JennyMorgan

JP has written this statement elsewhere: So overall the incomes from the two fleets, hire and private, predicted for next year, using the proposed structure, are broadly in line with this year’s income under the old structure +3%. Plus 3%, surely that is clear enough? Other than in regard to Mutford Lock it would seem that I am one of the 40% that will benefit but that aside I would like to know how it can possibly be fair that some folk should have to cough up an extra 16% or whatever? Changes are needed, our old friend Strowager was adamant that the balance between small and large was totally skewered and he backed that up with convincing arguments. However a one off 16% hike is not fair, even for those that can afford it. 3% increase, what is the official inflation figure?

More on the mythical, ho ho ho, Broads National Park Bill that never, allegedly, took place: http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/speeches/broads_bill.htm

Introduction. Page 8, 1:2. Broads National Park. "To make it clear, the use of the term Broads National Park is for marketing purposes only. It is not, nor has it ever been, the Authority's intention to seek either a change to its statutory purposes or the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads." To make it absolutely clear, The Broads Authority, not many years ago, presented the Broads National Park Bill to parliament with the wish that it became the Broads National Park Authority and that the Broads would become, legally, a national park. This is a fact of history so why the denial? The Authority then went back to Parliament with the Broads Bill, with clauses giving them the power to prevent access by boats to chosen waters, just as draconian as Sandford, but Parliament threw that out after several of us petitioned the House of Lords. It's all there in Hansard, for those who have the inclination. I stand by my contention that the Authority, under the leadership of Dr Packman, has sought for the Broads to be a national park otherwise why the Broads National Park Bill? http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/CARMS/meetings/cab2006-06-19ag16.pdf Seemingly the Authority has a very short memory.

Simon, I haven't been to the Clubhouse since Tingdene took over, is it still good? Used to get e-mail updates etc. when the Catchpoles had it but none since so haven't bothered.

The claim is that the new calculations will be both fairer and more simple, fairer maybe but arguably less simple and certainly not accurate. Argue each year? Not so far! At the moment I have my boat hauled out and stored, the charge is based on length, that's it, nothing complicated, I just ship the bowsprit, couldn't be more simple. Call it the Broads calculation if you wish, beam times length, okay can live with that, but to suggest that that gives the area in square meters is patently incorrect, it doesn't.

Poppy, you can't say that! Neutral pigmentation surely?

Having given this some thought I do wonder how square meterage is going to simplify matters. Length times width does not give the square meterage of a boat, unless it's oblong and few boats are. Some boats have greater overhangs than others, indeed some sailing boats, in comparison to motor boats, have quite extreme variations in hull shapes. Hull length is simple, square meterage is not, surely a common sense conclusion. Then of course, unless boats are of the same class or out of the same mould, it means that boats will need to be measured before a toll can be demanded. So, will simplification simply mean length X beam at deck level or perhaps at the waterline? Whatever, neither gives an accurate calculation of the area of a boat. Perhaps we should return to the Thames tonnage calculations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Measurement No mention of displacement, a relevant factor in regards to wash and subsequently erosion and dredging. Then of course we have the muddling percentage claims in regard to winners and loosers. No mention in the 43% and 57% of those who will neither win nor loose, those in kayaks or rowing boats who, allegedly, will be paying the same next year as they did this. This is classic Packman obfuscation, in my honest opinion.

Seen on Oulton Broad 1905, how fashions change! Could that be our Gracie's predecessor on the left?

Have a look at the Commodore folks and then judge what Mr Moss is likely to do. For those, like my wife and I, who enjoy two meats and loads of veg then the Wherry is good and reasonable value. If you really want fine dining then ask the Yacht Station staff for directions to the Ivy Farm, that is very fine but thankfully not overpriced. Tis where we go for special occasions.

Okay, square meterage, at the waterline or the gunwale? Let's judge that one when we know the facts. A point rather closer to home for me is Mutford Lock: The Members recommended that the income should ideally balance the annual costs of operation, i.e. approximately £30 for a one way passage and £45 for a return ticket. In order to encourage some owners to use this access to the Broads more frequently, a multi-trip discount should be investigated. A number of coastal type boats moor at Oulton Broad yacht station because the present lock fee of twelve, or is it thirteen quid is seen as reasonable, especially for a day trip out to sea. £45.00 may not be so acceptable. Many Brundall boats also go to sea through Mutford Lock. I can see this as being the needle that breaks a camel's back with a number of boats moving base to one of the Lowestoft harbour marinas. Not only a loss of lock income but also a loss of tolls. Just a couple of day trips out to sea via Mutford Lock a year looks to add £90.00 to the cost of keeping a coastal cruiser on the Broads. In my case those two day trips would effectively add roughly 50% to my toll.

Mss Conti always struck me as being nothing other than JP's mouth piece. Nice lady though.

Sorry, Bob, but I'll only believe that when I see it, at the end of 2017!

I hope not, I've got several boats on the bank!

Square meters of what though? Width times length? Width times length times depth? Depth pf a Caribbean versus a Broom Continental? Do you get my point? Two boats of the same length and breadth could have considerable variations in square meterage. A three decker versus a single decker, but of similar length paying different tolls? Confusing but maybe intentional, we can only guess. Perhaps the Authority sees coastal boats as a cash cow? Having been on a tolls review consultation I do have some sympathy with the BA on this one but I'm darn certain that this particular review, however you tart it up, is about increasing revenue against the decreasing NP grant and has very little to do with fairness, that suggestion is just a sprat to catch a mackerel, imho.

If 40% are better off then 60% will be worse off. Of that 40% I wonder what percentage are hire boats. I am quite certain that the underlying intention behind this tolls rethink is nothing other than how to rake in more money in order to maintain income against the NP grant reduction.

Just remember that roughly half of our tolls goes towards Authority overheads. There has been major expenditure on Breydon Water, for example, that will be used to justify any increase, great or small. The National Parks grant is under some pressure and rather than cut back, as intended by government, Packman seems intent on making up the shortfall by upping the toll. We are all bleating for more moorings, music to Packman's ears, by loosing moorings he has played his hand, he needs to regain those lost moorings. Oh goody, I'll have to up the toll to pay for these 'new' ones, even more goody is that half that increase will go to covering his pension pot and his above grade, over the odds salary! Oh glee!! A game is being played, we are the pawns and the mugs that will have to pay for it. The tolls are paying an increasingly large proportion of the Authority's income, regretfully we don't have proportional representation, and of any increase about 50%, maybe more, will be hived off for those 'overheads'. Manipulation and personal ambition has always been the game at Yare House, perhaps people will increasingly realise what is going on. When it comes to cuts in overheads, e.g. staff numbers, that old saying; ' a turkey doesn't vote for Christmas' springs to mind. What incentive does a public service CEO have to reduce staff numbers?

I can picture that immortal shot of Marilyn Munro with the wind blowing up her skirt being recreated with Iain in a kilt, just hope that he breaks tradition and wears a pair of knickers, preferably down to his knees though!

There was, Steve, it either wasn't open or didn't look open and with tinted glass windows never looked inviting. Great shame because it actually did good meals. There's a well established burger restaurant in Lowestoft called Sgt Peppers, great place and excellent atmosphere, especially if you like 60/70's music, goes to show what can be achieved with a humble burger. Unfortunately the closed burger bar never achieved the same success although I guess that they thought that they might provide some sort of competition since Oulton Broad is a popular venue for younger folk out on the booze. It's worth finding Sgt Peppers, always popular and with all age groups.

Presumably they will be expected to don tight pvc sailing gear & high heeled sailing boots?

Only sixteen to go, I think!

Thanks, Tim, helpful stuff. Like you I do understand swing tipping, something class about watching a classic bream take.

One for me. 'tis only a pound a month, is this picture any use to you?

The Commodore at Oulton Broad and the Dukes Head at Somerleyton are both reasonable pubs, indeed I rate the Commodore highly, apart from the cost of their deserts, and reckon that it's the nicest boozer in Oulton Broad. Both are David Moss enterprises.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads-authority/how-we-work/transparency/consultations/broads-plan

Almost right, Loo, only I reckon those good old folk of Yarmouth would have been hanging around ye olde DHS before another chav gear foraging trip to Sports Direct.