ExSurveyor

Good afternoon all, Please be aware that we are currently undertaking tree shear work on Fleet Dyke near Rockland (on the River Yare). During the works, we are asking vessels to navigate with care in the vicinity and to follow instructions from the Rangers on site. The works should be completed by Friday afternoon this week. Kind regards Tom Tom Waterfall Senior Communications Officer Direct dial 01603 756034 Broads Authority Yare House, 62-64 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1RY

Is that not what you have just done yourself. ? I don't see any attacks on Richard personally, only good wishes. Now is perhaps the time to leave this topic before it ends up locked.

The one run by Richard is still down.

Apparently not, maybe limited WiFi or the problem is solved. Hopefully we get an update at some stage.

I agree, I doubt they have the equipment or skills in house. My point was that as they have issued a notice doesn't automatically mean they / we are footing the bill.

The article does say ' contractors' are raising the vessel. Unless BA have instructed the contractors it is likely to be an insurance company footing the bill.

Good afternoon all, Notice is hereby given that the Womack Island 24hr mooring will be closed to navigation for refurbishment works from 24 January until 8 March 2024. During this period there will be no public access to the mooring. The site is situated on Womack Water on the River Thurne (what3words reference ///motive.ballroom.headline) The works will involve the timber refurbishment of the existing quay heading. During the above period the navigation will remain open, but vessels must exercise great care whilst proceeding past the vicinity of the works. Thank you for your cooperation. https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/navigating-the-broads/boating-news Kind regards Tom Tom Waterfall Senior Communications Officer Direct dial 01603 756034 Broads Authority

Possibly, You might be framed but it would be a stitch up, you could try to canvas support.

What happens, or not, on BRAG, is down to the leadership of that group. If any members are interested they are free to join the group and influence it's direction from within.

The National Park model works quite well, the hybrid version that is suggested for The Broads doesn't under the existing leadership. The Broads will never fit the NP mould and no amount of forcing it to will succeed, hence a separate and unique act of parliament was needed.

Good morning, Please be aware that on Wednesday 17 January 2024, contractors will be raising a sunken vessel at Great Yarmouth Yacht Station on the River Bure. River users are urged to approach with care and caution if navigating in the proximity of the area. Thank you for your cooperation. All the best, Tom Tom Waterfall Senior Communications Officer Direct dial 01603 756034 Broads Authority

Welcome, you will find the answer in the previous posts on this thread or search for National Park, there are reams of previous threads covering the subject.

I am so sorry to hear this, Ian was such a supporter of the forum. He kept us engaged during lockdown with his tales of his life as a chef, his recipes, cooking tips and his community work. He even took all the good natured ribbing well from members when he forgot to duck at a bridge. We will all really miss his contributions. It is rare that we have three members of a family all members here, Our condolences go out to Marina, Alan and all his family. His family, and this forum, will be a sadder place without Ian's presence. Rest in peace Ian, your battles, fought so bravely, are over.

Noses run in my family I am dreadful remembering names and faces and will prove it at the spring meeting.

Fantastic I would use them again just based on that.

For those who don't do Facebook, I have permission from Norfolk Broads News to publish this on our forum. Please remember our ToS when discussing it. I have been given sight of a letter which has been sent this evening to all Broads Authority and Navigation Committee members in advance of Thursday’s NavCom meeting. Dear all You will have seen the briefing paper on navigation funding which appears in the Chief Executive’s report within the papers for this Thursday’s navigation committee meeting, along with some feedback from various organisations, including the BHBF. You will note that that the BHBF have supported some of the proposals in the paper, but have been unable to support it overall because it mixes up two things – the perfectly laudable aim of getting better financial support from government for the maintenance of the UK’s waterways, and the issue of separate accounting for navigation and non-navigation functions, which has been a bone of contention for nearly 2 decades. The BHBF were pleased to be asked to comment on this paper before Christmas, but were disappointed that, having carefully considered and responded to the paper (which you will note makes no mention of any urgent bid for capital equipment), the Chief Executive’s reaction was first to call the Chairman of the BHBF to ask him to reconsider its position, and then to contact British Marine to ask them whether they could persuade the BHBF to change their view. This kind of behind-the-scenes shenanigans does nothing to improve the perception of the Broads Authority’s ability to collaborate or consult on issues. At the beginning of last year, it imposed swingeing increases on toll payers with no meaningful consultation of any kind. At the end of last year, it consulted navigation committee on the 2024 tolls and then ignored their recommendation (which was, itself, only made under extreme pressure not to propose a lower increase), imposing a further inflation-busting increase which resulted in tolls rising by 22.5% in just 2 years. Now, when stakeholder bodies are consulted and don’t give the required response, they are leaned on by the Chief Executive to change their mind, or have their response dismissed as “missing the point”. The reason that the BHBF has not supported this paper has nothing to do with capital grants for dredging equipment. We weren’t even asked that question. We were asked to comment on a paper which stated that “The requirement that the Authority must ensure that navigation expenditure equals navigation income in any one year and be accounted for separately from National Park expenditure represents an expensive, risky, and artificial distinction”, claimed that “…the National Park budget was in some cases inadvertently cross-subsidising navigation activities” and alleged that “The funding model is a precarious and improper basis for preserving what is a public asset”. We do not agree with these statements, which are not supported by any evidence. For example, you are asked to believe that the “National Park” budget has been subsidising navigation activities – despite the fact that tolls have risen by far more than inflation during the same period that the National Park grant is said to have fallen in real terms. This assertion fails even the most basic sense-check, because it suggests that actual navigation expenses have routinely increased by more than inflation, every year, whilst spending on non-navigation functions has reduced by even more than the real-terms decrease in the DEFRA grant – and nobody noticed until just now! The BHBF’s response letter sets out why we believe that the statutory requirement for navigation income and expenditure to be “ring fenced” is not only reasonable, but essential. The fact that the Authority has, for some years, shared all expenditure between navigation and non-navigation functions does not make that approach correct, or lawful. The Broads Act is quite clear on what “navigation expenditure” means – and it does not mean “a subjectively fair apportionment of all the Authority’s activities”. The reason for the wording in the Act is simple – the Authority has a number of functions which are similar to those of National Parks, and those are funded through the DEFRA grant. Additionally, it is responsible for maintaining the navigation (principally dredging, tree clearance and provision of moorings) and those items are funded by the people and organisations who derive the benefit. Sometimes, the navigation gets a benefit from work which was not wholly or mainly navigation-related. The Hickling Broad project mentioned in the paper is a good example. The Act tells us clearly how to deal with that – it is not navigation expenditure, and it cannot be “apportioned”. Likewise, navigation work will sometimes provide a non-navigation benefit – but because it is “wholly or mainly” for the benefit of the navigation, it is a navigation expense. Complicated apportionments are not only unnecessary, but expressly contrary to the wording of the Act. The recently-promulgated idea that the National Park budget has somehow been subsidising the navigation is not only wrong, but it would have been a breach of the Broads Act if it had been true. It has only been suggested in response to the widespread criticism of the Review of Shared Costs which, undeniably, and by the Chief Executive’s own admission, shifts previously DEFRA-funded expenditure on to the navigation account. This has resulted in a formal challenge to the Department for Transport in respect of the 2023 tolls – which we noticed with some surprise was not reported at your last board meeting, despite the considerable financial and reputational risk to the Authority should the Secretary of State rule in favour of the complainants. Surely the board have a right to be informed of actions such as this, and to know the risks? On the issue of national funding, section 15 of The Broads Act 1988 allows the Secretary of State to “make grants to the Authority for such purposes, and on such terms and conditions, as he thinks fit”, and section 17( 8 ) expressly states that navigation income includes “any grant made to the Authority specifically for purposes for which navigation expenditure can be incurred.” There is, therefore, no reason why the Authority should not receive grants from the government to assist with the cost of maintaining the navigation, and we applaud any endeavour by the Authority to obtain such grants. The BHBF does not accept that the requirement to account separately for navigation income and expenditure should create any impediment to the receipt of such grants, or that the careful separate identification of navigation expenditure is expensive, or risky, or artificial, or that the model itself is precarious or improper. The quantum of funding available from government is of course a legitimate subject for debate, and we would be pleased to see better support for maintaining all of the country’s waterways – but we see no reason to change the Broads funding model itself which appears to be perfectly reasonable and allows for additional grant funding for navigation. Finally, you will observe that the BHBF made some suggestions such as imposing a levy on local authorities (which is still a live provision of the Broads Act as far as we are aware) and opening a wider discussion about dredging – which is hardly unreasonable given that the BA is an organisation with the operational ability to carry out dredging. There is no reason why the Authority should not be contracted either by the Environment Agency or the Port of Yarmouth Commissioners to carry out such work, or for there to be a joined-up approach to the issue, and it is disappointing to have our suggestions dismissed outright as they have been in paras 2.9 - 2.12 of the paper. Surely, by now, the Broads Authority should be able to listen to ideas from outside its own ranks, and engage with stakeholder organisations to develop policy collaboratively for the benefit of the Broads and all of its users? We hope that both the navigation committee and the full Authority will have a good debate on the proposals, including considering the points which we have made. Kind regards Matthew Thwaites (Chairman) James Knight (Vice Chairman) Tony Howes (Secretary) The Broads Hire Boat Federation

If that is the case then not only are we losing fixed 24 hour moorings on the Southern side but also a very popular area for mud weighting.

The reason I ask is that I always notice my feet are cold with a fan heater even though the style of the boat means it isn't draughty. I have a panel heater for the rear cabin that works well. I might try an oil filled radiator next time I am up.

Good afternoon all and happy new year Please note that we have temporarily closed our 24hr moorings at Womack Island whilst we undertake some tree works in preparation for the refurbishment of the moorings later on in spring 2024. The closure is expected to remain in place until Saturday 13 January but may be extended if the works are delayed. Thank you for your cooperation. Kind regards Tom Tom Waterfall Senior Communications Officer Direct dial 01603 756034 Broads Authority Yare House, 62-64 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1RY

I have always used a fan heater onboard in the main cabin but I know a lot of members use an oil filled radiator. What is the better option for prolonged heating of a main cabin.

It was over two years ago as my little Broom Scorpio is on its mooring.

Kate, The view is looking towards the river, Whitey is on the front just out of view on the right. The marina is set out with floating pontoons and fingers, the entrance to the river is off to the left. It is a quiet big marina, about 160 berths of varying sizes but feels small and friendly.

Finally on its mooring, being dwarfed by Denham Owl.

Sorry to hear this Marina, I am sure everyone on the forum is thinking of you all and sending our thoughts and best wishes to Ian.

As the biggest leisure operator in Norfolk I guess they know what they are doing and where the profit is. It is good to see forward thinking and investment in the industry, especially at the moment.