.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Meantime
-
Posts
4,050 -
Joined
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Meantime
-
-
If I lengthen the fender ropes so they can be put up on the deck then they dangle in the water when under way. If I shorten them so they don't dangle in the water, them they won't stay on the deck, so the fenders stay down. That's my excuse anyway. Plus life's too short for all that faffing around. Wastes valuable pub time, and they need all the support they can get at the moment.
Just a thought though, aren't fenders meant to be removed and stored in baskets when underway at sea? Not left rolling around on deck, in fact I'm thinking they would probably blow back down anyway, which leads me to wonder about the reasoning for leaving them on deck when on the rivers, it cannot be a sea going thing?
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:
Far right of the pic. Just the stern.
Should have gone to Specsavers 🫣
That's the one!
-
1 hour ago, FlyingFortress said:
Can't see your boat in that pic MT 😳
Want to bet on that?
I reckon I can see mine, or at least a bit of it!
-
Hard frost overnight at Oulton Broad, but virtually gone this morning. Don't think it will get low enough for long enough this time for ice to form in the Broad.
-
If you look at the following picture taken from Horsey windmill you will see a Lowliner 38. When is the last time you saw one of them above that bridge?
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:
In answer to your question. I don't know but would like to 🍺
It was 2006. I think that was the year we bumped into you (not literally) at Catfield. We arrived back at Potter the next day and you were just in front of us for the queue for the pilot, which enabled me to get that picture.
If you zoom in on the picture below, whilst not the best quality, I still reckon there was about 6ft10in. or 11in.
-
30 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:
It must be 15 years or more ago my boat which BTW was designed to pass under PH Bridge last went under.
Taken 1st July but what year?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Hylander said:
Always money for London.
Hammersmith Bridge has been closed to traffic since 2019.
-
19 hours ago, Mouldy said:
We visited a long established hostelry near a very popular mooring at location that may soon be subject to an overnight mooring fee (no names, no TOS infringements) for some bar snack type lunches in November. They were only providing full meals at quite high prices at the time, so we wandered to the nearby church and made do with coffee and cake in their visitor centre instead. I understand that the same establishment is only opening two days a week currently, so surely that’s indicative of tough times and a need for prudence.
I didn't know that Reedham had a church with a visitor's centre. You learn something new every day.
-
3
-
-
I suspect the land was transferred in good faith from Blakes to The BA for the intention of keeping free moorings for all. However the document doesn't specifically say that. You would imagine that when the transfer was made that Blakes thought the BA were trust worthy and ethical enough for it not to be necessary.
The yacht stations have value add in terms of facilities, such as showers and toilets and for an additional fee pump out. They are also leased from respective councils so you could expect those costs need to be recovered, but Ranworth is owned out right and the mooring is maintained out of the toll account, so what's the value add that warrants charging for Ranworth? The ranger is totally unnecessary and given the choice between paying to moor, or not having a ranger there I know which I'd chose.
There are moorings that the BA lease and pay to maintain out of the toll account that are free, but there is no "excuse" to have a ranger there so they cannot collect a mooring fee, at present.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:
Thanks Neil the second download would appear to confirm the right to moor for free for pleasure under the covenant.
Fred
I'm not so sure, since the word moor isn't used and the rights are for parishioners of Ranworth. However if you are a parishioner of Ranworth and you wanted to fish from the staithe I think there is little the BA could do about it!!!!
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, YnysMon said:
have another photo of Ferry Marina taken a week later. They had chopped it down a bit, but it's definitely higher than it used to be. I'll post that photo when I get to that day of the blog.
For a year or so now they have had one short new section that was much higher than the rest. They started to rebuild the quay heading all the way along and were quickly stopped by the BA at that time as they did not have planning to build it higher. Much better that the mooring flooded frequently apparently!!!!
I'm guessing that planning issues have now been thrashed out and the full works restarted. Although higher, it was no higher than the quay heading at The Ferry Marina, but the BA need to waste our tolls somewhere!!!
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, RS2021 said:
I dread to think what will happen if ANPR technology can be adapted to read broads registrations on boats. No need for a ranger, simply pay on your phone app or receive a fine through the post.
Providing they littered all the moorings with the appropriate clearly displayed notices with full terms and conditions, and got planning for them all and the cameras. Signage for car park PCNs is very tightly controlled and has to be complied with. I think charging at the yacht stations and these two new locations would require similar IF they were to try and issue penatlies for non payment.
-
I suspect the BA haven't really thought this through properly as usual. Putting aside the legality of charging at those two locations, what makes them any different to the other free BA moorings we already pay for through our toll? The provision of a ranger to help you moor? Now of you don't make use of the rangers help to moor, should you still pay? After all you have already paid once through your toll!
Now let's consider what would happen if you refused to pay. They can hardly untie your ropes and cast you off, that would break one of their own Byelaws. Speaking of which, which Byelaw sets the amount of any penalty or fine they could issue if you refused to pay? Makes me wonder what what happen if you refused to pay at Norwich or Yarmouth.
Does anyone know how many people have actually been successfully prosecuted for over staying a free 24hr mooring? I don't, but I suspect it's not many, if any.
Then you have to consider other similar situations where you can be fined for non payment, car parks and such. They have to display multiple prominent signs with the full terms and conditions that you accept by parking there, including full details of any penalty charges. Are the BA planning on littering those two mooring locations with the requisite signage? Speaking of planning, are they going to put in a planning application to themselves to enable them to put up such signage. All of which has again got me questioning the legality of the charges at Norwich and Yarmouth. I remember seeing the charges sign at both locations, but the full terms and conditions including penalty charges? I don't remember seeing them, so what is the penalty or fine for non payment at these two existing locations?
The ONLY reason they are not charging at other locations is because there is not a ranger based there YET! or the technology doesn't exist to charge and Police such a charge yet! This is the thin end of the wedge and a stand needs to be made.
Sutton Staithe and Hoveton are long enough and busy enough moorings to potentially warrant employing a ranger to help you moor! Neatishead and Gays Staithe are close enough for similar. Be warned!
-
1
-
-
So I believe that double mooring is allowed at Reedham, but only with permission from the boat owner. Do you have to pay £20 if you refuse to allow another paying boat to moor alongside you?
-
3
-
-
OK then, being pessimistic for a moment, what happens if the divers find there is damage under the water to the structure and the closure to road traffic becomes permanent, but also they decide to close the bridge to river traffic on the grounds of safety. What happens then?
-
1 hour ago, FlyingFortress said:
I'm afraid the words chocolate and fireguard spring to mind.😞
About as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike springs to mind!!!
-
Looks like Red7 are onsite, presumably diving to see if the sink hole goes all the way through the bridge to the under water supports!!
It also appears that the bridge will now stay shut to road traffic until at least April. Rumours are that they are trying to prohibit road traffic permanently.
So that got me thinking; if the bridge is closed to road traffic one of its primary functions is obsolete, however it is still an ancient listed monument. However with out the need to make provision for road traffic, would it not be possible to build a cut around the bridge for river traffic, with a foot bridge over the cut to maintain pedestrian access to both sides? The newer bridge upstream would still limit the very big boats from reaching the Upper Thurne, but it would increase the number of boats built to pass the old bridge that could once again access the Upper Thurne. Or am I just being ridiculously sensible?
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Gracie said:
I think I'll skip the food and just go for the cocktails
x
Would we really expect anything else?
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Gracie said:
I have a birthday coming up and may just head that way for a meal x
More details of the January offer are on their website here
I note they are also doing 2 cocktails for £12 during the same period.
If you download their app they are also giving £20 off if you spend over £40
-
2
-
1
-
-
The Swan Inn are also doing 50% off mains Mon to Friday 9th - 20th January. Think you need to use the app to download a voucher.
Always good to hear about offers that may be available.
Just my thoughts, but opinions on establishments and whether or not you would use them are probably best saved for your own or other threads, rather than hijacking someone's good intentions!
-
6
-
-
Fair dues, at the very least it is normal to quote where it has been copied from, however private communications should always be private and respected in my opinion.
-
The attached document, which I believe was commissioned by the BA makes interesting reading. Particularly page 31 and 32.
This is a quote from page 31.
"On November 19 2002 the ownership of the staithe and visitor centre were transferred from the NSBYO to the Broads Authority in order ‘to ensure that it is maintained and managed for public use as it has been in the past’."
Were there ever charges made for mooring at Ranworth in the past? There is also a covenant contained within the transfer to reserve the right to free mooring for parishioners which tends to conform the origin of the staithe as a public staithe.
-
17 hours ago, NeilB said:
Otherwise I can see the dinghy getting more use for pub / shop visits as mudweighting is free - for now anyway.....
Strange you should mention that!!! I believe the BA got given the lease for Ranworth moorings by Blakes, who in turn had taken out a lease on the moorings, and Matlhouse Broad and Ranworth Dam, in order to keep the navigation open. If the whole lease was passed to the BA, then presumably they could charge for mud weighting!!!
I reckon I can see mine, or at least a bit of it!
x
Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)
in Broads Chat
Posted
No he couldn't afford the toll!