JennyMorgan

Ah ha, the perfect candidate! Sit tight and watch the price tumble as logic suggests that it will. Pumpouts have been via large tanks that were towed across the Broad to Topcraft to be pumped out, a service that is no longer available. In the prime of the Oulton Broad houseboats they were all owned by boatyards that had the facilities to service them. Today's owner will have to be totally self sufficient.

Wise words, Howard. She may well sell again in similar circumstances but I rather fear that the present owners will have to take a hit on this one. It's a harsh reality but there is no possibility of mains services to this houseboat, mains electricity at least would be seen as a must have on a static houseboat in this day and age, There is no nearby carpark, no guaranteed mooring for the tender/launch that provides access. There are people who would relish a return to basics but they are few and far between and don't tend to have £45,000.00 to spare.

A hire boat toll for the houseboat plus, I presume, a hire boat toll for the launch required to access the houseboat. It doesn't end there, a mooring will be required for that launch. Also as a hire boat the houseboat will need servicing and cleaning, emptying the toilet for example and there is now no toilet pumpout facilities on Oulton Broad. About a year ago this house boat was put on E-Bay, it was withdrawn from sale after a day or two, apparently bought as a 'buy it now deal'. I can only assume that someone bought it in a rush & without sufficient thought.hence she's up for sale again a year later.

My daughter & I went and had a look when she was last up for sale. In my honest opinion to describe her condition as 'fair' is at least questionable. £45,000.00 is an expensive mooring.

It was! I say was because it was finally dragged up a slipway and removed during 2016.

Marsh, I was going to keep out of this but you talk of supposition, well, that is a two edged sword, it really is. Can you be absolutely certain that being a full blown national park won't be the death knell of the Broads? Answers in just one word, no more than two letters! Regarding hard facts, errr, we do. The Broads Bill, The Broads National Park Bill, the consultation papers of both Bills and the harsh reality of the attempted closure of Horsey Mere. The wish list has been made abundantly clear. The Court judgement was that the term national park could be used for marketing purposes. It was stressed that the Broads, once again, is NOT legally a national park. If the Broads Authority had the same powers as a national park then that would include Sandford, which the Authority does NOT have, that is a FACT, one that we can't sensibly argue with. Clearly then the BA does NOT have the same powers as an NP. To suggest that it does is just nonsense, just as it is a lie to call the Broads the Broads National Park when legally it isn't.

Perhaps a timely reminder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandford_Principle The issue is simple, could we trust the Authority, under its present leadership, to use Sandford wisely, fairly and as intended whilst maintaining the right of navigation? I personally doubt it. Definitely full circle now!

When I went to Parliament over the issue of access & the Broads Bill one reason my objection was upheld was because the requirement to be able to exclude the public, and boaters in particular, was far to general and without limitation. I'm sure that we gone full circle now!

Re chimneys, on a wherry, I'll quote from Robert Malster's book Wherries and Waterways: Coburg, a wooden wedge shaped fairing which prevented the sheet blocks and sail from fouling the protruding part of the stove pipe, the wooden chimney fitted on top of this. In my time, when my father had a bakery, little old ladies would come in and ask for a 'coburg' loaf of bread. Nowadays such a loaf is called a cobb.

Re 'chimblies', yes. There is even a 'wherry' term for them, only I can't remember what it is. Marsh, what's a wherry's chimbly called? She looks low in the water and the mast is either raked or leaning towards the camera, the latter would explain the reduced freeboard. Arghh, a red ensign as the mast-head, it could have been worse had it been a flag! I wonder if the roof was painted orange?

Sorreeeeeee!!!!!

I got my state pension, lovely! Just to explain to Scrumpy, rather than just to extend the argument, the loss of navigation rights would be down to the application of the Sandford Principle. In both the Broads and Broads National Park's Bills strenuous efforts were made to gain the power to exclude boaters and anglers from what are presently navigable waters. That is a fact of history and verifiable via Hansard. We only have to look at the ten and more years of Dr Packman's continuous maneuvering to be able to use the term Broads National Park, if only for marketing purposes (!), to realise that the bloke doesn't take 'no' for an answer. Sorry to bore the pants of most of you but it appear that Scrumpy is not entirely aware of the ramifications of the Broads becoming, in legal terms, a national park. In reality I suspect that most Broads folk would welcome the Broads being a National Park if it were a means of maintaining the Broads as the Broads. However, if being an NP is to be the tool by which a small group of people re-create the Broads in their own vision, then no, the risks to the Broads are too great. I say 'small group of people', the RSPB for example, is not small. Like one or two others I wonder quite where the 'sharp end' really is. Enough from me for now, unless someone has some convincing evidence either way.

Not if it leads to an unacceptable loss of navigation rights. That said, do we really want to revisit all the tired old arguments and debates?

Perhaps a soggy wet, knitted woolen y-front competition should be a feature of NBN meets?

Alan, just an observation, people go to boat jumbles to buy, that's for sure, but they go expecting to buy cheap. I wouldn't have thought that it was your target market.

Socks and sandals are exceedingly practical, saves having to wash my feet before going to bed, just take my socks off! Crocs on a boat, lethal things.

Don't suffer from Poppy's unmentionable problem then?

Hi Helen, will you & yours be dressing thus?

On the other hand, as usual, a lot of sense from Tudor times. I have to agree, with some conviction, that we are treated as 'Richards'. I firmly believe that we, and the system, have and are being quite callously used, when it's helpful to do so. Thankfully though there are many, not all, but many who now realise this. I suggest that this is exemplified by the enlightening attacks from ex committee members, both members and chairmen, on the Authority's leadership. It actually doesn't make for good reading but when people who have sat on the various committees smell the coffee and react as they have then it is hardly surprising that the level of trust is now so low along the rhond.

I am afraid that the 'awards' system has long encouraged profligacy at Packman Towers and probably elsewhere too. The vanity factor and financial rewards associated with uncontrolled empire building, especially within public services, has a lot to answer for in this country. At one time there were over 150 people employed at the Authority to deal with 120 miles of waterway!

A great influence on my life, Chuck Berry, has died. Saw him several times, memorable stuff. He played just once in Norfolk & I missed that! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39318602

I would be very, very surprised if anyone in the higher echelons of authority ever touches the stuff. Plenty on Hickling should they want to partake though, just for safety purposes of course!

I can't help wondering if some folk haven't over imbibed on occasions!

I agree with the above but I do question the final question, and it relates to Marsh's contention that the BA does a great deal more towards water quality than I have admitted to. If we take the River Waveney as an example, there is something like 1000 square miles of land that feed the water-shed that supplies the river, so I was told by an Environment Agency bod. There is a great deal outside the BA's executive area that impacts on the Broads and over which the BA has absolutely no control. So, to do its job better there is an argument for extending the powers of the Authority. I do know that the BA has sought to extend its powers outside its executive area and I have to agree with the principle of that. However I also agree with the oft expressed opinion that the BA should stick to the requirements of the Broads Act and do that job well rather than dabbling with matters outside that requirement. The bottom line though has to be cost, which takes us back to tolls and our contribution to the BA coffers. I have made the point that about half our tolls goes towards BA overheads thus the higher the toll then the higher that 50% goes. On one hand I can see the logic of extending the BA's influence but that costs money, money that the toll is increasingly providing. On the other hand I agree with the opinion that the BA should stay within their legislative requirements, in other words stick to their business. Then there is the issue of duplication and that takes us onto planning, do we really need separate planning departments for the same areas? Why do we need two different planning departments for Horning and Oulton Broad for example? Perhaps the Authority should also consider working within its means rather than constantly demanding more from the toll payer.