.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Meantime
-
Posts
4,050 -
Joined
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Meantime
-
-
27 minutes ago, Smoggy said:
Didn't that change on anything hot?
The famous pasty tax of 2012. Yes anything sold hot for the purpose of being consumed hot is liable to VAT even from takeaways. It all gets very blurred where food is cooked and allowed to cool or sold whilst it's cooling where the intention is not for it to be eaten immediately.
So a baker bakes some pasties and allows them to cool naturally and sells one while it's still hot, it is zero rated for VAT, but if he stores them in a heated counter to slow down the cooling process and then sells one whilst it is still hot they have to charge VAT.
There are a number of tests around intent to sell hot for immediate consumption, advertise as being sold hot, or selling in packaging designed to keep it hot.
-
Just thinking about Reedham for a moment, double mooring is allowed with the permission of the boat on the inside. So how's that going to work? Will they charge you £20 to moor if you don't allow someone alongside? Do you get the £10 if you do allow someone alongside? If you do allow someone alongside and they pay the BA £10 to moor alongside you, does that mean the BA are now liable if there is damage done to your boat?
Personally I'm not keen on someone alongside at Reedham due to the extra noise / rubbing / squeaking of fenders caused by the tidal flow through there, however if I'm forced to pay to moor there then the answer will definitely be no.
-
2
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Gracie said:
the trouble is half the house won't get done or I'll forget which rooms I've don
That's easy, the rooms with a full glass are not done, the rooms with an empty glass, there's a slim chance they might be done. Any rooms with a broken glass, you should give up and go to bed and sleep it off.
29 minutes ago, Gracie said:I haven't even started yet. Housework,
It's halfway through the day now, you might as well leave it for today and do it tomorrow. The housework, not the wine that is.
Now you may notice that the Politician in me has evaded to answer one of your questions.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Gracie said:
I'll have to leave the kitchen until last, there's wine in there
Why don't you pour yourself lots of glasses of wine and leave one in each room, to be consumed once the chores in that room are done. No dropping of standards as the day wears on though
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Gracie said:
Judging by what you've just called me, I'd say you've spent the afternoon in the bar
In my defense I'm not in the pub any longer!
And I blame my phone, it's not the fact I should have been wearing my glasses and I blame the bloody spell checker. Oh and the e is very close to the r. Many apologies Gracious 
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:
Gracie,dont think you've ever been barred have you?
Who would be brave enough to come between Geacie and the bar?
-
2
-
-
49 minutes ago, Gracie said:
Well could you please see that the server upgrade is done during the night in future so that I don't go into panic mode thinking I've been barred or something.
Honestly Gracie, you have to get some kind of reference to drinking into all your posts!
-
1
-
-
I'm guessing there are quite a few people breathing a sigh of relief that their Easter passages are unlikely to be blocked, However I've read elsewhere that the work has been delayed until the Autumn. If that is true then it means another season of torment for quite a few boaters.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, marshman said:
Lets close it again once and for all!!!!!
Agreed! There were many differing opinions then, I'm sure they haven't changed that much since, and irrespective, it's going to alter nothing at Jenner's now anyway.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Mouldy said:
Was the Alpha 35 essentially not the F B Wilds Bermuda hull?
I could be wrong, but I thought the Bounty hull had the low wash lip at the front and the Bermuda didn't?
Very similar though.
-
8 minutes ago, C.Ricko said:
The horizon craft 35s were usually fitted with 16x14 lh propellers normally bored to 1” 3/8 with a 5/16 keyway,
hope this helps..
That's interesting. I had my prop redressed last year whilst it was out of the water. It was stamped 16x14 RH. It's an Alpha 35ft, which I think is basically the Bounty hull.
-
Just now, Vaughan said:
The only "bone of contention" was the BA's insistence that the planning permission, on a basin dug out for moorings and nothing else, had "become dis-used".
That land is still sitting there, abandoned and useless, since it is still subject to a legal covenant for the mooring of boats and nothing else.
Not wishing to reopen the whole Jenner's basin debate, but those were not the only grounds for enforcement. Anybody entering into a section 52 or section 106 agreement as part of a planning application is duty bound to comply with it, as are any subsequent owners of that land.
I agree that on the surface Jenner's basin looks to be the ideal site for residential moorings, but the planning history is long and varied and agreements were made prior to the then owner having enforcement action taken upon him.
Word has reached me along the Rhond of another Section 52 breach involving a residential apartment block within the BA executive planning area. It doesn't involve boat moorings in anyway, but it will be interesting to see if the Broads Authority enforce it with as much enthusiasm as Jenner's. There are certainly people watching with much interest!
-
5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
Those boat owners were thrown out by the Broads Authority, not by South Norfolk DC (the Island is in South Norfolk). Nor were they thrown out by Thorpe Town Council since Hart's Island is not in Thorpe.
To be fair though, as already pointed out earlier in this thread, South Norfolk DC and Thorpe Town Council are not the planning authority for Jenners basin, it is The Broads Authority, so they would be responsible for enforcing planning infringements.
7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:You are quite right and in future we must NEVER let such a shameful mis-use of un-elected authority happen again on the Broads.
And perhaps we reach the crux of this matter. There are very few areas in this country where the planning authority is not the locally elected authority. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, it generally only happens in National Parks, of which The Broads Authority is unique in being a planning authority responsible for a special area of natural beauty whilst not being a fully fledged National Park.
-
51 minutes ago, Meantime said:
Thank you for your update Tom. I believe the navigation committee provides a report to the Chief Executive on the number of prosecutions for the preceding period. I wonder if you are able to tell me how many prosecutions for non payment of fines there were in the reporting period prior to the Navigation meeting on the 12th January 2023?
Don't worry about my request Tom, I've been able to find the relevant report and attach the relevant page which details the period 20th October 2022 to 12th Jan 2023. If this is correct, then it appears there were none. Bad timing, intentional delay or coincidence I wonder.
7-Chief-Executives-report-and-current-issues-12-Jan-2023.pdf
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:
Regarding court, this is always a last resort and our tolls team aim to work constructively with people where possible to ensure that the tolls are paid without going down this route.
Thank you for your update Tom. I believe the navigation committee provides a report to the Chief Executive on the number of prosecutions for the preceding period. I wonder if you are able to tell me how many prosecutions for non payment of fines there were in the reporting period prior to the Navigation meeting on the 12th January 2023?
-
10 hours ago, FlyingFortress said:
But will the Broads be lost anyway if it replaces the local Authorities as a source of social housing? Or indeed is it in their remit to replace Social Services.
Not being argumentative just asking genuine questions to which I have no answer.
The following taken from The Broads Authority plan probably answers this point better than I can. The underlining is mine.
7.4 The Broads Authority Executive Area
Map 1: Broads Authority Executive Area
The designated Broads Authority Executive Area covers parts of Norfolk and North Suffolk, as shown in white in Map 1[3]. The area includes parts of Broadland District, South Norfolk District, North Norfolk District, Great Yarmouth Borough, Norwich City, and East Suffolk Council area. The councils for those areas do not have planning powers in the Broads area, but retain all other local authority powers and responsibilities. Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council are the county planning authority for their respective part of the Broads, with responsibilities that include minerals and waste planning, and are also the Lead Local Flood Authority. The Broads does not sit in isolation; there are important linkages with neighbouring areas in terms of the community and economy – what happens outside the Broads affects the area, and vice versa.
-
8 hours ago, ExSurveyor said:
Local authorities have an obligation to provide a certain number of serviced traveller pitches, funded from council tax, do we really want that to come out of the toll account.
Although it has to be remembered The Broads Authority are not a local authority, so why would such moorings be funded from the toll account? The Broads Authority already fund albeit a diminishing number of free moorings for all. It could be argued that it is the local authorities Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Broadland District Councils responsibilities to provide some serviced moorings similar to traveler pitches.
The Broads Authority executive area defines their geographical area of responsibility for a number of things, including planning, but all other aspects of local governance such as council tax, housing and education are the responsibility of the local councils still whose areas overlap The Broads Authorities executive area.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:
OK, we're you aware that the BA have given HP terms to some liveaboards who have made genuine attempts to pay the tolls and who have proven their financial problems to the BA. Those boats still show on the website as untolled.
Which does beg the question, Is it about time that The BA overhauled the toll system? The Council tax bill is a large bill, but my local council gives me the option of which day of the month I want the Direct Debit to come out, and also gives me the option of making one annual payment, or four quarterly payments, or ten monthly and finally 12 monthly payments all without interest being applied.
The car tax can be spread over installments, but does work out fractionally more expensive if paid in installments, but the option is there.
Having tolled or untolled in the system is unfair if someone is paying in instalments, but saying a boat is tolled when it isn't fully paid for would be misleading. Having some other identification such as in progress would lead to other rightly questioning why such terms are not available to them.
In fact the more I think about it, what criteria, and how does the BA judge who is eligible to pay in installments and who isn't? I'm not knocking them if they do offer HP, but it needs to be transparent and operate on a fair basis.
Seems to me the only way it can do that is to overhaul the toll system completely and whilst it is at it, help its cash flow by allowing people to toll a boat for 12 months from when they put it in the water and not stick to a rigid annually from the 1st April.
-
2
-
-
This thread seems to be going off at a tangent, which wasn't the purpose for posting, or my intention.
Yes The BA should prosecute anyone who doesn't pay their tolls and without prejudice or favour, But the question is why now? Just as this years tolls are due with an above inflation increase. Why weren't these prosecutions bought 3 or 4 months ago? Did it really take this long to prosecute and take them through the court system? Or did they just want some headline grabbing prosecutions at an opportune moment to remind people what happens if you fail to pay your toll? Are they targeting a group less likely to be able to pay / settle before it reaches court?
Was the free advertising / reminder to pay, more important than the attempt to recover the unpaid tolls, largely from a group where there is little chance of succeeding in recovering the money anyway.
Was this value for money advertising / reminder to pay your toll, a timely coincidence or planned to coincide with the toll renewals going out? I'm guessing that those that could have afforded to pay, will have settled a long time ago, so will they recover what is has cost to prosecute, or was it actually very good value for money, cheap advertising to remind people to pay their toll? If there is any element of the latter then it rather leaves a bad taste.
-
4
-
-
I did notice that. In fact given the location mentioned, possibly those who live onboard feature more prominently than those who don't, which makes you wonder how much they are going to recover compared to how much it's cost to prosecute? In which case it makes it even more likely that the time chosen to prosecute was more important than the likely hood of recovering the unpaid tolls. Or was that just a coincidence as well?
-
I see the Broads Authority have had a bit of a push to bring some of last years non toll payers to court. Off course they should pursue non payment, but it does seem a very timely reminder for anyone thinking about not paying this years outrageous increase in toll fees.
I note the EDP could learn a thing or two from this forum though. The name and shame policy for a start. The article carries a stock picture of boats just under a tag that says crime, and labelled Boat owners have been taken to court over non payment of Broads tolls, clearly showing the boat reg numbers on at least two of the boats, yet from the descriptions and locations of the culprits later in the story I'm pretty certain none of the boats pictured are guilty.
I think if I owned one of those boats I might be having a chat with the EDP.
-
2
-
-
Perhaps the answer is to keep a copy of your toll receipt onboard. Then when the BA ranger comes calling and asking you for your mooring fee you can tell them you've already paid, then show the bemused ranger your toll receipt and walk away.
-
4
-
-
Plus the council who introduce the car parking charges are an elected body. Huge difference!
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
Something like ten quid to moor at Ranworth could very well tip the scales, and send them somewhere else in future. That is why I think this idea may be a very serious mistake.
I suspect if you've spent £2k to £3k hiring a boat and then budget for eating and drinking out in pubs most days an extra £10 for one or two moorings during the week pales into insignificance over the course of a weeks holiday.
Conversely though if you own your own boat you have a number of upfront quite heavy expenses and after that your boating becomes cheaper pro rata the more you use the boat. If my mooring fees, insurance, toll, maintenance are £4k per year and I only use the boat for 2 weeks per year then I'm paying £2k per week. Use it for 4 weeks and I'm paying £1k per week, and so on. Basically once your annual costs are paid for, then boating actually becomes reasonably cheap.
However if you need to start factoring an extra £10 or £20 every week you use the boat on top of the annual costs, then the balance of boat ownership starts to shift. It already is with the price of diesel, the cost of pump outs and more and more pubs wanting to charge for moorings.
One thing I find with owning a boat is you tend to think, it's paid for, so why holiday elsewhere and pay again, but conversely that means you end up with much less variety in your holiday. There will come a time, and I think it is fast approaching, when I'll sell up and use the money saved to hire a boat for the occasional week on The Broads and spend more time holidaying elsewhere.
That has the knock on effect of the not inconsiderable amount of money spent in The Broads pubs, restaurants and shops, being spent in other counties or even other countries.
-
7
-
And I blame my phone, it's not the fact I should have been wearing my glasses and I blame the bloody spell checker. Oh and the e is very close to the r. Many apologies Gracious 
Ranworth Update
in Broads Chat
Posted
A Parishioner is a member or resident of the Parish. The Parish is often referred to these days as a subdivision of a county often coinciding with an original ecclesiastical parish and constituting the unit of local government. Remember there are other religions and the BA wouldn't want to discriminate by excluding any religious groups from a free mooring, so I think you'll find it is the later definition that would stand up in court.
In other words you do not have to attend Church, but you should live within the Parish of Ranworth.
Which leads me to ask? What rights do the volunteer rangers or the visitor centre staff have to ask for your address? If I step of my boat and say I'm just popping home to collect a jacket, I'm a Parishioner so do not need to pay, what can they do? They could check the home address of the registered keeper of the boat, but that assumes they are on board. They may have lent their boat to friends.