Meantime

I'm not sure I fully understand your question? If you own a home and you want to let it out as a holiday let, then you generally don't need planning permission, because there is no change of use, however if you own a caravan park and you have a number of short term lets, then to increase the number of caravans beyond the number you already have planning for would need a planning application. Likewise if you wanted to allow all year round residential use of the caravans you would need planning permission, but that would give you the ability to let them longer term all year round, but wouldn't mean that you had to.

No, whilst you need planning permission to have residential moorings, it doesn't mean you have to have residential moorings.

Whilst that is often true, isn't it fair to say that the mooring fee is the same, therefore they get the same money whether it is a residential berth or not. It could be argued that what they do get is free extra pairs of eyes to keep a look out for the other boats, so surely a bonus for all.

I personally use Nog's layout which shouldn't be a trip hazard as the rope ends up overhanging the water between cleat and bankside, unless off course you can walk on water then perhaps it may be a trip hazard!

News from the Rhond suggests that the new owners of The Waveney River Centre are to remove the residential mooring status from the marina. It's a shame for the current residential moorers who will no have to move on and seek hard to find new moorings, but also the previous owners of The WRC had done a lot of work to support the provision of legitimate residential berths. I cannot remember the precise details, I'm sure there are some on here somewhere, but when The BA looked at the whole issue of provision of residential berths The WRC was one of the acceptable locations and had provisionally allocated a number of berths. I'm assuming it is the policy of the new owners and not as a result of any review by The BA. If it is the policy of the new owners then that is quite worrying as they seem to be expanding their ownership on The Broads what with the aquisition and expansion at Oulton Broad, and now The WRC. A sad day indeed for those wanting to live aboard with the peace of mind and security of a marina berth.

Or even Febrile?

Surely all those costs are outside of the control of the yard you hire from! Would you expect TRUELY inclusive to include the cost of your travel to the hire yard, and maybe the cost of travel home afterwards? Perhaps it should include the cost of eating and drinking out in pubs and restaurants all week? My view is that all inclusive is for all the items under the direct control of the hire yard.

The Dog Inn at Ludham is closed until Spring, I don't suppose it will be the only one. Best not to speculate on reasons for closure at this point in time. I'd ring ahead if planning to visit any pubs because some are even closing for a few days due to staff isolating, often at short notice. Lets hope Omicron proves to be the start of the end of this virus and we can all get back to normal as soon as possible.

Because you're fed up with having spare money burning a hole in your pocket!

Griff, Not gonna say anything about the engine being the wrong colour, but good to see that a Nanni bit got you out of trouble. Sounds like you really encountered Murphys Law on that trip.

Because whilst the anti vaxers might catch it and spread it and even if your jabbed and boosted you might still catch it, your better protected against dying or getting severe disease, It really is that simple, but you knew that anyway. Two not so subtle changes I've noticed today. My local pub the staff have been instructed to wear masks again and there is a notice on the door asking that whilst it is not yet the law again, please wear masks when entering, moving around and at the bar. Get's a big thumbs up from me. Just been to Sainsburys and the screens are back around the tills and self service tills again. I never knew why they vanished in the first place.

Just out of interest what rule was changed? The purpose of article 48.12 is to remove those lapped cars that would "interfere" in the racing between the leaders, it is in effect a Blue flag for all those in the way of the racing to get out of the way before the safety car comes in. It doesn't say that all lapped cars have to unlap themselves! Even though that has happened in the past.

Hamilton lost the win in lap 1. Turn 6 Max was ahead into the corner and stayed on the track. Hamilton left the track and stayed ahead. He should have given the lead back to Max and if that had happened then he would have been in the position to pick up the free pit stop under the safety car and more than likely the result would have been a Hamilton win.

Probably not, but I don't see it ending well. Such a contentious subject will also lead to very polarised views and will be very difficult to stay non political.

Since not many, if any make it as far up The North sea as to arrive on the shores of Lowestoft, or Great Yarmouth, I'm not exactly sure why this topic is being discussed here? I have my own view on the subject, but I also have the view that here is not the place to share it.

The shortest day is actually the 21st December, which is also the start of Winter, unless your into weather forecasting, in which case it started on the 1st December!!!!

The problem is your using logic and reason based upon a lifetimes experience of working in a technical environment and to you and me it all makes perfect sense, however there are many equally intelligent people who write fantastic poetry or Broadway plays who won't have a clue about what you've just writtten. Many people still believe that Old Shuck still exists in Broadland, or that a ghost still visits Acle Bridge regularly!

No they are black and white and made of concrete, I've seen them in Milton Keynes The problem is there becomes a fine line between removing fake news and then removing inconvenient truths!

Although rumour has it that the Bloody Broads Authority are planning to only issue tolls if you produce your vaccine pass!

Because it still comes down to personal choice. A blood transfusion may save your life, but if your a Jehovah's Witness you would still chose not to have it, and you cannot be forced to. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not anti the vaccine, I've had both doses and the booster and will more than likely take any future boosters offered, But I do believe in it being mine, or anyone else's free choice.

That is very true, however it is also true that you have a choice to weigh up the risks and read the accompanying leaflet and then make an informed choice about whether you wish to take the risk no matter how small.

Its been reported today that a 41 year dad died 11 days after taking the vaccine of a brain haemorrhage likely to have been induced by the vaccine. Whilst thankfully it is extremely rare, there have been other deaths attributed to the vaccine. It hasn't stopped me taking the vaccine, but can you force anyone to take a vaccine that in extreme cases can cause death. It has to remain a free choice.

And what about those who refuse to go on a diet, do we refuse them hip and knee replacements? We are the most obese country in Europe and only just behind America. Do we refuse cancer treatment to smokers? And I saw that news article last night and the woman wasn't complaining about not being allowed to see her child, she said that she had missed the first four weeks of her childs life due to her being in a coma, there is a difference between not being able to, and not being allowed to.

And what about the selfish smokers, the selfish alcoholics, the selfish drug abusers and the selfish people that over eat to the point that they get diabetes and need hip or knee replacements. All those also place a huge burden on the NHS. If it is their right to over indulge in what ever does them no good to the point that they take up NHS beds, then surely the same goes for those who chose not to take the vaccine. I've had the vaccine as my personal choice, but I wouldn't want to see anyone forced to take the vaccine against their will, no more than I would expect the Government to ban the sale and smoking of cigarettes or the sale and consumption of alcohol, or for the NHS to refuse to treat anyone who overdoses on recreational drugs, or refuse to treat anyone who has eaten too much.

But it's not really the same thing though is it? If being double vaccinated and having the booster avoids serious disease then you have done your part in protecting yourself. If the virus evades the vaccine then can we really force others to have the vaccine against their will? They are saying that being double vaccinated and even with the booster you can still spread the disease, so would you advocate another full lockdown? They are saying that 4 out of 5 ICU beds are occupied by people that are not vaccinated so really they are only doing their self harm by not taking the vaccine but that is their personal choice. All you can do is your best and get on with life whilst following all the current guidelines. I've recently spent 6 days on The Broads and took all reasonable precautions when in public places. I've taken 5 LFT tests in the last 8 days due to being in busier places including hospitality and all including the last one taken today were negative. Myself and the friend I was with have both been pinged by the NHS app for being in close contact with someone on the 3rd December who has since tested positive for COVID. Apart from being on the boat that day we visited one pub, which I shall not name, so we are fairly certain it was another customer or member of staff. As per the advice of the app, and because we are double vaccinated we do not need to self isolate at this point in time. It recommended we book a PCR test which we have done and mine was completed an hour ago. My friend has also completed a number of LFT tests and all were negative. So I'm reasonably confident the PCR test will also be negative, but have followed the NHS advice anyway.