JennyMorgan

Just a thought, if I were Violeta then I would find the mooring and caravan site first because I suspect that that will be a lot harder than finding a boat!

Tingdene at Oulton Broad but I suspect that they will want to sell you a nice new, and expensive, caravan. Beyond that the Waveney River Centre at Burgh St Peter may be able to help you with a mooring but maybe not the caravan. In any case caravans aren't much encouraged by our esteemed local planners. I'm afraid that as far as the Broads is concerned that you are looking for the proverbial rocking horse dung! Brundall might also come up trumps with a mooring but the caravan will be a no-no. No one has mentioned Southwold but there is a caravan site very near to the moorings but in both cases I suspect that there is a long waiting list. If you can dump the idea of a caravan then Lowestoft Harbour might well welcome you. As for being close to Brandon, umm, unlikely but Ipswich is well served by marinas and is nearer to BSE than the Broads.

True, not the only residential boat lost in recent months. Perhaps due wanting some warmth? Regretfully winter is not kind to boats, especially old ones.

Wise words, Vaughan, as usual! Do we have any Beccles contributors prepared to take a toddle down the river bank and take a peep, maybe a picture or two, and possibly make contact with the owner? He may well have resigned himself to going into brick, so to speak, may even be glad to have been forced off the water. We need to make contact before making assumptions. I would be quite happy to drive over to Beccles but I would be cautious, knowing nothing whatsoever about the bloke. Re insurance, the BA only requires third party. However a concrete hull is unlikely to have burned down to the waterline. Best stop there, I don't know enough even to speculate.

In fairness, Speedtriple. the occupant may well have been living on a boat out of necessity rather than choice and whilst living aboard might already have been costing us local tax payers. I suspect that non of us know the exact circumstances but locally single occupants are often pretty low down on the council housing lists.

Perhaps she fell on the wrong sort of rails?

It's well worth following this link, you might recognise some of the names: https://www.facebook.com/groups/785936721494266/

Riverman, you and others haven't been asked because it's not what the BA does. Consult and ignore, perhaps, but ask, no. Numerous good folk have left the Authority since Prof Aitkin Clarke retired. One of those good folk was an experienced, qualified harbour master, perhaps you can guess his identity from that description. On leaving he wrote what's become his infamous Christmas Eve address to all and sundry and one of the points that he made was that the Authority doesn't ask, and that was several years ago so some things never change. Don't take it personally, but you know far too much!

There is a 100% astute comment following the North Norfolk News article, I'm posting it here: Thirtle's response is risible.The points raised will have been discussed and dismissed by Thirtle's cabal at the CEO's direction.The 21 member model is outdated not because it has too many members but because it is wholly undemocratic: Paul Rice is correct, it is democracy in reverse with, steroids."...financially efficient, dynamic..." - is he kidding? The BA is inefficient and guilty of misappropriation of toll payer funds."...members should be selected for their knowledge, skills and passion..." - that would be a first, state appointees are hopelessly unskilled and ignorant of Broads lore or even the Broads at all. "...protecting and enhancing a nationally important wetland whilst maintaining (not protecting) navigation..." - spot the mission creep: the navigation is not to be enhanced but the wetland (read conservation interests) is to be protected AND enhanced."The process by which secretary of state members are recruited is a rigorous way of achieving this." - this is so far from the truth it deserves no further comment other than that it is drivel not least because these members are chosen by the chairman and CEO thus protecting their misgovernance and maladministration.

Edwina's latest isn't a load of old squit after all. The alarm bells should now be ringing very loudly and very clearly! https://www.northnorfolknews.co.uk/news/broads-authority-criticised-over-plans-to-reduce-board-size-1-5828066

The fore mentioned BA report tells us that it cost three million at 2000 prices. Perhaps split between conservation and navigation, only right and proper, the probable cost of Hickling would be as much as five million in total. Where there is a will there is often a way.

Thank you for that insight, Riverman. I have heard from other sources much the same comment and that there is good, useful kit moored up at Thorpe, now seemingly redundant. This is gear that could and should be in use, it is not as if there is not work for it to do. However, perhaps there is some merit in trying new, innovative techniques but surely not to persist if they proves less efficient. With absolutely no relevant experience whatsoever I must say that the use of suction to shift spoil to suitable disposal sites does make sense to me. Certainly the Dutch have shown what can be done in that respect.

This is worth a read, it should also be the yardstick for future projects: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/404268/Darkness_to_Light.pdf

Marsh, my point was not so much that ONLY the channel was being dredged rather that boats might one day be limited to areas that are deemed acceptable, e.g. navigation channels. No, I'm not suggesting a total dredging of Hickling, or Oulton for that matter, but something at least on the lines of the Barton restoration.

In fairness, Polly, the BA has set itself various minimums to work to. You sail, I sail, in doing so we tend to use what water is available to us. I quote from the December Broads Briefing: 'Recently, we have mobilised some rather impressive machinery to Hickling Broad and are busy dredging material from the navigation channel.' Please note the reference to the 'Navigation Channel', a channel that was originally created so visitors to Hickling could find the pub & the village, not as a limitation as to where folk could sail. The whole article makes it clear that the dredging is for conservation so I do wonder what account will be paying? That aside, are navigation channels going to become the norm? That we can only go where such channels exist, that we shall be excluded from areas that are not designated as such? They tried it on at Horsey! They certainly tried it on on Oulton Broad when they suggested that they needn't dredge the North Bay because the bay is outside the navigation channel. That argument failed when it was pointed out that Oulton Broad does not have a navigation channel.

He paddles a kayak, bless him!

John, the underlined text is open ended. The BA appears to be of the opinion that it should be able to set the standards as it sees fit, whether that standard be one of improvement or abandonment, so long as it appears to be reasonably required. JP has a long history of interpreting policy in a manner that supports whatever it is that he is currently promoting. Yes, it is sufficiently important as to warrant concern. If accepted as policy it would allow a level of control that would be open to abuse. What is reasonable to one man, JP for example, might be an anathema to the boating public. Unfortunately dealing with the present BA set up is like playing a game of chess, we need to be able to out-guess the power behind the hand by at least several moves ahead.

More avoidable old squit from Edwina! Please don't feel forced to read it if you don't want to but just remember, there's no smoke without fire! http://www.broadsnationalpike.com/2018/12/bonfire-of-councillors.html?fbclid=IwAR2nwpgqhuqSA5KTTtst9FyOKtA-NGtzIBb8xhjAPEigykCQ8XcOfpxnjRY

I won't comment on the self styled Broads National Park tag but I will on this paragraph: c) protecting the right of navigation through the maintenance, improvement and development of the navigation area to such standard as appears to the Authority to be reasonably required. I have underlined the obvious flaw and ask 'can we really trust the Authority to judge standards in a manner that reflects the needs of their stakeholders rather than as a sop to the aspirations and agenda of the Authority's CEO? It's all about trust, or lack of, that is the crux of the matter.

Happy Christmas!

Should have got the wellies on and the spades out!

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for pike fishing!

John, (MM) you need to be out in a rowing boat or kayak, on a quiet evening, when a 'gas guzzler' comes past. With little or no wind, or other passing boats to disperse it, their emissions lay on the water, contained by the reeds and the river bank, not at all pleasant for those of us caught up in it. Nothing to do with liking or not liking particular boats, bit of a myth is that, just a preference for fresh air.