riverman

I don't know the ins and out, but for some reason they don't seem to have the same quantity of manual volunteers as they used to. Possibly insurance, possibly the hand holding required when utilising volunteer labour.

Shame, I quite liked it. I now also look like a crazy person

Isn't there one buried in your yard at Statham?

Please don't get me wrong, the fact that most threads on here have a bit of BA bashing speaks more about they way they operate than the people commenting on this forum, personally I take great pleasure in tearing BA to pieces.

Not really, from what I have seen on here, most threads at some point have a bit of BA bashing as light relief at some point. Back onto to topic though, are we saying the pancake mix is adhesive for the shingles or are we cooking them to create shingles? If so, I'd recommend a slightly different mix and make American pancakes, I would imagine the thickness would help with heat loss and overall structural stability. There again, I have never known a canoe to carry a spare so I suspect you have bigger problems than the advantages and disadvantages of bicarb in pancake mix, and the inherent benefits to heat loss when making roofing shingles.

I don't know, once again we're into BA bashing but I don't think it's all as simple as that. It's difficult to say too much without giving the game away, suffice to say the BA residents, some quite senior, thought it was good what he was doing. It reminds me of our political system, BA being the party (whichever one) in power and everyone else being the opposition. The opposition can have the best idea for something that would be generally beneficial but the party in power can't be seen to take those on board in fear they'll lose face. If BA are good at one thing, it's keeping themselves in charge.

But what's wrong with that? It was there own money. No, in fact I was thinking of another private individual who we done work for. The man in question bought a swamp, had it cleared, spending quite literally hundreds of thousands in the process, just to be refused to permission to grass one of the islands. GRASS. Not some enormous house, or mooring basin. He wasn't doing it for any commercial reason, just wanted to tidy it up for himself and the other residents (including some BA workers) down the road. Apparently grass isn't natural there..... BA should be grateful for individuals like these not fight them, they are few and far between.

Exactly my point. Having done work there, (possibly without planning - woops), BA won't say too much to the National Trust or the stewards of the estate, The Buxton's. Perhaps one of the few instance where BA are forced to be cooperative. I think it's more a case of telling people it's closed to stop people descending on mass.

News to me, I wasn't aware it had anything to do with BA. I've done a fair amount of work there and always got the impression is was closed by the stewards/owners of horsey estate.

We could just ignore it, 13000+ boats aren't going to disappear over night. And I think that's really the difference between Windermere and The Broads, numbers. I appreciate that 5-6 million (est.) was a lot of money for them to lose but we're talking about some very different figures here. Don't get me wrong, I think being watchful of BA is no bad thing but I don't believe for a second that they could ever get away with doing it.

Believe me, my livelihood depends on boating, I don't want to see it become a NP, I just don't see how it could happen. If it became a true NP the Sandford principle would apply in its totality. I don't see how anyone could argue, even on larger watercourses, that large scale boating and all the factors that come with it don't conflict with nature. So at the very least all the powered boats would have to go, which realistically just isn't going to happen.

Well, I stand corrected. Seems like a sensible proposal although I find it hard to believe anything short of the Berlin wall would stop the holiday makers trying to kill themselves behind equipment when we're loading up on there. 'some of the contractors' It'll be interesting to see if we're asked, I doubt that though somehow.

Evidently not BA's planning officers. From my experience 'helpful' would not be an appropriate word. I entirely agree they should of had planning, wether or not you should really require planning consent to landscape your own piece of land is an entirely different conversation. Periodically check BA's planning page, you'll be amazed what you need permission for.

New to this argument, I mean civilised discussion. So I am just seeking some clarity. Are we against misrepresenting the broads? Or is it the fear of the Sandford principle? If it is the latter, then from what I can see, this is all a storm in a tea cup. BA becoming a true NP and imposing the Sandford principle, IMHO greatly neglects the enormity of the task they would then be posed and the backlash it would create. As someone who is on the river 5 days a week there is no doubt in my mind that boating does conflict with nature, so all the boats would have to go. The loss of employment in boating and related sectors, the removal of thousands of boats, the lack of ability to maintain the waterways, the enormous loss in tourist revenue would cause uproar. Even if they did manage it, practically it would take years to do, not allowing for a heavily tourist reliant area to readjust. Not gonna happen, don't panic.

Personally I think the madness of the situation isn't that BA have jumped up and down about a lack of planning, it has changed use, there has been hard landscaping, they should of had planning permission. I think most authorities would have done the same. The issue is that when they've gone for retrospective, BA refused it. BA, Norfolk wildlife trust, RSPB and Natural England have over the last few years destroyed hundreds of acres of productive agricultural marsh land, turning them into wetlands for birds that from what I have seen, don't land on them. Do birds have more rights than people now? As for building on the land in the future, if that's such a major concern, do what the church do. Put a clause that if the land is developed or sold on, half the money from the sale gets paid to the church (or relevant party/charity in this case) and this applies to all future sales on the plot of land.

'the selfish few' well that's nice to be thought of so highly. I'll reserve judgement on the plans until I see them but I would suspect the part they will block off is the bit we all use/need for loading etc. Loading down the dyke just isn't practical in many instances. Where is the public car park?

I have to say I don't think so, I know we've been parking on it less and less because of how vulnerable it leaves our vehicles and equipment. I'm sure other firms would agree. I don't know what you mean, whenever I think of BA, caring and progressive are the first thing I think of ?. Also, there are several properties that I know for a fact (10+) that are full time homes in both directions from the staithe.

Buy why? Why do they want rid of them? With the current trend towards smaller more sustainable homes, I would have thought they would be pushing EA to sell off plots running up to the existing ones from the bridge down martham bank and show themselves as a modern progressive, caring organisation. Affordable housing for the broads. As for vehicles, it's a working staithe and has been for generations, we shouldn't have to park elsewhere.

I think it has more to do with liabilities, or atleast that's the official line I believe. Now this is purely conjecture but knowing the relationship BA has with one of the main contractors that uses the staithe, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the whole thing wasn't out of spite.

As far as 'shed city' is concerned, there are getting a few now of well above shed standard. Closing the staithe would only put people off from renovating and tidying up some of the less aesthetically pleasing properties. I believe, don't hold me to this, it is owned by the PC but run and maintained by BA. There is currently a spat on the staithe between BA and various businesses regarding mooring there, which even without my distain for them, I have to say they are handling extremely badly.

Not from what I was lead to believe during my conversation with BA, they don't want anyone using it as a 'working staithe' for insurance reasons. Be that private contractors carrying out essential maintenance or homeowners moving belongings. As far as contactors go, the ranger suggested that sorting access was our own problem, which is all well and good but not everyone down potter bank is going to be able to stump up possibly another £1000 on top of the price of the job just to get the materials on site. Closing the staithe in itself isn't an issue, time moves on, things change. However, if it is correct, is there going to be a consultation period with all the bungalow owners and relevant parties? Where would be the suggested practical alternative access? Repps? Hickling? Will the home owners have to create there own staithe?

I assume so, but then I don't understand where the refuse boat will transfer it's load. They may just put bollards across where the telegraph post gate used to be. Thank you for doing that.

I apologise in advance if i sound condescending, but the only people who are happy with the current toll price are those who don't get to hear about all the money wasted. Regarding the tree shear, unlike a stumper or harvester head, it's actually ideally suited to the size of tree BA generally remove. What isn't, is the machine they plan to mount it on. There will be problems. 2 1/2 rangers? Does that mean one has to be cut in half? More than happy to oblige if I get to pick the ranger. Painful as it was, I made it through the peer review. Never have I ever seen so many words that say so little.

The one right by the bridge, in front of Herbert woods.

Today I was involved in a conversation with some of my least favourite people (BA) and apparently Potter Staithe, which has always been a working staithe, is getting bollards to stop vehicular access. Just curious as to if any home owners or boaters in the area had heard about this? For as long as I can remember it's been used to load and unload materials to service the properties down the banks and if no other access is given, will have a major impact on those properties.