Soundings

Great place Stamford. We lived close (ish) in a village called Glapthorn, just outside of Oundle - in a Collyweston tiled cottage. We then moved to Norfolk but I do miss that area.

It really is a county of two parts, as you say Speedtriple. The Wolds I love; that other bit is really not to my liking though ;-)

Yes, nice county indeed. The LIncolnshire wolds.

I think you are right, JM. Have looked at a couple of ex hire boats as potential "buys"in my time and, well let's just say there were better options available!

Ah yes, The Royal Croner - nice course. Was a member once

There you have it, Iain. The answer to improving the local (Broadland) infrastructure is to hold the Open at Yarmouth Golf Club

But are the pubs increasing, decreasing or staying the same in number

Had the same problem and opted for private lense replacement surgery - I wore contact lenses anyway and they were beginning to get on my nerves. The rusults are absolutely brilliant best money I have ever spent...apart from the boat

This makes interesting reading. Wonder if it will impact the Falgate and Broadshaven. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/11820026/Punch-Taverns-strikes-deal-to-sell-158-pubs.html

Welcome back, Strowy, we missed you

Ah! The Vintage Boat Company eh. I remember looking at a boat they had for sale there. Never realised they ran the moorings although I never thought they belonged to the pub.

As thy say "Norwich is a fine City". Although I would say it is a very fine city. Pleased you enjoyed it

Fait point JM, but they are all things that have gone awry. Re the big boats, I mention that as it would not be a bad thing for the BA to get to grips with the issue. From what you say this is on the cards so a big thumbs up for that.

And I say again because there is a risk of that balance being skewed. So rather than upset it we should make sure we have an infrastructure that maintains it. I am not so sure I would call the loss of all those moorings at South Waltham Broad (Fleet Dyke) an improvement. I would not call the butchering of all those trees and shrubs above Potter Bridge in the name of flood defences an improvement. And I would not call the ever increasing numbers of larger high tech craft requiring power points an improvement. There are many other example good and bad - there is a way to go yet. But that is just my take.

I think it is more about not letting the balance get skewed, Littlesprite. There have been some great improvements but as in all things not everything is for the better. And some things might actually help the area generally and not just the waterborne activity. I genuinely do worry about the quest for business expansion and profit and the long term effects that can have. Incidentally, the NW&D Canal Trust is apparently working with the canal owners and land owners to regenerate. That presumably means it has nothing to do with the BA? I can remember going up to the lock in a small Mayland cruiser and hammering the Roach. That was some years ago now though.

If you say so. The fact that there are four months a year when the Ant is solid with boats is incidental then? Not in my books. But in all seriousness conservation and silting up are not necessarilyhe same thing are they? It could just be bad management or an ownership issue Does the BA have powers over the areas you are referring - not sure what the divides are re the NW & D Canal nor above Coltishall lock but the locks probably leak and that will certainly drop levels. The same re Geldeston, who is responsible for the lock and beyond. I do know there is a canal trust restoring the NW&D Canal but where its responsibility starts and stops I do not know. Conservation is preserving where preserving is a realistic option. I would not condemn or support the BA in the areas you refer for I do not know the legal position. Maybe some one can enlighten me? It would be nice to see the canals restored though, I do agree.

I don't disagree with that at all. All I am saying is it could be beneficial if the word "conservation" could be used sensibly and this seems unlikely. Given that we have no alternative to the BA but I think they have a problem being impartial given the funding. I would prefer NP status if Sandford could be applied in a reasonable way that benefits all. However for some reason that I do not understand it appears that Sandford and Navigation are in constant opposition.

There are I am told about 13000 boats register on the Broads and growing. It often seems like they are all Up North. It really is hectic or can be unless you are one of the hardy soles who do not mind crowds. It is exacerbated by the reduction in mooring places, especially wild moorings. There is also the increasing demand for more power points and with boats getting bigger and bigger. Have no idea what the numbers were 40 years ago but I bet there was a lot more wild moorings and the boats would have been simple and designed to work with the environment. As JM has said, if a lot of the boats could be encouraged to move South it would help. But they remain North and so do the bigger hire fleets I believe. I love boats but not crowds, at least not all the time, and mud weighting is not always an option or desirable

Dajen, I thought you had gone! However, If you accept, as I do, that conservation is about maintaining, protecting and improving what is there in a way that maintains a fair balance, then yes I stand guilty as charged. But then I have already said that. What I do not want to see, and there is some evidence of it, is one interest group getting a bigger share of the asset to the point where it starts to damage that asset.

Now that is rubbish. I am certainly not single interest. If I am perhaps you would be so kind as to let me know what that interest is? Please do share. I said "Or maybe that is what the broads already is supposed to be now" which infers that we may need no further legislation. But personally I still favour Sandford as a general principle and I see conserving the Broads as conserving its unique character in terms of usage, culture and wildlife - the balance is critical. Does the Sandford Principle really stop that, is that the intention, or is it management's potential interpretation that is the concern? You can justifiably argue that we do not need Sandford as the legislation covering the Broads provides the protection we need. I do not disagree, except that I am not so sure the protection is really there. In any event the NP label is rather nice from the tourism perspective; but only if it does not destroy the heritage. So if a concern that the Broads is properly and fairly cared for is single interest I happily stand guilty as charged.

It is a great feeling though, is it not?

Dajen, I used the words "maybe" and "special" as opposed to a current NP varient. It is my firm help belief that anything can be tweaked if Govts put their mind to it - nothing is set in stone. It really is not beyond the wit of man to progress an idea because it does not suite a specific scenario. It is called evolution. And there are many ways to dress that change up. Do not the Scots have a "version" of the Sandford principal? There is no reason to apologise...oh yes there is I really do object to your assumption that I do not understand.

Some good reasoning there JM . Taken per available mile the Broads are not cheap but as a debit to the bank account I still think they are cheaper than some, without offering the spread. So yes not such good value on that basis. No I do not believe the Broads should just be there for the "well healed". But there are more and more of us humans on this planet with more disposable income. Surely the Broads cannot be expected to accommodate this ever increasing demand. As you say there are only 150 miles. I really do take your point about the smaller boats. So cannot the tolls be adjusted to favour them and deter the big stuff? I would not have a problem with that and it could still be combined with an overall max number of registrations if necessary. Should mention, I know a few small boats that are no longer on the Broads. These are not because of cost but because of congestion/lack of facilities at peak times. And I most certainly agree, NPs are not (or should not be) just about conservation. I have always believed and understood that to be the case.

I believe the Broads is a very cheap waterway toll wise if contrasted to the EA and CRT. I agree big money (big business) will kill the Broads without doubt but then so will over usage. If pricing is not the answer then a limit on boat numbers and type must be. A tighter control in respect of Broads based business expansion might also be welcome - both in terms of whether the expansion is warranted in a particular area or at all. Must admit JM I cannot see how increasing tolls will have an adverse impact on the Broads. At least not in the same way as big business and development thereof. Either way these are all tools that are available but they do require deployment by capable individuals. Therein lies the problem I guess.