marshman

Where did you find that picture then????

The only comfort I take from all of this is a) I will not be around to see all the changes and If you think its bad here, I can promise you its 10x wusser elsewhere!!!!!

Not quite sure if that report is entirely right - and to be honest I am not really bothered but it may have ramifications for the Broom operation. The bit delineated on the plan is different from the piece I originally understood was having the "factory" - I had originally thought it was going to be on the bit sandwiched between the bypass and Yarmouth Road which at one stage was not designated for housing. It all looks to be a bit of a tangled web and if I could be bothered , I guess we could find links between the various companies wishing to develop and the VC's now owning Brooms. As hinted in another thread, certainly the current owners of Brooms do not look necessarily to be in it for the boatyard operation or indeed a hire fleet but look to have connections all over that area and fingers in other pies!! Ooops - still being cynical or what here!!!!!!

Trev - don't be confused!!! Not sure how its applied originally as i wasn't there!! However I was always led to understand it was part of the build process and certainly even now, it looks pretty permanent!! I would not worry too much anyway as there are many people in the Broads who do not antifoul under their boats as fouling here is minimal. Some use tar varnish and others leave it with nothing on at all . I personally put on about 2' or so around the waterline and never bother with anything else - if however you ask anyone else to do it for you they always do the lot irrespective. I think in all the years ( 15?) I have had mine, it has only been done totally twice and generally its all a bit of a waste of money/effort!! You should be aware that antifouling generally is bad for the Broads building up toxins etc - there are always studies being done to see how much this is and at some time in the future , it could be banned especially as its not really vital!!

Trev- I think you will find that when yards have the rollers out, its just a case of bungin' it all over, irrespective!!!! Not really necessary as it does not stick that well to Coppercote and is easily blasted off with a pressure washer - if you like to get your scuba suit out, all you have to do is jump in at Ferry! After all I think you are only 4/5 boats away!!!

I cannot argue with your assessment!! Going south is easy - timing is a bit easier as you can easily transit GY either side of low water IF the height is OK and it should be as you are coming up to springs. BUT coming back you are squeezed every which way!! You are nearer springs and so you could push through if the height is ok but you then have a hard flog up the Bure. Stracey Arms is probably only 1 1/2 hrs away but if its a rainy day, then the dark will get you first! From a height point of view, you have to watch the incoming flood creeping in and raising water levels, whilst to all appearances, the tide is still running out onb the surface. You should however be fine at Ludham - most people will tell you that Ludham rarely holds up traffic because of the bridge height and when it does it is usually a combination of spring tides and heavy rain. Rise and fall at Ludham is not a lot - 6/9" or so, but the gauges are set well back from the bridge and you have plenty of time to moor. Its often easier to stop. Perhaps as a precaution try and navigate against the run of the stream - that enables you to have more control and able to stop more easily if its a squeeze

Jean - I am sorry but I have nothing to add other than my own speculation!! I am a bit of a cynical 'ol git in my old age and Martin Broom was a very seasoned operator and I thought at the time ,he made a shrewd move out of the industry perhaps at the right time! They had already moved out of the hire fleets for one reason or another and if then, the return on capital employed was not good enough, then whats changed?? The move of the manufacturing base up the road to near the main road, seemed at the time nothing short of fanciful on behalf of the new owners, and so it has proved. Look back over the history of low volume boat builders in the UK and you see a very very chequered past - I have given up trying to count the number of times Westerly went to the wall and like it or not, Brooms are in a different league even today. Niche markets are notoriously difficult to call, orders are by no means certain and buyers notoriously fickle!! There is little concrete or certain in what I have written but the new owners seemed to me, at the time, looking to invest for the future - Vaughan will I suspect tell you that investing in a yard is like buying a boat! A money pit but unlike a boat, has the ability to absorb gargantuan sums of money, all on the hope that someone might buy your finished product!! Not for me methinks UNLESS of course, you could develop the yard into housing but how likely is that??? Lets hope the glass is indeed half full, and not half empty!!!!!

As far as I am aware, having crawled all underneath mine on many occasions, I con confirm its all solid glass resin - plus a few zebra mussels and I did not inspect them too closely!!! And equally all boats as far as I am aware, are definitely of the gentler variety!!!

Surely the very fact that there are so few yards on the S Broads show that hiring from them is not as effective or as good a prospect as up North? I think that it is pretty apparent that this is the case , like it or not! Whilst they are not the best example to quote, you will all remember the attempt by Le Boat to operate out of Somerleyton - that folded I think after just one season and the boats went back to Horning, quite simply because the Northern yard had a higher boat/week booking ratio. This applies to not only cruisers but dayboats too - you CAN hire dayboats but the choice is pretty limited and generally basic. Don't get me wrong but there is little evidence to suggest this is a new trend that is going to reestablish southern yards and it remains to be seen whether the Brooms operation is going to be successful over a period. I can think of several reasons why Brooms have started a hire fleet against the trend but you are unlikely to get me to put those on the Forum!

When moulded copper particles were included in the gel coat, and/or bonded thereto.I have it on my Broom Diamond and it is/was meant to work as an antifouling. Even many years later it still seems to be pretty effective or perhaps the Broads do not cause a build up of growth/dirt except around the waterline. I still dont bother to antifoul all over as that effectively provides a barrier and I only antifoul around the waterline leaving the underneath bare. There is in any case a strong argument not to bother to antifoul underneath, although it keeps some yards going. Just give it a good pressure wash as it comes out.

Hang on a bit - I might be wrong although to be fair to them, they have owned a fair dollop of the Broad since about 1948 and have done not a lot detrimental so far!!!!!

James - I wish them every success believe you me, but running a hire fleet these days seems to require deep pockets and an abundance of other income streams!

I actually disagree with James, and indeed I think the evidence actually points to the reverse being true! I don't think the people who hire the more expensive boats, especially for short breaks, actually want to go anywhere near the galley!!! I am also too much of a sceptic to see much logic behind the expansion of a new hire fleet down south. I would love to believe the feasibility of such actions, but if noone else can make it run effectively, then how all of a sudden, can Brooms?? Cynical I know but if they don't get the bookings, and others couldn't, then there may be other motives behind the expansion! Not seen a lot in the Press lately either, about the much vaunted plans to shift the manufacturing away from the river up to a new site nearer the main road? I think Martin Broom selling up was probably a wise move, but I really hope I am wrong and that the current owners are in it for the longer term!!

It is all a bit more complicated than just a few mutterings from and on behalf of a few interested bodies who have wildlife at heart. I believe , for what it is worth, the issue at Horsey may, in reality, be a fairly straightforward in that I am not sure anyone has a right to ban navigation. When the BA wanted to try this over winter many years ago, I think they realised other issues existed to override their objective and they backed away and as is stated, the exclusion is now only "voluntary". At the same time, I am not in the least bit concerned that the NWT, or even the RSPB who own no land up there, will try to restrict navigation, either now or in the future. People continue to worry themselves over this issue but whilst everyone continues to worry about it, I see no evidence to suggest they either would, or indeed could. If you ever worry about there being no "Broadland community" I am quite confident that in todays environment, that such an act would be well nigh on impossible. Way back after the war, that was tried on at Blackhorse and failed and to be honest I believe it would again up here. I might be wrong but I doubt I shall ever see it tested!!

It may not affect the Broads directly but over the years there have been plenty of posts elsewhere about the mess that has been left behind where it has occurred - don't think it is the camper vans but those in canoes who do it and leave the remains of their "meal" behind!!!! Why cannot people respect the environment? Oh that applies to some large landowners too i suspect!!

I have been using it since the 60's - do i have squatting rights??????

Looking at the real time graph for Lowestoft, seems to be coming in tonight ok!!! http://www.ntslf.org/data/realtime?port=Lowestoft

Bloomin' 'eck!!! Now agreeing with Vaughan AND PW!!!!!!

I have to say I find myself having a lot of commonality with Vaughan and indeed PW on this issue. In fact here, the piling here at Upton was put in because it was the actual flood bank but now the flood bank has been moved further back, the piling is rather superfluous. This replacement of the original bank with a graded profile has been used almost everywhere in Broadland with some success and I am not sure there is any real evidence that it does not work? Or is there? The Chet is a little different and not really comparable as the issues down that river were much more complex with unstable land There are to my knowledge, plenty of places where it has been done successfully and where there is really no evidence of erosion, and in places where boat traffic is significantly higher. The Ant downstream of How Hill had all that piling removed several years ago, and to be honest you just would not know going up that bit now. Equally, the bit downstream of Ludham was similarly graded and again, there seems little evidence of either the river narrowing, or it getting shallower. Remember too the BA's only role is that of planning , and like it or not , any refusal would almost certainly be appealed by BESL, probably successfully, with costs awarded against the BA. Going back to basics however, it revolves almost entirely around cost - whilst the steel piling was part of the flood defences, the maintenance cost was against the EA, but now that is removed, its going to be on the BA. Is that what we really want? Do we want anymore unnecessary cost on that body? My guess is that it may even be cheaper to dredge the dyke if and when necessary, rather than replace the steel piling at some date and if erosion is not seen, then its probably win /win.

Not thast i know the details, but difficult to see any reason why it was refused??? Other local businesses not a reason IMHO!!

Nope - born and bred a Norfolk lad, but to be fair went away to find fame and fortune - found neither so ended up back here!!

In my youth (!) we had a converted ships lifeboat (from Jacksons in Peterborough ) which Dad converted in the front garden with a homemade sail and straw stuffed palliasses, but powered by a British Anzani twin. The point being however that Vaughans pictorial of how to start and outboard, just rings so true - except that was the exception than the rule! My poor old Dad spent hours wrapping the string and pulling it, generally to no avail!! It was OK when it WAS going but the primary view was of him bent over it with his bum in the air! When he swore at me and then belted me, I generally did as I was told but I never understood why the outboard ignored him! And there are hordes of people who people who have told me that Seagulls are super reliable - but never for me! In the 70's I was to be found on the N Kent Coast where we had a swinging mooring which we accessed by an inflatable. It always started first pull on the way out, but having often spent a few hours on a mooring awaiting our return, it was somewhat fickle to say the least!! How I hated rowing ashore at the end of a sail - it somehow took away all the enjoyment of the day!!

Pete - they did indeed use gabions, but not stone filled ones. In fact they used large builders bags , or similar, filled with mud. This enabled the vegetation to fill the area bags pretty quickly and now, the edge against the channel has established itself as a reed fringe ,very effectively - from the water the bags are still discernible if you look closely, but only just!

PW - at Hickling, they are not using gabions of any sort. The mud is being pumped into lagoons made with geotextile material held in place with posts. The trouble is they are difficult to put in but it was very successful last winter up on the north eastern corner up near the boat houses so it is being replicated on a larger scale in Churchills Bay. And Vaughan, they are not really mudpumping - that usually involves a suction dredger and pumping much more water down a longer pipe, but at the moment they are using traditional equipment and moving material by the steel wherries up to the pump which is in reality an adapted concrete pump - the mud is unloaded into a hopper and then pumped to where its needed. Unlike mudpumping where it does tend to find its own level, this is more solid and pumped over a much shorter distance, and the pipe has to be moved around more but it leaves a more "solid" result which can be reestablished more quickly with reedmace and reed. Trouble is it is all a bit labour intensive! Once the water temps begin to rise, above about 8C, they will pack up and the plan will be to continue next year. Not sure if its been decided where spoil is going next time but I think its possibly going ashore by pump somewhere on the eastern side.

Agreed although to be fair, presumably the Landlord would be within his rights to turf anyone if , if he so wanted?They are not "public" moorings so I guess he can do as he pleases (he does anyway!! ) Jean - again to be fair there were often quay attendants around, although they often made matters worse! On the question of lights, I never say any on the boats and indeed did not even know this was a prerequisite of the agreement until JP happened to mention it at meeting after the trial had ended. Not once did i see it mentioned anywhere else, so he let that one slip....!