JennyMorgan

Why ever not, she is 'broad', exceedingly so!

I do understand, was there with my mum-in-law.

I do have some sympathy with this one, being a little less than able. I am also well aware that there are varying degrees of disability. Anyway, it is always with a degree of amazement that I watch the good folk of Waveney Sailability hoisting their clients aboard. At Oulton Broad they use an easily dis-mountable hoist, one that could be mounted onto the side-deck of your boat and one that would probably provide a longer term solution, and save the integrity of your boat's hull and deck.

You will be taking a great deal of strength out of the structure and in the event of a collision you may well regret it. Although you probably won't be concerned, your wife coming first, you will probably devalue the boat. Personally I'd create a bathing platform, access point, in the transom and that may well up the value in the event of a resale.

You young bloods missed out on so much! The 60's was an exciting time to grow up, both fashion and music wise. Wasn't always clear whether you were chatting up a bloke or a bird though! This 2011 poster is not untypical of the time.

In round figures half the BA's income is from the tolls and half is from the national parks coffers which in turn comes from us, the tax payer. Of the half that is derived from tolls roughly half goes towards Authority 'overheads', just about anywhere but not on navigation! So, of its annual income only about a quarter actually goes on navigation. Effectively the Authority is dependent on the toll. I don't believe that there will never be boats on the Broads, anymore than is the case on the 'real' national parks, but I do fear unaccountable and draconian restrictions. However, if the Broads became boatless, however unlikely that is, then there would be no need for dredging, no need for 24 hr moorings and so on thus he'd save a wodge but then he would also loose that prop up for his expenses that is hived off from the navigation. Over the years various Authority officers and outside organisations have made it abundantly clear that there is a desire to de-boat the upper Thurne so lets imagine that it did happen, would that many people really object, other than on principle? I'd hate to see that bridge go, but there are no plans to replace or bypass it, read into that what you will, so personally I am not that bothered. Of all the boats on the Broads how many of them can pass under it and of those that can how many do? Perhaps a body like the obscenely well funded RSPB might pick up any loss of income due to the Upper Thurne being lost to us boaters. Remember that 'vision' to open up the coast to salt water incursion and then making Potter the new line of coastal defenses? Not so long ago and it was presented in all seriousness. No mention whatsoever to include boats in that proposal. We'd loose something that is not used by many, the Authority might just get away with it and I doubt that the tolls would drop. Anyway, hypothetical as it may seem, certainly not likely to happen in my lifetime, it has been talked about.

In fairness it has become relatively common practice to sheath a new hull so why not in the model making world?

Wasn't quite brave enough to wear velvet trousers. Cut a dashing figure in my high collar velvet jacket though!

And bring the bucket, mop and wet wipes!

Not quite what I had in mind!

I had heard that a good Frappee was worth seeking out!

Party animal, that was me! Armed with my Party Four, must have been poorer that Wyndham, my Dansette & pile of trendy 45's, a packet of three ( I lived in hope) suitably adorned in flares and button down shirt, I would set off to absolutely Rock & Roll! Fab & gear, man!

And Babychams for the 'birds'!

John, the Broads Authority really come in three component parts. The Authority itself, first group, consists of worthies (members) entrusted to set and maintain policy, theoretically the CEO, second part, is answerable to the members and then the third part, the troops so to speak, are answerable to the CEO. I rarely hear of problems with the troops. As for the Authority members, some excellent people and some that are not so excellent. The members are led by a chair-lady with whom, regretfully I do have issues, mainly because she is clearly subservient to the CEO, seemingly a role reversal that I feel should not be tolerated. On a personal basis I have no problem with the CEO, he's good and charming company however, in regards to the Broads, we beg to differ in our outlooks. He is an ambitious man, in some respects quite clever too, but it is not he who should be setting and driving policy, which clearly he does, it should be the members. So yes, you could say that I have a problem with the individual. The Authority is a quango, that is my greatest gripe. The Authority itself is not answerable to you or I, that cannot be right. In an ideal world the troops should be answerable to the CEO, the CEO to 'chair' and the members, and the members responsible to us, the electorate and also their customers. I do have a gripe with the system that has allowed just one man to gain so much control. Dr Packman is not, in my opinion, in the same league as Aitken Clark.

So long as it's not Milwall then!

No, I have no wish to reignite any form of dispute but I post the following as a provoker of thought. The original chief executive of the Broads Authority was an astute and wise man by the name of Aitken Clark. Perhaps not universally liked but near universally respected. I enclose a link to his obituary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/7590840/Professor-Aitken-Clark.html In return for the respect that he deservedly earned he in turn respected the views of others, he listened to alternative opinion. The issue of being a national park existed during his tenure, but in reality it quite simply wasn't an issue, he was far to wise for that to have happened. Very much a case of us all being in it together, the man was widely and deservedly trusted. Minimal division there might have been, but it was extremely hard to find and certainly not mainstream. Back in his time the there was no issue in regards to being a national park so why is there today? The evidence is clear, a great deal more was achieved under the stewardship of Professor Aitken Clark than has been since. The division surrounding the national park issue is not the product of the so called 'little people', it was thrust upon us. It is now a very real issue, but not of our making.

No answer to that one!

Members are far too refined for lager, especially Stella, I mean Gracie, swilling red wine being more their thing.

Perhaps you could offer cassette toilet emptying facilities to passing members!

A few interesting details there, not least the apparent need for labeling or identifying an already obvious escape route. In my jaundiced view seemingly petty requirements like that can and do generate ridicule, witness health and safety and political correctness. We paid £70.00 for what amounted to less than an hours work, the same price as we paid for the previous two inspections, each from different examiners.

Just out of interest I googled decking dispute at Potter & came up with the Authority committee papers regarding the dispute that I had previously alluded to. Two lots of bumph came up, firstly much sabre rattling and secondly a rather more realistic approach so I'll quote that one: 9/9 Enforcement of Planning Control: Enforcement Items for Consideration (1) Bathurst, PH51 North East Riverbank, Potter Heigham The Committee received a report providing an update concerning the unauthorised installation of decking at a riverside property in Potter Heigham and prevalence of comparable decking in the vicinity. The Planning Committee on 9 January 2015 deferred making a decision on the report in order to clarify the extent of the ownership of the plot and for officers to provide information on the number of other plots in the area which had installed comparable decking. Having made detailed investigations it was appreciated and recognised that the riverside plots in this vicinity often had an associated mooring facility. It was therefore not considered wholly uncharacteristic to have structures like decking by the water to create a safe and level access for boats. It was noted that there was one or two other properties with decking extending over much of the plot, although not having the benefit of planning permission would now have established use. Members noted that Site Specifics Policy POT2 of the development plan had the intention to restrict domestic development favouring the small scale and more open character of the riverside plots with front lawns adding significantly to their character. Although it was preferable to see as much open and green space on plots as possible, and the decking installed at Bathurst presented a full decked frontage to the property which did appear excessive, it was noted that the adjacent grassed area next to Bathurst was in the same ownership. They therefore considered that in this instance it would be unreasonable to take full enforcement action. However, they did recognise the concern that retention would establish an undesirable precedent and lead to increased urbanisation. It was noted that officers had discussed the increasing level of decking and external structures and its impact on the character of the area with the River Thurne Tenants Association and a joint site visit was proposed to look at the extent of the issue and to agree best practice. It was considered that it would be appropriate to provide more detailed guidelines for development and that POT2 be reviewed and examined in more detail. Members noted that the owner had previously declined to submit a planning application for a reduction in the decking as he had considered that it was permitted development. Members were in favour of a negotiated settlement and it was suggested that a personal condition would be appropriate on a planning permission. SAB/RG/mins/pc060315/Page 8 of o seek10/190315 RESOLVED unanimously (i) that it would be inappropriate and not expedient to pursue enforcement action in this particular instance in light of the size of the entire property in the ownership of Bathurst as well as the personal circumstances of the owner; and (ii) that officers be encouraged to go back to the chalet owner t a retrospective planning application for the extended decking and limit any permission by personal condition. I am only posting this in order to indicate that there doesn't appear to be a hard and fast policy and that any advice can only be seen as being a guideline rather than as mandatory. David at the River Thurne Tennants Association, or whatever it's called, would seem to be the man to seek out. However, for a bog-standard riverside boardwalk I rather doubt that any hackles will be raised!

Might be worth asking Riverman. I would tend to trust his advice more than mine!

There is some confusion over height above ground. There was a well documented case a year or two back, coincidentally at Potter, where the landowner created decked access to the river bank for his disabled wife. Granted that it was a tad over the top, just an opinion, but since I have waterside decking I did look into the matter. Please don't take this as gospel but as I understand it the decked area must not exceed more than 50% of the land area, excluding any buildings. Height wise it can be half way between the highest and lowest part of the land to be decked. Effectively if your land undulates then it doesn't have to follow those contours with a strict 30cm height restriction. By and large the BA offers advice, worth taking, but very often its just an opinion rather than a strict specification, there are numerous examples of this in regard to roof and cladding colours around the Broads! That is not bashing, rather it's a well documented fact.

If your plot floods then a boardwalk could gain you some height thus dry feet but don't over do it, you might upset you know who!!

Please don't take my word as gospel but you should be able to. One important factor is the depth of the toe of the pile. A man who shares a dyke with me had bought himself a rather tasty, decidedly opulent bling-boat boat. He had his side of the dyke dredged, that plus the undertow of his props, the toe of the piles was exposed so when he backfilled the bottoms pushed out. Should have used an experienced, professional river bank maintenance contractor in the first place but that's another story. Just be aware. PS, you can always create a decking boardwalk to cover the holes.