bacon stated that Mr Hill and he could help logistically with regard to land access if needed. Mr Beckley went on to say that Mr Savage recommended that a notice board should be put up at the end of the dyke saying that the Parish Council own it to save squatters going there, Mr Beckley proposed that this should be done as well, Mr Filgate seconded this with all in agreement. Dr Bacon thanked Mr Savage for attending.

It's not Pelican any more. Renamed Toad some while ago. They're at the non-electric part of Sutton Staithe at the moment, probably waiting for the three on the leccy side to move (tomorrow?).

1. Straw man argument - I have never made that allegation; 2. The 'emergency' notice was rushed out after the cat was let out of the bag on social media; 3. It is a fact that there was a problem, more than one, actually, which you choose not to recognise; 4. The unsafe condition of the quay heading was known about months ago, which is why a tender went out last year. We will have to agree to disagree. You cannot see any problems, I can. Maybe it because I'm a bit closer to things, as it happens virtually in my back yard.

Do you have any inside knowledge of what went on, on which to base that assumption? It is the usual practice for a notice to be issued when any work which closes, fully or in part, any moorings. This was not done? Why not? Why was I initially informed that the partial closure of the mooring would be in place for the rest of the season? I'm pleased that you don't see a problem. Fortunately, many people did see the problem, despite the lack of transparency and communication. That only highlights the discrepancy with what the meeting last Friday was told, that negotiations had been going on during the past year. Clearly, it was longer than that. So, no, there is no clarification. And, obviously, no update to any committee in the last 16 months.

According to James Knight, even the Authority members weren’t being kept up to date.

Yes, the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 was a game changer.

As read the Wiki entry, it's the Abbey site that was sold to NAT, not the mooring. I have been given the name of a private individual as the new owner, but as I cannot verify that independently, I won't say what the name is, but it wasn't NAT.

Sorry, but with reference to exercise and recreation, the wording of the legislation, regarding leaving home is: (c) to take exercise outside... (d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation... If you look at the Interpretation section of the regulations: “public outdoor place” means an outdoor place to which the public have, or are permitted, access (whether on payment or otherwise) and includes— (a) land laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose of recreation by members of the public; (b) land which is “open country” as defined in section 59(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 F30, as read with section 16 of the Countryside Act 1968; (c) land which is “access land” for the purposes of Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 F32 (see section 1(1) of that Act); (d) any highway to which the public has access; (e) Crown land to which the public has access; So a private wet shed is neither ‘outside’ nor is it a ‘public outdoor place’.

Many would disagree. Guidance is not law, unless it is repeating what the law actually says. “What is the difference between legislation and guidance? To find out exactly what the rules are during the coronavirus pandemic, you need to look at both legislation and government guidance. Legislation sets out legal obligations and restrictions that are enforceable by law. If you do not abide by the legislation you are breaking the law. Guidance and advice is likely to be based on legislation (in which case it will be legally binding) and it might offer the best or most appropriate way to adhere to the law. The law is what you must do; the guidance might be a mixture of what you must do and what you should do.” (source: HMG ) “They [the police] have powers to enforce the law and maintain public order, but they are not empowered to enforce the government’s guidance where it is more demanding than the law.” (source: The Institute for Government )

No, there is no such power given under the covid regulations. Nor is there a requirement to give your name and address. If you were genuinely suspected of committing an offence and you refused to give your name and address, then an officer could, depending on the circumstances, arrest you, but he would have to have very good grounds for so doing. Simply refusing to give your details is not sufficient grounds, though.

Correction: It's section 16(6) of the 2009 Act, not the 1988 one.

I don’t think that is entirely accurate. In a normal year, unlike private owners who have to pay the full amount by 1 April, the hire companies are allowed to pay their tolls bill in four stages 10% in April, then 30% in May, June and July. In 2020, those stages were delayed and the final tranche was only payable on 30 November 2020. So although there might be a liability to pay the full toll once the vessel is put into hire, that liability is deferred at the discretion of the Authority. The exemption to the liability to pay a toll under certain circumstances has nothing to do with the Covid situation. It is enshrined in the 1988 Norfolk & Suffolk Broads Act, and applies equally to hire and private vessels.