Stationerystill

I have not heard of this company either. Has anybody got any information on Houghs Holiday Hire of Thorpe? I am doing a presentation next year on the Thorpe Boatbuilding industry for the Thorpe History Group and this yard is one I have no information on.

Chose aft cockpit or centre cockpit and you will get a better view above the reed fringed river banks because you are higher up.Broom Skipper, Ocean 30 or Woods Delight on the Aquafibre 30 hull all handle well. There are some real bargains in Elysian and Freemans. The Freemans are old but with nice interiors. If you chose a level deck front cockpit boat it is difficult to see what is behind you, especially if you are single handed.

Vaughan is right about this. It would set a disastrous precendent fot navigation.

My Samsung running on Android is much faster than my laptop running on Windows 10 and has not had to be constantly updated.

I have been informed by Jack Jenner, whose father owned Jenners pre war, that the little girl is Muriel Ward

I see lots of hire boats still at their moorings for most of the season except in school holiday time. This could be a valuable extra source of income which could also generate new interest in cruising from those staying aboard.

I agree with Jenny Morgan. There was nothing wrong with the slogan "Britains Magical Waterways" as a marketing tool. This change of name is a Trojan Horse to help usher in a full N.P. status.

There was an abandoned wooden boat near Cary's meadow in Thorpe. I saw it on the "Love Thorpe St.Andrew" facebook page.

This is great. What a brilliant job you are doing. I wish I had a 3D printer years ago when I used to make architectural models,

A blog written by the brother of the man who sold the island might be a little bit tilted in the direction of the developers who seek to change the use.

I am not yet sure but am doing research. The only mention on the enclosure act is the right of a tenant of the lord of the manor to load coal. He was also the publican at the Buck. The tithe map shows it as the same owners as the chalk workings opposite, who was the lord of the manor. In 1900 the police complained to the Lord of the Manor because itinerant preachers were attracting large crowds disturbing nearby church services and blocking the road. They said it was his reponsibility as the owner.He took legal counsels advice about this in 1901, as he did not want to be responsible for it. By 1919 it was of no use to as there was very little chalk workings so no wherrys to load. At this time he conveyed it to the then parish council for the war memorial. I suppose it was at this point it became an open space as it was now owned by a public body. Soon after bylaws were made to regulate it. I owned a strip once opposite the Horsewater and used to launch a cartop dinghy to access it. I sold it to the owner of Point House.

Boundary madness. When I first came to Thorpe my M.P. was from Gt. Yarmouth! Please can you tell me when you stopped being in South Norfolk? It is very odd not to be in the same district as the parish is in.

On the subject of the creation of the island here is the view of a historian from Norwich which was published in the E.D.P. The Dean and Chapter of Norwich owned the land and rented it to their tenant Archibald Money who owned Whitlingham Hall. The Navigation Company bought it from them in c 1833 and Archibald Money was compensated for his loss. The new cut was made in order to facilitate the passing of ships to Norwich. The reason for this was the river through Thorpe was too shallow and narrow for ships.On Sept. 30th. 1833 the first two seagoing ships reached Norwich and there were great celebrations. They were going to straighten out Whitlingham bends as well but ran out of money. The Navigation lasted less than 2 years and went bankrupt No buyers could be found until 10 years later Morton Peto bought the whole navigation very cheaply,for his railway company. This followed the line of the navigation. The railway opened in 1844. The cut predates the railway by 11 years.The island was divided into strips after this, owned by the properties opposite. For many years it was in Trowse with Kirby Bedon and not Thorpe but was eventually transferred over in the mid 20C. This can be checked with newspapers in the British Newspaper Archive, but I have not done so myself.

Riccardo, I said they have planning for mooring because they inherited that from the days of Hearts.. You need a different planning permission for actually living on a boat.This seems to be the confusion.. A few residents have got established use permission due to the length of time they lived there before the B.A. acted . The rest have not got that permission.

I am speaking as an individual. I have attended most of the council meetings in the last 10 years and have wriitten a small book of the council minutes. I have studied the council minutes for the years since 1895 as it interests me. I am also working on historical archives relating to Thorpe. I have had training in planning matters and been a chairman of a different Town Council. I am also a boat owner and member of the Broads Society hence my interest. The big change is because the Broad Authority terminated their long term lease on the quay which was a full repairing lease. The B.A. were paying for the maintenance and this was charged to all the boat toll payers. The Town Council did not want them to terminate the lease as the cost of the maintenance is substantial and are now seeking to recover some of the cost involved. My suggestion was merely an idea which might help. I could moor my boat legally on the island, but I could not legally live there. The arguments put forward on this topic are a repeat of those from the other end of the island which the courts rejected.

Nobody is in any way challenging the existing right to use a boatyard commercially. It is the change of use without planning which is being challenged. I think we would be delighted if a new owner took it over, tidied it up and organised it properly. I would love to have it looking the way it did when your dad ran it Vaughan, but Roger is nothing like him. I said the council could not negotiate with the residents but they do not need to negotiate with anyone to hire a mooring on the Green. I think the debate has been stirred up by Luke Powell and his "beautiful boat" comments in the press. I sat next to him at that meeting and those words were not used.. The words used were taxed, insured, clean and tidy and a councillor asked how they would know that and the reply was by asking for a photograph. I do not think that is an unreasonable requirementin a conservation area. If Roger bought a yard for c.£240,000 without checking what planning was in force it is his problem not the rest of the community.

There is no reason at all why the owners of the dinghies should not hire a permanent mooring space as far as I can see. Have any dinghy owners applied? The owner has not ever applied for planning permission for residential use. In 2005 he applied for change of use from office to residential,and new quay heading. That was not opposed by the town council, but following representations from the the environment agency about flooding Mr Wood withdrew that part his application. The whole problem which many on here are not seeing is lack of permission. At the price Mr Wood paid he could have probably made a modest living with the existing permisssions but he is determined to try and break the planning system. If he does he will quadruple the value of the boatyard. Would any of you want an illegal settlement of caravans to appear on the street where you live? Do you think Mr Wood should be exempt from the rules because, like me, you do not like the B.A.?

There is still a right of access. The council are not disputing that. What they are saying is there is not a right of permanently mooring on the Green, and there has never been. It may be that with a more responsible owner something could be worked out. The fact is the only planning application he made was in 2005 to renew quay heading and live in the office, The living in the office part of the application was withdrawn following objections from the environment agency with regard to flooding. I wonder if he told the residents that he had permission because they seem to think he has. There are a small number who have gained the right to live there because the B.A. failed to take action in time. It is nice to have boats on the island, as it looked rather bare when it had none, but it must be done properly and permission obtained. The law is important or we could all turn up in a caravan and live where we liked.

Thank you Mark. The best outcome would be a properly organised access to the island and for the owners to make a proper planning application. I have always found it best to talk to the planners, before even buying a property, to get them onside. Just doing things without permission is always going to be a disaster.

The public can use the Green free of charge, they can unload boats free of charge. The council is proposing to charge boats staying for more than 24 hours which is a different matter. It has not been used a a public staithe it has been leased to the B.A. for the benefit of their toll payers. If it had been a public staithe the B.A. would not have had to lease it.

Thank you Islander. I will also be away on Monday. I usually do attend council meetings to find out what is happening in my area. It is a shame that often I am the only member of the public there. I am probably the only person to study the council minutes since 1895 to the present day and so am very familiar with the staithe. The council debated the idea of a pontoon for the dinghies and councillors did not set a fee, but suggestions were £500 and £1,000 subject to talks with Mr Wood. As we know this did not happen.I doubt whether a f.o.i. request will show much other than to show the title deeds to the River Green. The enclosure act of 1800 is at the NRO and I have many items on my computer relating to the staithe. I think it is beyond dispute that the Town Council have the right to charge for the staithe.

Islander The moorings were available to toll payers by virtue of the lease to the B.A. The B.A. did not want to continue the lease, because they said it was not used much, and so it has ended.The B.A. had rules about 24 hour mooring when they leased it but did not enforce it. If you park on a street for many years you still do not gain title to the parking space. The Town Council offered a solution to Mr Wood of a space for mooring a pontoon for the dinghies but had no response. The boats moored are Mr Woods responsibility and the Town Council has no legal duties towards their occupants, except for the few who are there legally.The best way forward is for Mr Woods to make a proper planning application, but I think this is unlikely to happen.

There is much talk about River Green being a public staithe. It was not in Roy Kemps book because it is not a public staithe.I have been in touch with Prof. Wilkinson about this. It was owned by the lord of the manor for loading of marl from the hill opposite. At the time of the 1800 enclosure the owner of The Buck (tenant of the Lord of the manor) registered an interest in the staithe as The Buck also sold coal which was loaded here. At the end of the 19C the Green was causing problems for the Lord of the Manor, because itinerant preachers attracted large crowds on the Green, which disturbed the nearby church services and the crowds spilled into the road. Police blamed the owner at this time for allowing these crowds onto the green.In 1919, in return for a piece of land elsewhere in the parish, Henry Birbeck conveyed this land (which he regarded as a liability)to the parish council who still hold the deeds. It has been used by the public for many years by virtue of a lease to the P.& H. commisioners and the B.A. but this expired earlier this year.