Jump to content

JennyMorgan

Full Members
  • Posts

    14,662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    238

JennyMorgan last won the day on March 17

JennyMorgan had the most liked content!

Reputation

20,259 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oulton Broad
  • Interests
    Broads, boats, music, art and angling.

Recent Profile Visitors

10,339 profile views
  1. Peter, I can't argue with any of that but considering the flood prevention scheme has now been running for twenty or so years, and that includes the soft rather than hard bank policy, the BA should surely have been aware of the likelihood that the St Benet's quay heading, and others, are at risk. A couple of years ago I contributed to a 'moorings consultation' with the BA at Acle. I don't recollect any suggestion that any 24hr moorings were at risk in this manner. I would have assumed that they were protected by the terms of any lease.
  2. And there lies the crux of the matter. Since that structure is surely the very reason for leasing that stretch of river bank I would have thought it critical to have been included, an amazing oversight, in my opinion. If I understand things correctly it is the tie-rods that have been found to have failed. I don't believe that that is an everyday event and I can quite understand how that this has gone undetected until now. The tie rods are what keep the quay heading upright. The weight of pedestrians can further compact the soil behind the untied quay heading and force the structure out of true or even to collapse. I don't question the closure as such, that was a prudent decision. However, I do question the timing and more especially the management handling of the situation. There is a further six years of lease remaining, that for me is the 'Something just doesn’t ring true'.
  3. Despite the above the BA has confirmed that the present lease runs until 2027. Surely there is some leverage there?
  4. Agreed, Fred, but apparently it all hinges on whether the EA decide to remove the piling or not, or at least that is my understanding of the situation.
  5. You could be, Fred, you might be right too. The whole darned affair is a tad wooly, or so it seems.
  6. My thought exactly. Perhaps tenders were requested but only advertised in the Hebrides News.
  7. That's true, but only whilst the quay heading is retained. I can only assume that EA drew up the lease with their best interests at heart, that as far as the BA is concerned it is a weak document otherwise they would insist on the quay remaining, at least for the duration of the lease. So where does this leave the toll payer? I know the area but certainly not like the back of my hand. Are there alternatives or other options for the Authority to explore or are we likely to be losing as many as fifty irreplaceable moorings?
  8. As I understand it, if the EA pulls out the quay heading, as apparently they wish to do, then the lease ends there and then. The BA has made that clear. That suggests to me that it is the mooring that is leased, not the land as such. It also appears that initially the issue of the quay heading is between the new owner of the land and the EA rather than the BA. I do wonder at the strength and validity of the BA's lease, not that I have had a sight of it.
  9. and even more curious! Effectively a number of agencies and interests are involved, probably all with their own agenda and non taking the final responsibility.
  10. Back to the original topic, fishing at St Benet's. As an angler I have been in contact with the NDAA and have alerted them to the barrier that has been erected along the waterfront because, quite simply, it would prevent angling from that location. They, in turn, have been in contact with Authority and have been assured that the barrier will be down by June 16th, the start of the fishing season. This does rather beg the question as to why it was erected in the first place. At another mooring location access has simply been denied by tapes tied to the tops of the mooring posts. Having now read the various postings on this topic across the joyous world of the internet I have come to the sadly obvious conclusion that there is much contradiction and confusion, starting at the very top and quickly working its way down to us uninformed little people.
  11. When they next invite me to a tête à tête and tea with dainty cucumber sandwiches I shall remember to ask them.
  12. I know absolutely nothing about this picture other than it looks like Oulton Broad.
  13. Thank you, that is extremely interesting and entirely logical. My thought is that even the NAT would appreciate an income stream such as moorings could supply. Not only that it would also provide access and customers to the Abbey. If the NAT is the owner then, in the long term, that is very satisfactory, in my humble opinion. I doubt that they would welcome any form of destructive development. Mind you, I'd rather not lose the 24hr mooring.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.