marshman

I don't think that is the only place she is going......! In fact i know its not....!!!

Yes you will but no worse than in society as a whole. Nowhere I know does this kind of behaviour NOT take place but it is the exception rather than the rule and you may go the rest of the season without witnessing anything particularly untoward. Equally do not believe those who tell you it is a new phenomenon - it isn't and has happened for many years but probably at its worst in the late 6o's and early 70,s when the Broads were generally much busier with hire craft. It is a holiday destination and without tourism the Broads would die!!!

You might not need one, but you cannot smell a download, yet you can an old book - much much more satisfying!!!!

Thats because the narrative is on the facing page - at least it is on my copy! Does not the archive show that?

Me - angry ????? Far far from it!!!!!!! Although I cannot see a great deal of point in continuing to pursue this as I think there are better things to spend money on. (Conquered my desire to put exclamation marks!) Paladin is right - there is no brick structure (my memory failed me!!) but that does not alter the principle. There are many dykes in the marshes which are "navigable" and I am not going to type a list here for risk of starting an explosion of people who may wish to establish a so called right of navigation to a long forgotten staithe. I also disagree with Speedtriples comment that this instance could open up "an important mooring space" - How Hill is just downstream and whilst in the busiest times it can be quite busy, most times throughout the year it has plenty of space. A volunteer force does not have the facility to dredge the dyke - apart from all the necessary permissions, which I doubt they could get, where would you get the appropriate equipment from and to the site? All moorings which are established have to be of a certain standard today if they are formal moorings and do the Parish Council want to pay for this, let alone the ongoing maintenance? My guess is not but no doubt someone will now write to them to find out! I still maintain, despite the assurance of others that the dyke is not large enough to establish such a mooring in, nor is there enough room to establish a turning basin and is the cost warranted to establish a limited number of moorings? It is certainly narrower than Upton Dyke and most find that a bit of a squeeze! Whilst i know you will all disagree vehemently, and you entitled to your view, just as I am to mine, the costs would far outweigh the benefits - the BA are catching up on a dredging backlog but are we seriously suggesting the benefit would justify the cost? I am sure it is on the BA website somewhere and I know it is buried in their documents, but dredging is pretty expensive as is the establishing of quay heading. I am sure someone will tell me where to look and the precise nature of dredging costs. Nonetheless I wish you well with your attempts but dont be surprised if it fails!!! (Ooops slipped 3 in there) I was well aware that the BA owned that land and that it is a valuable Nature Reserve - I doubt they could be encouraged to believe that this would be anything other than detrimental to the area.

Sorry Paladin - moved this over to this thread now!!!! But still do not think it is navigable in that sense of the word!!!!! Your pictures clearly show the brick constriction and where the stop planks went - this could have been to control the water level in Cromes Broad at some time but not conclusive evidence of the positioning of the"staithe" I am sure you can produce a picture with the staithe marked or at least as far as the parish council is concerned. You will no doubt also be able to confirm the owner of the land on the stbd side of the dyke as you go away from the river - you suggested that it may be the How Hill Trust - not sure that is the case; might just be the BA itself!! All interesting but not a valid excuse to spend the tolls money IMHO!!!!!!

It only goes up there a few hundred yards before at the bend there is a brick built constriction - it used I believe to hold stop planks before the weir was originally built further up nearer to Cromes Broad. Dont forget you are looking at this in winter but whilst you may get a cruiser up there, there is certainly no turning area and to honest as this is in the middle of a Nature Reserve and almost certainly a triple Si cannot even see the point of having this discussion!!! They would find so many reasons why it is not possible especially when there are plenty of other areas needing attention!!! I do not believe you will ever get it open and indeed with perfectly good moorings within a relatively close by not quite sure why the BA should consider spending money on such a project? Surely we can think of better ways, and indeed places to spend it!!!!

The dyke may need to be dredged in the opinion of a few but what the real issue is is that the dyke is just not wide enough to take a cruiser - it would touch the sides!!!! On the BA side the bank is raised so to dredge it would require a major earthmoving operation and the other side provides a bank to prevent the other marsh flooding. You would find that you would face exactly the same problems as the BA - you would have to get the landowners permission to spread the dredgings and in the case of that piece of BA land it also is the upper limit of the floodbanks and you would need planning permission to touch those i guess Evidence of a staithe does not mean access by any boat - it may have only been for landing reeds from a lighter!!!!

There are many many staithes on the Broads which have fallen into disrepair over the years, and many which are not even on the main river system, often on parts of the river perhaps even now abandoned - not sure these should be included as the dyke was not actually "in use" despite the fact that they lead to what remain technically staithes!!!! The dyke is about wide enough for a dinghy and is still easily navigable - but only to the "bridge"!!. As far as that footbridge is concerned, my recollection is that the position of the weir or stop was moved for some reason or another and whilst it had been intended for it to have been a footbridge, it was decided to put it in place but not use it. Where it crosses the dyke at the moment, it does not link up on the BA land at least, to a public footpath -- indeed that is some distance away. You may be flogging a dead horse - or two to be precise!!!!

Must admit i have often wondered over the origins of the name - now I know what a dimwit!!!! Cromes Staithe of course - all a bit obvious now you know!!!!!!

Yes I agree Strow - they are not bulky at all and in fact have a reassuring feel - the fact that they have a strap around the body makes them so much more comfortable than an orange buoyancy aid and a very acceptable alternative to an auto inflate. Dont get me wrong - out at sea its a different issue but in the Broads they are perfectly acceptable for children and because they fit snugly are perfectly suited for a child who by their very nature, tend to be more active and jumping around a bit!!!!

Oh I meant to add that as far as the kids are concerned, the tighter fitting vests are much much better than the jacket - they are not at all cumbersome like the jacket and whilst they may not turn an unconscious child over, they are very efficient and the action of actually turning over is probably not really required. (well that my view for what its worth!!!! )

This is a difficult problem - both for the yards and the hirers!!! I understand Clives problem and I have also heard of places with the auto inflates not being checked properly and when checked, having a high failure rate. Equally , I am not sure I would wish to rely on a visual check - is this foolproof? Rather I think I would prefer to rely on a regular visual check but also a less regular manual check? Worst of all however is a life jacket not worn and for every one of those there is a potential death and Clive those orange ones are next to useless you have to admit!!! Most are just so ill fitting, that just raising your arms above your head will allow them to be easily lifted off!!! They do however make good seats!!! Clive - I do think that an auto inflate with only a 75% discharge rate is pretty low and a visual check weekly will considerably improve this - a manual cylinder check monthly will improve this further but at the end of the day you will not legislate against a hirer trying to "beat" the system and you will never ensure a 100% guarantee that once they have left the yard they will work. You will however I am sure have a reasonable and resonsible checking system and I believe that is all anyone could ever ask. But auto inflates on your fleet is a huge step and an important safety step forward - you are to be congratulated on taking it.

What the picture does show however is that opposite Johnny Crowes Staithe the entrance down which the Electric Eel goes is the old course of the Ant - if you follow this round on the map you will see it comes out at the boatshed just above How Hill moorings.. Sadly as this is a Nature Reserve it is private and in any case in bits it is not really navigable particularly as in bits it is quite overgrown. What it does show however is that there is little of the river as we know it , that is actually original particularly in the upper reaches.

Cannot add to that post - Paladin has said it all!!!! i think the path north is dependant on the time of year and "growth"!!! Usually can only get on that mooring if you happen to pass just as someone is vacating - fat chance probably!!!!

You see Hylander - you may fallen into the same old trap many others do - with respect. The work in Fleet Dyke was nothing to do with the BA - it was done by BESL as part of the flood prevention works and the BA as Planning Authority merely granted planning permission, as they did everywhere else in Broadland where flood defence work has been carried out. Being old my memory fails me but if i recall the retrospective planning consent there applied to the removal of the piling and I guess it is to that which you refer. Like you, I deplore the loss of many of the old "wild" mooring spots but as is often the case in open Forums you are pointing the finger at the wrong culprit - unless you wanted the BA to actually buy the moorings and look after them in perpetuity, then point your finger at the landowner. I am slightly at a loss how any of that is comparable to the situation at Sotshole Broad but you will no doubt enlighten the misguided!!

And quite correctly so - why should someone who believes he is "important" think he can go ahead and ride roughshod over planning laws which ordinary persons abide by? I believe that it was a deliberate attempt to profit by his proximity to Fairhaven and had nothing at all to do with his own personal enjoyment of his land. You can "enjoy" your land without building huge boardwalks and i applaud the oft derided Planning Dept at the BA for their stance and result.

Responsibility has I think already been admitted and appropriate claim has been made to cover cost of replacement - knowing insurance companies then thats next year before any more is heard!!!!!

What many people fail to realise is that many coots overwinter here, flying in from the near Continent. Thats is why we see an increase in coot numbers here in the UK and if they have a cold winter in Holland/Belgium/France coots come over in large numbers.

Might have been a big fat barge!!!!!!

Like all things, you get what you pay for!!!! There are plenty of moorings I would not go near because of position/lack of facilities but if you are not fussy then cheap moorings with no facilities are around. But if you value your pride and joy and you want to be somewhere more central, then perhaps £1500 a year may seem a bargain!!!!

There is no real reason why Marina Quays could not work if there is a will - you dont have to have pontoons given the length of riverside wall. In the past I have never had particular trouble mooring there - the river is much wider and there is ample room to turn. Behind the wall up the North end of the park there is a pitch and putt course - how about selling that off for housing and making it a precondition of planning permission that Marina Quays is made usable again? I do realise that one amenity is being lost for the sake of another and dog walkers would have to take their dogs elsewhere but there are no shortage of dog walking areas nearer the sea!! All seems a bit obvious really and would hugely improve that whole area. I cannot see any real issues other than the fact that Yarmouth Council would have to do something innovative for once but realistically that would be hoping too much i guess given their past track record. Without that it will continue to degenerate and fall further into disrepair - a real shame particularly as the developers would have to pay and the Council would sort out an underused and declining area of the town. Dream on i guess - Yarmouth not especially noted for imaginative regeneration!!!

All the northern bit of the Broad is basically OK except where the markers show Shallow Water on the eastern side where there is a hard baulk...In the south of the Broad boards and buoys clearly show where it shallows off and whilst people do go in here, beyond the boards , it is best to know where you are going. However all round the edges there is much more weed than there used to be, and I have noticed it more up the Neatishead arm, and whilst it is stringy looking and unlikely to be an issue, perhaps you should be mindful of it. Otherwise enjoy your mudweighting on what is one of the more beautiful Broads - its especially lovely late in the evening and early morning.

I too, was impressed with Strow's engine bay - cannot be many around like that!!!!

Shame she sank and will require such a huge amount of internal restoration!