marshman

Indeed the Sotshole owner did "win" but the boardwalk is not used regularly - indeed it is roped off with Private signs all over it. Seems a lot of money spent just to use it at bluebell time!

Not like me to want to disagree with young Mr PW or indeed question accepted wisdom, but to me, I have never thought them really substantial enough to stop a loaded wherry with its mast up!!! Albion loaded with 40 tons of grain would take some stopping and as the mast is much heavier than those bits of wood, I have always wondered if they had another purpose? Equally why would they lower the mast for each lock - wherryman would have got the hump over that I guess. If you look closely, the cross bit seems to fit in a kind of crutch enabling them to be easily removed? Or did they just not make them fit to length? Fascinating to realise that in just 100 years the real reason may just never be known!!

That must have been in the beginning then, when they first decided with the aid of the RSPB and NWT that the rivers and Broads were not for boats but nature!!

Equally Mr Tapatalk does seem to have hit the nail on the head with his last two posts on the topic? Does talk some sense!

Point of order PW - the BA no longer buy cars! They lease them!!!

Vaughan - I love exaggeration to try and prove a point - as do others! Indeed the Broads were NOT akin to a cesspit but they were in a pretty torrid state - my sister and I used to have a "game" of counting the condoms to be seen! Sad I know but with no internet what else was there to do. Fishing as I recall was pretty poor too - or was that me?? But you know have introduced the spectre of another Broads Bill - noone has ever suggested that and I am sure the powers that be are plenty busy enough especially as they keep saying the the Broads are not, and will not be, a National Park BUT can be called one. Can the detractors not spot the difference? I will readily join the "anti" brigade when that changes and not until!

The latter is correct - access is also available to the Waxham Cut. Having said that, unless you have any special reason to go other than for the sake of it, this is one area that perhaps the birds are best left to their own in the winter - it is a very special place.

Pete - perhaps he was just winding you up a bit like others do but you have to understand what Batrabill is saying in his last point?? I do not have the info available but just for example, could you even hazard a guess at the value of Clives waterborne business or Barbara Greasleys?? Perhaps a word in someones ear could add them to the list of industries to be nationalised and then the taxpayer could foot the bill? I would not accuse you of lying but even you have to be a bit sceptical of the value of his comments given your knowledge of the Broads and associated industries and the value thereof! But Charlie, I really do take issue with you on your point - I know nothing of your past but if you were around in the late 1960's and early 70's you would NOT have posted that - effectively the Broads were "dead" and the change to todays position has not occurred by nature alone but by action to rid the rivers of human effluent, not just from boats but from raw sewage being discharged. The Broads have changed for the better by leaps and bounds but that was not a natural change - they just had to do what they did or today it would still have been an open cesspit!!

The Sandford principle is talked about as if it had been regularly applied - note the wording carefully "..if there is a conflict..." and to quote the Windermere speedboat ban as an instance, is just not correct. I doubt anywhere in the reams of paper about that decision, whether Sandford was actually used to justify it. Despite the appearance from this site that the ban on speedboats was very much against the views of everyone, there were, and still are, many people who supported that move and would again today, if it were put to the vote! To be honest, I suspect that the majority would still support it - not necessarily the majority in the town itself who were directly affected but throughout the whole area . And Pete, you keep on quoting time and time again that one occasion that JP purported to quote to you about boats and anglers being banned, but he has never quoted it to me, nor anyone else that I am aware of and I challenge you to find it in print either! As others say, it will not happen and you know that and many others do , so its a bit pointless IMHO to keep on ratcheting the ante up over it time and time again! And whilst we are about it, to suggest we should have a vote on the election of the BA as some would wish, again it is not going to happen anytime soon - you have firstly the problem of deciding who should vote and secondly, do you really want the Broads run by an elected body? You would have some difficulty in selecting appropriate persons to stand and I would hazard a guess that elected members would make no better job of it. And thats based on my view of most publicly elected bodies!!!!

Two very quick points. This was on appeal so it was the Inspector who laid down this ruling not specifically the BA. Search the internet and it is easy to find that p/p is required to get a change of use from agricultural land to garden - plenty of case law to support this and as someone said it is not easy! Planting fruit trees to, I suspect, try and get round the law proves you need to be a little brighter!! Planning rules are generally for everyone's benefit - you do something which requires planning without it, at your risk! If in doubt talk to the planners and you will then not get a nasty surprise! I have always found planning officers pretty helpful! The boardwalk around Sotshole is to all intents and purposes now abandoned - I happened upon it on a walk recently! Enforcement was never imposed as if I recall, retrospective permission was granted and indeed the plan was to open it occasionally so you could walk across from Fairhaven. Initially this happened but to me it looks abandinned - to be fair to the BA it is something of a monstrosity being about 9 ' wide and cutting a broad swathe through the woods. Now looking unkempt and a considerable waste of money!!

Don't think that was the only one I saw this morning on t'internet!

Is that not owned by the Parish Council, or am I talking about the bit facing HW? I seem to remember some time ago about having a spat from the PC over use of the staithe?

Safer in a galvanised bucket?? Or purpose built carrier such as this?https://www.amazon.co.uk/Marko-Fireside-Galvanised-Container-Fireplace/dp/B01HBPYOXU/ref=sr_1_19_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1516178778&sr=8-19-spons&keywords=ash+pan+for+fire&psc=1? Just an idea...........?

Exactly right Mark, but it is virtually impossible to get a list of these , even from the BA!! I believe that the two Clive refers to are just a bit further up Woods dyke past Boulters but these are not free BA 24hr moorings, but just moorings - which you will have to pay for - Clive will confirm that I guess! If you are on a hire boat just pop into Ferry Marina - they will normally allow hire boats to stern moor on their frontage. Equally Ferry lease the moorings opposite the Ferry Inn itself and you can moor there - but you have to pay at that one. Given the cost of replacing quay heading, its a fact of life that the "free" moorings are gradually disappearing!!

I think the crux of it surrounds the fact that it is arguable whether a promotional video is necessary - clearly engine trials are and that is acceptable for most people. Whether a promo video is, is perhaps another matter. As I have said before, if you are trying to promote such a boat, is it not best to do the promo out at sea to illustrate the boats sea keeping capabilites? What exactly does the video show - that it will go pretty fast up a river, which incidentally no new owner would be allowed to do ? So why bother at all? Whilst I am sure R is right, I find it a little difficult to believe a semi displacement hull will ever produce very little wake, trimmed or not!

Not hard to chose a sensible name and to be honest, I would never choose a name which appears too clever by half - its a boat and should bear its name proudly!!

Just an idle comment really but Haines do not seem to need a facility to test their engines, although to be fair their Agents presumably could use both Brundall and Horning for potential customers!

Why - just getting interesting!!!

I continue to agree with the majority - I think! The exemption exists for a specific reason and regulated accordingly - the BA check, or should do so that it is not being abused and indeed used correctly. The point being made originally was whether it is appropriate for Brooms to advertise or see any benefits in so doing, a seagoing boat in flat calm waters - methinks a rather pointless exercise other than to show a G & T will not spill in those circumstances! When it was reviewed some years ago, one of the objections not mentioned on this thread so far, is the noise and at the time I recall a number of local residents saying the noise reverberated in the valley and there were a number of complaints by these individuals. The RSPB also complained about the noise being as it runs alongside and immediately adjacent to the Strumpshaw Reserve. Valid or not I am sure, it depends on which side of the fence you sit! The Northern Rivers stretch is from about 400 yds downstream of the Cockshoot Moorings to around Bure Court , the big house. I believe there also used to be one on the Thurne downstream of Womack Dyke towards Thurne Mill but that may now be defunct. At the time Brooms were particularly keen on retaining it primarily for engine testing but I am not sure how many high speed craft they are building these days. I get the impression, perhaps wrongly, that it has been a bit squeezed in the marketplace and are not building as many as it would like or indeed , expect - one reason why perhaps they have been using spare capacity to build up the hire fleet. In reality I doubt there are that many involved in the building of new boats - probably most in maintenance and looking after existing craft moored locally.

I doubt this will stop what has been going on and seemingly, within the guidelines. After all I have a little sympathy with them doing this - the argument given at one meeting was the the particularly needed this facility so they could "test " the engines. They protested it was too far to Breydon if, as they should, stayed within the speed limits except in this one area. It was some years ago ( perhaps 6 ? ) that the logbook system was introduced and that the helmsman should be properly qualified, and if the BA are reading this, and they have not been out to check the logbook lately, then perhaps they should just to ensure all is being done according to the book!! What I object to though, is the attitude being portrayed - its not a river boat they are selling but an estuary or sea boat so why do it on the river where it is not just necessary to justify the sales pitch? Or indeed allowed to be done by a prospective purchaser at all? But then it would cost more money to go to sea to do that, and they are not likely to want to waste a tank of diesel just for publicity!! I have to say that I am still surprised that nothing yet has been attempted or even tried, at the Brundall site. Time will tell but I bet they have plans, and that its not for boatbuilding. Or thats my view for what its worth - probably not a lot!!

This activity is now strictly controlled and they do have to keep a log of what is being done and have a suitably trained helmsman - this log is then open to inspection by the BA at anytime. They should be running under "trade plates" but it is probably not a hanging offence if they just have them with you! As John says the regulations about waterskiers are even more strict - as far as other boats are concerned I suspect it is now effectively only Brooms and NYA for demonstration purposes and engine testing. Ordinary folk like you or me, are subject to the speed limit and if you want a blast, its only Breydon for us!

Do you really expect anything other than that from the people who now run Brooms?? From the people who instead of building that purpose built factory to start a new production facility now find that instead will actually build houses if we can? Have you not spotted that its not run by a well established Broadland boating family anymore but by venture capitalists? I am NOT surprised by anything they do!!! Having said that they are closing the brokerage so there may be less of whats shown and equally you upset the RSPB at your peril as they are bigger and have more resources and contacts!!! ( For those that don't know, that stretch runs right alongside the RSPB Reserve and they have long been very anti that "facility"! )

Although some went down - you don't here too many people boasting that theirs went down but they are around!!! Overall I will just remind you that following the change the tolls budget was only expected to increase by quite modest amounts although I believe in the event it may have been more than that as the number of hire craft rose more than expected! OK lets not have a "discussion" about it again but as ever I just like to keep the "balance" going in the topic!!!!!

Must admit I have never found them to be a lot of good - yes they do give you warning but not as much as you might think or would wish for!! The gauge does not, in my limited experience, act like a fuel gauge in a car for example, but drops away pretty sharpish towards the end.

Thats just a guess Mr Waller! Any real proof or the beginning of yet another conspiracy theory!!!!