marshman

The facility that they DO offer though is the space to moor and a quay heading to moor against. The £10's they collect will not even cover the cost of the rent, let alone the fund towards quay heading replacement if thats part of the lease!!

Now thats a sensible post - I fear many are just being unrealistic! By all means be like that, but do not expect ought for nought! You readily pay to park your car so cannot spot the difference!

So on that basis, I assume you think that if there is a space in the private marina bit of Ferry, you could moor there as well???

Now you know why it's a bit handy to have ATOL cover on your holiday you book yourself.........!!

What on earth does it think you are trying to say? Thats got my mind going off on a tangent!!

Not a lot they realistically can do if they break speed limits, and without any method of telling what speed you are going, how would they know?? When its breezy, hand held speed apps are hardly the most important thing on your mind!!!

Even an extension to Ferry would be unlikely to get PP. Despite all that has been said in the past about the BA's planning policy, they have been very very reluctant to agree to a change of user application.

I am not going into this too deep Vaughan, but it would require someone with very deep pockets to argue these finer points in a court of law!! Incidentally the NTL on the Ant is shown as the lower entrance to Barton, whilst on the Thurne it is the southern end of Heigham Sound and on the other bit towards West Somerton, as Dungeon Corner! Talking of Dungeon Corner, which we weren't, there is an interesting article in the new Harnser by my old mate Mike Sparkes, as to how that got its name. Worth a read even if is not entirely true - but of course it may be!!

Vaughan - out of interest my OS map shows the NTL (Normal Tidal Limit) as adjacent to the northernmost entrance to Wroxham Broad and whilst you could argue otherwise I suspect, that seems pretty definitive to me as being on record? And as to the rivers being natural, up North here JM, I doubt there is very little original river around, especially on the Ant and lots of the Bure as they dug new bits and abandoned the old! So in these places, is it natural or manmade???!!!

Timbo - I just cannot find the figure the the BA admit to being "lost moorings"? My recollection is that it is the other way - although I agree they would say that!! Equally whether you believe it or not, some of the "lost" moorings ARE as a result of landowners putting up the leasing costs to a level which the BA cannot, or will not pay. These days they rarely do anything without advice and I can almost guarantee that they will have on file advice from someone like the District Valuer, or whatever they are now called, says is the market value! However you decide that!! If they offered them "free" to the BA , I am sure there would be plenty of moorings! Vaughan - I don't like the charging trend either and it is indeed a long way from your day - but that was perhaps at least 50 years ago and in reality, like it or not, life has actually moved on!

Although Matt you say there were two lost moorings, methinks you have forgotten Acle Bridge. Was that new to the BA and now free?? Robin is absolutely right in his post And why does everyone on the Broads think the moorings should be free? You hire a motor caravan and everywhere you go you pay extra - extra for parking in towns, on viewpoints, at many many visitor attractions ( often extra on top! ) and at campsites. How much for e.g do you pay at a basic campsite for not a lot?? Equally I have never known Len Funnel do something without a reason, and I am sure he has one. But even if I knew I doubt I would tell you and I suggest we wait to see further developments over the longer term!

But on your back lawn, they may look a little different!!!

I think we have to accept, like it or not, that on private moorings we have to pay, just like you do for carparks - the trouble is free moorings have been the norm around here. Sadly life moves on and few of us bat an eyelid at paying at places like Durdle Door or at a National Trust space just to go for a walk or spend an afternoon doing nothing. Well sadly its finally come to Norfolk and the charges being seen are nothing other than the norm, even for not a lot. Those moorings at Aldeby look suspiciously like old EA piling and now I guess the owners will have to pay for maintenance - I know how much it is to put in wooden piling, or thereabouts, so I think most of you would fall out of bed if you were told the cost of steel piling!! No I don't know but even if I did, very few would even get close with a guess methinks!

Quite a lot I guess - in the case of a business after 5pm, I guess you would pay overtime. The trouble is with getting an individual to collect fees, boats turning up after the collection time would get it free , and that is the problem with places like Ranworth Island and Salhouse. However as the underlying owner is broadly the same, we could see these at those places too if it is successful!!! Effectively you would lose revenue because people will not pay voluntarily - perhaps this is seen by the owner to perhaps try and balance it out. I realise that people do not see the connection, but do not people pay to park cars in many places??

There is no dispute at all over the ownership of the machine - it is owned by Ferry Marina and the fee will cover mooring charges on the old BA 24 hr mooring. This land adjacent to the river is owned by Woodbastwick Estates and now leased from them by Ferry Marina. It has nothing to do with parking as that piece of land is not covered by the lease - that is a public highway ( I think) originally to the ferry . If you don't want to pay, to help defray the costs of leasing and running the mooring etc, go and moor at a BA 24 hr mooring. All this year the mooring has been closed to public use and none has been mooring there until Ferry took over the lease - there are many moorings you pay for on the Broads and as someone else has said, if you dont like it, moor elsewhere. You will all recall why this is no longer a BA mooring - the landowners increased the rent originally and the pub leased it hoping to attract more custom but for many reasons that has fallen through. For most of this year no mooring has been permitted but now this mooring is available for a fee - you cannot expect anyone to lease the mooring and let boats moor for free surely??

Not much bigger than an electricity post - presumably then private land owners who erect one of those would require PP too??

No - for the mooring!!!

Nothing to do with the BA either!!!!!!

Then with respect , John you will not be surprised when other private moorings around and about gradually disappear if people do not want to pay. Then of course if you want the BA to "pay" for you, there is only one source of additional funding to tap...!!

Rascal - you are right but remember this is Norfolk!!! This is always an emotive subject particularly as people expect mooring to be free here, but I think sometimes we expect too much.

Len has taken on the lease , perhaps to stop further loss of moorings to the public. The meter is collect mooring charges - I suppose everyone thinks it should be free but then who maintains it??

Whilst I admit it is only a personal view (again!), I really do not hope that if those "things" do not require planning permission, I sincerely hope they do not now spring up all over Broadland!! I suppose they do look round ,so they must have origins in yurts but thats as close as they get!!

Why build small two berth cruisers when, as far as I can see, most of the larger cruisers seem often to be occupied by just 2 people!! instead of letting a small boat to two people, rent them a large one instead and get more cash!

I think that is pretty relevant! What we do know is that there are some differences in opinion and before we line up in allegiance order, perhaps we should wait for the facts! If we had waited for the facts at Thorpe Island, we could have saved many many pages of supposition! This is a personal view but I think it somewhat below the standards of this forum to call individuals "names" which could even be a tad derogatory - do we even know that Prof Burgess is one of those hallowed persons everyone on this forum now seems to call her? Very few of you have even met her yet feel it appropriate to call her by other than her proper name? Probably me being sensitive but then I am...!

Surely we have amongst our midsts, some planning officers or retired ones who may wish to comment??