marshman

I do not think the Engage workshops will continue if pressure groups emerge - in fact I know they won't! Everyone thinks "their" pressure group is the most important and are what the Broads need - my view is generally different in that only with genuine cooperation and rational thinking will any progress be made - no evidence of that so far, just the same old soapboxes appearing. For progress to be made you have to talk constructively, especially with the BA, and that seemingly cannot occur whilst we trot out the same as before. And no I do not propose, unusually, to enter into such a discussion, on Facebook!!

Oh no not again! I had thought that the NP issue had all gone to sleep - oh well must be the winter again!! However, as an interested bystander with a few fingers in a few pies and my ear attached locally to the ground, you may all be interested that the Thurne Mouth issue appears to be be MUCH more than an issue over rubbish! This is a long standing dispute and the rubbish issue came only at the very end of this very sad saga. My understanding is that the core issue may not even have anything to do with the BA so before further suppositions are made in an open forum I think it may be sensible to move on!!! The statement in the open letter is only part of the issues and locals, and myself could probably tell a whole different tale - which I am not repeating even if what I hear is right!! The Broads Engage workshops will be a total failure if people continue to drag in old and often unsubstantiated views and opinions - the world has to move on and the objective must be move on beyond entrenched views for the good of the Broads. If all we see is continued back biting by certain individuals the new format will come to end very quickly. Perhaps you never attended the old style Broads Forum meetings where these were often dominated by certain individuals with huge chipped shoulders banging on about their own personal grievances - that is why IMHO they failed. Lets not continue dredging up old conspiracies time and time again without evidence and try and move on and solve a few issues! Some of us are totally fed up with every issue leading back to the unsubstantiated conspiracy issue, on every issue, yet again - the FaceAche group does itself no favours at all!

Paul - old fashioned creosote is still readily available if you know where!!!

And probably with a stud wall immediately behind it too! The concrete cladding referred to will have absolutely no bearing on the flammability of that house or otherwise - it impacts only the visual aspect and that is the point. Any oblique reference to any other issue is in extremely poor taste - but I expect nothing else from that publication which is why it continues to be treated with distain. I rarely read it and am not going to start now!

The flammability or otherwise is completely irrelevant in an ordinary house - cannot even see why it was mentioned at all! What is much more relevant to the Broads as a whole is that wood is undeniably more appropriate, attractive and sustainable - as someone kindly pointed out what is NOT appropriate is concrete. It looks what it is - inappropriate to Irstead and a cheap option. Surely waney edged boarding would look just so much nicer even to you diehards who want to moan at the BA just because its the BA!!! (Perhaps if I get enough support, I will have to rethink the Christmas card idea - wintry picture of SOB maybe?? )

Paul - Christmas card?? No chance m8!!!!!

Some people are viewing certain aspects through rose coloured specs and I would check quite seriously whether concrete is green!! My understanding is that it is far from it! ( Something to do with the power used to make it methinks! ) BUT you are all missing the point and indeed that in most if not all planning matters - do what you say you are going to do, and you cannot be criticised. Go outside the guidelines and you stand the risk of someone jumping on you. It was ever thus!!! If you don't want that, comply with what you said and was agreed!!!! Fred has said it all!!!!

I must admit I did wonder how on earth it got planning permission in the first place but as usual whats the point of getting permission in the first place if you can then ignore it! And yes I CAN easily spot the difference from the river!! Why do some people think they can ignore planning conditions! P.S. Does anyone think the public will ever get to SEE the Ice House? At least people can see the mill at Hunsett!! (Oooops - opened another can of worms there!! )

I am really surprised that wood was not specified - if it wasn't!! Even up north in Co Durham, my son is having to clad a proposed garage in wood, and although he is a bit remote up in the hills, he is not even in a conservation area.

Push bikes????

Yeah but..........! Can I live here without a boat or at least being someway involved after so long? I could move away altogether but can I be bothered doing that either??

I think Chris B touched on this but living away and having a boat on the Broads, is very very different to living here and having a boat locally. You use it differently and indeed perhaps less! Bizarre isn't it but there is often a great temptation to bunk off home to have a sleep and somehow it seems more difficult to actually provision the boat to stay on it for a few days! So I tend to use it less to sleep on but on the other side of the coin, you can just nip out on a great evening or even a day at short notice or even on a whim if it's lovely! I think it is all about availability - when you live here you think nothing about doing all those things lots of us are busy with. But if you live away and you decide to go to the boat, then you clear other things away to make space. Here you perhaps prioritise these things over the boat - "Thinks - I must be stricter with myself and go away on the boat more often!! )

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules except to use your judgement not to hog places which can be used by others - had you wanted a mooring I expect the little one might oblige but he has an outboard and equally I can see another side on on the easterly quay heading. Doesn't look to have been much of an issue to me.

I accept everything everyone says but still my idea of heaven is just to sit on the back deck in, say, Black Horse Broad and soak it all up. On and off I have been around the Broads for well over 60 plus years and I doubt I will ever tire of them. The boat is getting harder to sort every year but probably have a year or so left? Until then I will continue as before - the changes have come and gone, of course it is different but the appeal will not fade until I do!! What is funny is all the things people moan about, particularly the busy bit - you should have seen it in the early 70's! We expect a lot for our buck and the landscape continues to change (the trees! ) but it still holds for me, a special and unmatched appeal.

Griff - the BA has not purchased Oby Mill as far as I am aware but the mill is likely to get a grant from the Mills and Marshes initiative. However the initiative so called is nothing about restoration of these mills, merely about ensuring these structures do not deteriorate further, or so I believe. The total funds of £4m for the whole project are being spread pretty thinly, especially when you look at the projects, and in some cases the money will only go as far as making them watertight to make sure the structures remain. I believe that one or two are going to get a bit more done to them - hopefully one will be Clayrack Mill above How Hill and the other is on the Halvergate Marshes somewhere - Highs Mill rings a bell somewhere. To put the costs of mill (or rather pump) restoration into context, the first stage of the restoration of the one at Horsey has cost £260k with more to go!! So don't get your hopes up too high!!

Not sure that double mooring is allowed on this mooring? It is only a few moorings where it is permissible. Don't forget that a lot of the issues on moorings concern the longer term maintenance and if my memory serves me right, this is, or at least, part is, owned by the EA who I suspect no longer wish to commit to that.

Lets try and get this back on topic, or at least about boats, as I totally agree with the Freedom comment on modern boat cookers!! One of my pet gripes, the modern boat cooker is a complete waste of space, made primarily of pressed tin and virtually without any insulation and hardly any control over the temperature! What more could you ask for from the payment of £500!!! In fact the obvious answer to this is to install an of the shelf gas cooker - all now have FFD on all burners and I can see no reason why you should not do this - except there seems a general conspiracy by manufacturers to supply or fit the different burners! Despite sales promises to the contrary most even deny you can even change the burners, talking to you as if you were an idiot, and then telling you that legislation does not allow these cookers to be installed in a boat!! Yet I can see nothing to say they cannot although getting someone to fit one is another struggle. The sooner we can ban "modern" boat cookers the better - realistically they are not fit for purpose IMHO

Given the high tides, you would think he might have noticed when he drove down the road across the marshes - I would guess it would be at least a foot deep on the bit from the cottages down towards the Ferry. But then clearly not......!

Are the starlings there, or did i forget my glasses? Nice piccie though, even without the aforementioned!!!

To be fair, you cannot patrol for 6 hours in a RIB - well not at my age!!!!!!

And there was me, in all innocence, just about to post what MM has posted!!!! I do not believe that the BA staff are qualified to be a "rescue" service! As has been pointed out the correct procedure to follow is to contact the Coastguard and they can then make the decision to allocate what services are available and which are best suited to the occasion. I suspect that the Coastguard is well aware that the persons most suited to the rescue, and those who could attend most quickly were the lads down the river. They responded accordingly and did the job - whats the issue? Equally I can think of several reasons why SOB may have been at the Dockyard - how can you expect it to be everywhere? What I certainly do not want to see coming from the Nav budget is more staff employed to enable SOB to patrol more often - perhaps he would like to see that but I suspect that if SOB was seen more often, he would wish to know why and who was paying! And MM is right too about the cost - I don't know the final figures but neither was it cheap to mould a new launch when they did, nor design and make a new plug for the top following necessary changes in the accomodation. Virtual one offs are always expensive and on balance if I had to patrol Breydon for 6/7 hours, I think I would feel more comfortable in SOB than in a standard river patrol boat. Finally everyone knows that the BA do do a great deal that is right which is why I post as I do - and why the anti BA brigade make so little headway in their campaign of total negativity about everything. Everyone is very bored with the constant sniping and I am only "heard" so often, just to put the counter argument for the high percentage of total Broads users who see far less wrong than some would indicate.

Yes - but you have hit the nail on the head! Everyone alongside the river either sees it as a source of income or an intrusion into their privacy!! A modern day disease I am afraid

How many people would be happy to drive around in a car like an Austin 1100/1300? They would much prefer their larger SUV!!!

The last I heard was that Tim was hopeful!!!

Am I not right in thinking that IF this really was anything of note, then perhaps some of the remaining Nav Comm members would also resign in James's support? Well you might certainly expect that if they really felt it a matter of principle! I wonder what Lana's view is - if he were to get any support then I guess that is the most likely source? But surely if there was any substance to all of this, then the BA would hardly be supported by those independent persons who reviewed the actions - indeed I suspect the BA has gone out of its way to ensure that everything was above board. Or are we to assume that those independent individuals have now joined the grand conspiracy? I struggle to see anything new here and my guess is they have taken these steps to prove nothing IS wrong. Surely the various levels of review have proved there was nothing at all unfair about what has happened? I know, I know, you expected me to say just this, but this time other independent reviewers do seem to be in agreement. That after all it is their job to consider just this type of issue.