senator

Probably true then Peter, as to the land around it not coming under BA control, do I really need to say Mutford lock. Empire building isn't about what you have it is about what you want.

This was the one I was thinking about

They don't own the bankside properties in the BA area now, doesn't stop them collecting money from them. Plans I have seen for the third crossing show a barrage with a double bridge and lock, may be just artists impression though and the reality may be nothing like.

I think Baitrunner and JM may have touched on why the lock is so important to someone in the BA. In the short term it is a £1 million liability but if Dave makes good on his election promises then the third crossing is going to leave a lump of prime development land between Mutford and what will become the new salt side. Not only that but Mutford won't even be needed once the barrage and lock go in. Not saying for one minute this has anything to do with empires of course.

I agree they should leave it outside, as long as ABP can be forced to properly maintain it, hence my initial thoughts about the BA being better advised to spend the money on legal proceedings to force ABP to do so. Boundary wise though what happens if ABP decide to leave it open. Won't make much difference to lake loathing, guessing it will make a hell of a lot of difference to the Broads, for this reason the BA could with possible justification argue it should be under their control. The lock forms one of the banks to Oulton Broad which do come under the BA executive area so at least one set of gates does fall within the area."(b)the banks of the waterways which make up those stretches" If it is under BA control then whether people like it or not the money must be spent to maintain it. I know personally to 5 people that have moved from the Broads to the other side of the lock due to unreliability of operation so lets say £2500 per year in tolls, I also know to a number of people who didn't visit the Broads this year for the same reason, resulting in not just loss of visitor tolls but also spend in the local area. If I know to these people personally then how much more money is being lost from the BA pocket? Dave, my insurance doesn't end at Mutford lock but the map provided to show the executive area By JM appears to run to the road, which crosses after the lock. I'm sure this is just the BA claiming a little bit more.

They Shouldn't but if a certain person insists on bringing it under the control of the BA then it becomes as much a part of the Broads infrastructure as anything else and the fact that some can't use it is irrelevant in its costings. If you wish to use it then get a boat that can, in exactly the same way that if others want to go North they should get a boat that fits under the bridges. I don't know to anyone with a boat that won't fit under the bridges that moans about paying the whole toll but already have found quite a few who think that they shouldn't pay for the lock if they can't use it. How can the lock be considered outside of the BA's executive area if it is the responsibility of the BA by choice? Surely it is no less part of the Broads than the rest of the banks to Oulton Broad

As I said, in my opinion the BA should be no where near it, they can't afford to do it properly, but if A quarter of the boats that used it reside on the Broads paying an average of say £450 a year to use half the system then you could argue 50% of their tolls are supporting the rest of the infrastructure so around £90k plus the 10k taken or 12 years to cost neutral. If those who don't use Mutford Lock feel they shouldn't pay for it, why should the boats that don't fit under Yarmouth pay to maintain the Northern Broads when they can't use them?

I would agree that the BA should be no where near Mutford lock but if they take it on they need to take it on and pay for it to work properly. IMHO ABP would be far better placed to have bought the lock up to standard although without legal pressure to do so I have no idea why they would. Maybe the BA would have been better off not trying to expand their empire further and instead mounting a proper legal challenge to force ABP to bring the lock back up to standard. As for the lock being a short cut, where to? if you lock through you need to tie up with the road bridge at Lowestoft and then Haven Bridge to get back in. Running at sea is generally hugely more expensive than on the rivers so going out the lock and up will usually not only take far longer than going round the rivers but will cost far more as well. Going through the lock has a transit fee of £12 each way and most of the time they can fit in 2 boats, so that is £24 each time the lock is operated. May not cover the cost completely but as most boats that use it can't get under the Yarmouth bridges then the money not spent up North should be more than enough to make up the shortfall.

You've bought a sailing boat with a 50 hp outboard on the back?

Don't want to really get into the aggressive side of this so not going to continue to push but, take a step back and look at this from a non boater view point. Consider that the Broads is a leisure location that is used by a diverse selection of people, which includes Sail, Motor, Fishing etc. No one activity should be considered more important than another so should not be given precedence, with obvious common sense exceptions such as boats need to moor on limited moorings and as such take priority in mooring locations. There are plenty of open expanses of water around the area called Broads and many of these are deep enough across their entire width to provide a race area for sail even allowing for a clear passage for non racing boats (power and sail), this provides lots of locations for those that wish to race a sailing boat without the need for others to have to alter everything that they are doing to accommodate them. As for fishing maybe stretches of water where a 12' clearance from the banks for any vessel is provided? Putting yourself in the position of a leisure area manager surely it makes sense to try and accommodate all without introducing collision situations. Yes I know tradition and all that but could you imagine what a great spectacle the 3RR would be if that was one of a very few opportunity's to race on the rivers each year. I'm guessing the spectators would turn out in droves, river racing would be protected and without the issue of innocent bystanders being hit or scared to death as the river areas in use would be closed to all other traffic. I know it won't happen but it was just my idea of common sense.

I sailed as a kid and personally decided it wasn't the boating I wished to do but each to their own. I would agree with an earlier post that there is absolutely no justification for racing of any kind on the rivers, with the possible exception of a couple of majors a year for which the rivers should be closed while the race is in the location. Maybe the 3 rivers and a new one for motor boats, looking forward to entering the cruiser class for motor boats. As for racing on Broads, why oh why can't the course layers just leave a clear passage for boats that wish to pass. The power boat organizers have to do it so why should the sail people be any different? Adoption of the above would solve 85% of the problems, if you want to get rid of the rest you need to look across the North sea to see what common sense approach they take, sail with the wind, motor against it. May not be traditional but then I don't see many red flags walking in front of motor cars either, even in Norfolk.

I really do feel for the organizers, the exhibitors and the fair. It is devastating to have this two years on the trot but I have to ask whether continuing to charge £6 at the door when the weather conditions suggest that people are unlikely to stay more than an hour is a wise business decision? Maybe if the price had been dropped to £2 per person people would have been more inclined to don a coat and support the event for an hour. At least some money would still have been raised.

Hang about this sounds like a Gin Palace to me? Don't know the exact set up in the boat you are talking about but if it is through an inverter rather than a generator, which I'm guessing it is, and assuming there is enough power for the GHD's, I would also make sure that the engine was running during use or you may suffer from warm beer syndrome. Alternatively only use while plugged into shore power.

Brooms and WRC are the only riverside ones, there is a shell station behind Marina Quays but as to all the way north I am afraid I can't help.

Good Point Peter, why couldn't they say something that simple in day skipper? could never work out which port the channel buoy's were worked to along the coast. Still think leaving someone who has never seen a boat before to work it out on the Broads, even with that fantastically simple piece of information, is asking a lot, would they really know enough to work out the direction of flow on all the rivers? Arrows on the post showing which side to stay would be far easier.

Alan, have a look at your chart let, especially the spur off the river to port which is still buoyed red to port, despite not being the source. I was taught that the marks were from sea to land, which I guess as the port is normally landfall was given as the port. No doubt your description is correct as buoyed to the source but even your chartlet confuses that. With Breydon being the confluence of three Rivers and the Sea and the ability to approach from sea in two different directions, albeit via a lock, even armed with the information that the bouyage is red to port and green to starboard to the source the question of which source still exists as a possible cause of confusion.

Green red argument does not hold a great deal of water unless you know what port you are heading for, If the Port is Yarmouth then technically the posts are the wrong way round. I think they are set to the port of Norwich hence they are the way they are but if you enter at Lowestoft (from Sea) then continue to make your way to the port of Gt Yarmouth the posts would be Green to starboard, which would put you heavily in the mud. Forget the internationally recognised symbols for Breydon, there are too many ways to read them. stick big arrows on the posts and at least there would be no excuse.

Saily, Have no idea about the publican, my comment was a disguised side swipe at someone in the BA but was out of place and unhelpful so I apologise.

Your kidding, you mean he is no longer at the Broads Authority, at least the pub will be easy to spot, it is the only one with multiple signs, the last one claiming to be a supermarket as this should attract a larger client base.

We are the other side of the bridge to the quay at the Marina, the quay is where we go for entertainment, to be fair most of that is provided by hired MoBo's and fast moving water, wouldn't like my boat to be anywhere near that

We are at Reedham Poppy.

Robin I think you have it licked, Get rid of Wroxham and Potter bridges and while we are at it the ones at Yarmouth and Ludham, there really shouldn't be a bridge over the Broads anywhere that gives less than 16' of clearance. Would also mean that Norfolk would gain some much needed hills. As long as boats keep getting bigger and higher and deeper there will be the surprising coincidence that they hit bridges and run aground more often. If the Broads were serious about attracting boats then they would change the bridges but then wouldn't the canals do the same? If you buy or hire a boat that doesn't fit then tough, if the bits that are supposed to swing or lift don't then this is a different matter. As for signage, an LED readout based on a float to give river level and available airdraft would be cheap and easy, that is until someone in a sailing boat felt there was more wind 3 inches from it and hits it. the pilot service pick up? is it really that difficult in this day and age. phone up, pick up the pilot at the quay. why do you have to have mooring spaces, all you need is a watch.

It's a fair point but there is no reason for the mooring we are in to be vulnerable other than having to wait for the bridge but given there is a huge area of water right behind us at the confluence of the new cut and the Yare there is plenty of space. No more reason to be hit where we are than anywhere else. The person who was in our spot before also got hit twice on his previous riverside mooring at WRC, so it would appear anywhere on the river is vulnerable.

I would agree Poppy about hire sailors probably being more knowledgable than a MoBo hire but there is no obvious difference in the space left or the impact occurance between private or hire when it comes to sail

Labrador, we have changed our boat and it no longer fits inside the marina. Given we have had to pay another toll the cost of paying for another marina was just too much. That said it is a lovely spot and the boat is big enough to ride out all but the very worst of the wash from speeding boats but are you saying all the banks should be free of moored boats so sailors don't have to miss them?