marshman

Nope - definitely different!!! Look at detail!!!

Not the same boat is it? Different registration anyway!!!

Of course as an alternative you could use a nicer colour, more in keeping with the surroundings - perhaps it is a shame boats are not "listed" and then you would have to!!!!!!!!

Stop bashing the BA on this - why is it their fault?. It is a legal responsibility of councils STILL to remove personal waste and the BA (and us! ) are going to have to shoulder the burden. So please explain why the BA needs its head bashing? Don't apportion blame on everything Broads related to them - its not their doing!! But you can see where pressure continues to be placed on them to continuer to raid the navigation budget - i have no doubt from whence the inevitable costs foisted on the BA will come from

Well done Strow for pointing out what to some of us is blindingly obvious!! Generally we get a pretty good deal.....!!!!

Labrador - its strange how some have poor memories - I recall when a well known boatyard wanted to move to the rivers edge there was a long forum based debate, including some posters here, who said it would spoil the view and should not be allowed!! You should also be aware that much of the redevelopment of the riverside in Wroxham took place a long time before the BA even existed. Part of their existing planning policy I believe is that riverside development of existing yards is supposed to leave at least a working yard on the site - the trouble is in a contracting industry thats often easier said than done! Its a bit like asking a farm owner to provide cottages for agricultural workers when he has not got any!!!

Everyone is entitled to their view but some peoples views should not necessarily be supported as fact!!! Take note all journalists and ex cricketers with vested interests, especially in shooting!!!

Dave - that is not quite right!!! DEFRA have not yet given their opinion but the indications are that they will not object!!! I believe the formal letter acknowledging this is awaited!! i would hope and expect this letter to confirm that the legal position has not changed - which it cannot!!! And I am not sure that we here are not all singing from the same hymn sheet - the Green Tourism logo and awards have nothing to do with the BA. The Green Tourism Business Scheme is a national grading scheme and is run by Green Business and has no particular connection to Broadland at all - its nationwide. There have been local Green initiatives but why shouldn't there be? Your argument about funding etc is very valid but you are almost talking yourself into approval for the probable forthcoming change of name - surely everyone would agree to CALL the Broads a NP can do only good to tourism generally? It is unlikely to have a negative effect is it?

Agreed its all silly journalism but if DEFRA do change their view and allow it to be called a NP even if it isnt, then I have few issues with that, simply because i know what the actual situation is But I do think it wrong to suggest that these individuals know nothing and that people like yourself know better!! A number of these individuals run substantial businesses in Broadland so yes they do have an interest and yes most have made considerable investment and are interested in promoting the Broads area as a tourist destination. Why should they not want that to happen? If the very least that they do is to promote their own business and arrange for leaflets to go in holiday establishments throughout Norfolk then every bit to keep tourism alive in this area must help. It seems to me that if all that you get is people who do little to help knocking them, then if they wish to do it off their own backs, then thats great and fine by me. This area, and its economy depends very heavily on tourism and such loose associations can only provide benefit. - without constant promotion the area as a whole would be worse off and these businesses would be affected and probably worse off.

As always the EDP is wrong I think - what do you expect from a quality paper. I think it swung twice recently to allow Cambria through. However on either this or the other place, a shot of Cambria at Hardley showed the rig partially lowered. Did they actually swing as was intended or did they lower? Sadly i did not get up at 2 a.m. when it was planned!! Anyone know???? And yes all the other bridges swing so why not leave that facility - its their fault in any case for singling the track on the bridge in the first place!!!

Don't knock Potter Bridge - it does the Broads a great service!!! Everyone can go and see it if they want to but what it does is allow everyone to see what the real Broads are all about. I don't mind cruisers at all ( I have one!!) but how sad if one small corner which is unique to the world, was turned into the what the rest is like. Even after I have gone please please leave it as it is , unless and when nature decrees its time to alter it!!!

And don't the press and tv love a dramatic story!! Whilst Upton Dyke was badly affected i saw little or no evidence that Horning area and above Potter was much affected when out yesterday. Its whatever number it was too many but put it into perspective - I still saw many people fishing in the areas i mentioned. They were not smiling particularly but do they ever!!!

All getting back to normal already - pretty shortlived in reality and although levels are still high there should be no issues now. Up north apart from Upton not sure much was affected - I did not see any evidence of dead fish in Womack and certainly none Candle Dyke and Heigham Sound

That was the picture in the EDP - that was the launch he used to use to drag the river with in the 50's/60's - in those days with the hospital just up the road he had to deal with a few "jumpers", sad though it was.

Not only can I remember Nobby but i have actually had a go on that old bike several times - Nutty Slack that is !!!

At the end of the day Mark, venture capitalists are in it for one reason and one reason only and thats profit. Do you really ever see the profit from any riverside development being ploughed back by that type of operation? I think its all a smoke and mirrors trick and think that the promised investment in that fabulously profitable industry - boatbuilding - is not a given. I would not like to imagine how much it would cost to build and operate a purpose built volume boat building operation in this country where labour costs are relatively high and it is not what venture capitalists, by their very nature, do!! They tend to asset strip, break up and above all , profit - they buy assets at low prices at difficult times, put in the barest investment and sell on or develop parts for profit when markets improve - see a developing trend here??? Mark - its probably the worse thing that could happen at Brooms simply because I am not convinced. If its all true then I can see benefits but its a bit like Swiss cheese methinks. Lets just hope i am very wrong and my worst fantasies do not come true!!!!

Gracie - as it is virtually the same posters, are you not a little concerned that this may go the same way at some time in the future??? Doesn't bother me - I am just too thick skinned to notice a great deal of difference - in reality the only difference now is I have to look in 2 places rather than 1 !!!!!

Oh and before someone accuses me of not reading the bit about riverside access, let me say I am sceptical in the extreme!!! The trouble is riverside access for the public amounts to reduced profit and a bit like Strow I see some trade off being planned - don't get me wrong I realise that that happens all the time but am I being a bit cynical when I could see the plans being "altered " later to reduce that aspect. Must admit I am not sure I really see Brooms in the kind of market the big players are in nor am I totally convinced that is the real intention, despite the rhetoric - but we shall just have to wait a d see!! I suppose this is Norfolk and nothing much will happen very quickly I suspect.

Well well well - whose surprised???!! Not me!!! Lets use another greenfield site when there is plenty of room in places like Lowestoft!!. My guess this is something that the takeover was all about in the first place - it never made any sense and now we are seeing what was behind it all from the outset!!! Differing planning authorities too - the Cucumber Lane site will be Broadland District whilst the riverside development will be the good old BA I suspect. Lets hope that they insist on the site retaining a boatyard and how nice it would be if public access could be included in the plans, something Brundall has lacked for so so long but I suspect I am just in fantasy land when the real objective behind all of this is not jobs, not for the Broads or anything other than good old fashioned profit!!! Oh dear, now i sound like a cynic!!!!!

Hunters have done one as I mentioned - perhaps it would be worse without one but as I said 50% still reef incorrectly despite being shown EXACTLY how to do it - you could argue that without it 75% would do it wrong but I am not sure thats the case. Whilst i agree it cannot do any harm, I remain to be convinced that those who need it most, will actually take any note , but thats just my view!!!

Steve and Deb - but would they watch it and take note? I do doubt it but thats just my view. Sensible people might but thems that crash into large objects do not fall into that category. Sadly. Quite like the idea of a hammer drill - now that might work....!

Much as I like the idea of a training video, the ones who don't need to watch it will, and those who DO need to watch it won't!!! Hunters have been doing one for some years and it makes no difference - still about 50% reef the sails incorrectly and thats explained in great detail!!! Basically, with the greatest of respect to the individual concerned, if you cannot see a large moving object attached to the shore by chains either side and signposted and easily visible, you are not going to sit down and watch a video about all those things you know about!!! Or think you do!!!!

On the question of lights, my guess is that they would make no difference. If you cannot see or cannot recognise chains, you won't recognise what the lights mean!!! Down at Sandbanks last week - they have a strobe light but could hardly see it. Ferry a bit bigger, chains a bit bigger but still they hit it now and again!!

I was never aware of this land actually being NWT - they may have some management contribution but if so probably only voluntary. i think the Heater is something to do with them but again not sure whether they actually own it. I believe that the actual owner of the land in question may even be Hertfordshire CC who may sublet it to the Barton Turf Adventure Centre - so its perhaps a "rubbish" issue with HCC!!!! Convoluted or not??? Of course it could even be let to HCC so that would complicate matters thrice more!!! Whoever actually owns it makes it seem to get further and further away from the BA!! Probably no chance of getting a sensible outcome - time perhaps to just to get yer wellies on and sort it with Forum Memberts!!!!

How can the BA guarantee to maintain access over land they don't own?? Everyone knows how difficult it is to "force" landowners to do something they do not wish to do and as a lessee or licensee in these circumstances you have absolutely no control. It would seem sensible to allow negotiations to run their course and await some definite news than to continue to spout on about rumours without basis - of course the boardwalk is handy and my guess is that it will sort itself out BUT if the BA does agree to maintain it, should it come out of the Navigation budget?? That will get you pondering.....