Acle Overnight Moorings

[Broads01]

I've read, more than once on various threads that with Horizon Craft closing, the moorings above their basin (and presumably the basin itself) won't be available next year. I've spent many happy nights on those moorings. Although I always visit the Bridge Inn, I do prefer the quiet moorings away from the pub which happen to have a lovely view down to the bridge, upstream round the bend and across the land over the river. The thought of these moorings disappearing fills me with dread, not least because Acle would then become just like Horning as far as finding a mooring is concerned. Does anyone have any definite information on this?

There's been a lot of good discussion on the 'cruiser without lights' thread about moorings and infrastructure generally, so I may I politely request this thread is kept to the specific issue of Acle.

[SwanR]

Well when we were at Horizon Craft recently they did indicate that they thought that the moorings were likely to be lost on their side of the river. I guess we have to wait and see whether Richardson's sell the land and if so what any new owner chooses to do. Or whether Richardson's have other plans. But they also said that the shop on the other side is up for sale and so the moorings over there could be at risk.

Unless anything definite has been said then I think all anyone can do is speculate while we wait and see. That's always the problem until someone speaks up officially. Not much of this season left.

But we mustn't forget that Bridgecraft are still there so Acle won't be entirely lost as a starting place to hire from.

[Broads01]

Yes indeed, I've never hired from Bridgecraft but they're a decent yard I feel. I moored there overnight 2 years ago and I would do so again, albeit that we were woken up at 5am by a cockerel crowing just behind the boat!

Regarding the moorings on the bank, I'd be surprised if Richardsons own the land, particularly as I remember signs giving a mooring fee. Nobody ever came to collect a fee but it makes me think the land is in private hands and Richardsons have always had an agreement to use it for boats not on hire.

 

[Broads01]

54 minutes ago, Jonzo said:

I don't believe Richardson's own anything other than the basin, with the rest being leased from the council.

We do not find ourselves in a good position at the moment. Unfortunately, popular opinion was that we should be leaving the matter alone.

Mmm, sorry Jonzo, your 2nd paragraph is too cryptic for me. Can you explain?

[SwanR]

Please feel free to remove my post if it would be better not to be talking about this one - I realise that speculation is not always helpful. But I think that discussion amongst interested parties is inevitable especially when people on the ground, so to speak, are freely giving out the information.

[Hylander]

I personally do not see anything wrong with us discussing this matter.   This is not China where you are not allowed to discuss matters and long may it stay so.       These moorings are an important part of the Broads system.    I am sure with the Freedom of Information Act now at everyone's behest we could easily find out who owned these moorings.

Clive would know what is going on and he is on here as a member  and is usually more than happy to put minds at rest when matters come to a head.     His silence is deafening.      

With moorings at a premium surely just for someone to just say one way or the other,  moorings will remain as is , or mooring are going to be let to private moorers as a business concern.    Whatever the outcome none of us can do anything about it other than put up and shut up.

Such is life.

 

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Clive very rarely posts here these days as he didn't get on well with the newish format when the site updated itself some months back. Thus his silence should not be misunderstood.

[grendel]

from looking at the land registry, the whole of the moorings and the yard and basin are owned by the same land owner, apart from about 1 boats length at the far end of the moorings that is shown on the land registry mapsearch as unregistered land (the white is unregistered land pink with red boundaries indicates the registry entry)

[grendel]

Unregistered does not necessarily mean not owned- just not recorded with the land registry - for example it could be crown land- owned by the queen (I am not saying that this unregistered land is though)

[oceandawn]

I understood from a Richardson employee that the moorings belonged to them and that they would remain.The yard used to take mooring fees which suggest that they own it.Hope so would not be good for anyone if they were closed.I also understood  that Bridgecraft might lease the basin which would allow pumpouts etc to remain.

[vanessan]

25 minutes ago, Jonzo said:

Yeah actually it looks like the situation might be a bit less bleak.

We shall see, but hopefully there are more places to moor next year as this year there are not enough. If the product isn't up to scratch then people will look to other waterways where on the whole it's really easy to find a mooring.

No-one wants that, certainly not me.

I can't see where new moorings are going to come from. It seems that land owners want silly money to lease river banks and there isn't the money to purchase new land. The situation at Thurne Mouth/Boundary Farm still has to be resolved and I have my doubts as to those moorings ever coming back into the system. The closing of those must have put extra pressure on the Acle moorings and if they are lost it will be a ridiculous situation for boats travelling from Great Yarmouth up the Bure. There will be precious few before St Benet's or Womack once past Stokesby. 

[LondonRascal]

One way to help with moorings would be to have floating pontoon– but only at certain times of the year e.g. May to August.

Such are towed in – anchored to the bottom and allow boats to moor – not necessarily with access to the shore but that again might be ‘negotiable’ with a land owner who would know that for just three months a year they will have people on the land, and be paid by the Broads Authority a sum for the pontoon to be ‘land linked’. 

At other locations, such as Ranworth pontoons could be used to created extended moorings out away from the staithe into the Broad (see photo) again between peak periods.

This sort of temporary mooring could be used to extend other moorings even for businesses such as pubs (Bridge Inn, Acle) but of course would require a more 'lenient' approach to planning so their use would be allowed.

[Jim]

Interesting thought Robin but many probs to negotiate me thinks. I work on a site in Hants that has a long set of floating pontoons (plus pipeline) attactched to the shore (via a swivel anchor point) and the other end is a sand dredger sitting on a lake. It is a very stable structure but the dredger helps hold the position via two large winch cables which are staked into the other shore.

[marshman]

Going back to the original post (!) these concerns may arise from another direction so to speak!!

From memory the piling is in pretty poor condition in places, and following the changes and if the flood bank has actually been moved further back, the EA may well have plans to pull the original piling and reprofile the bank - sadly!!  If someone wants to search through the planning permissions for that particular compartment they will probably find the details, which may give a clue to the future.

Thurne moorings may well come back - do not right them off yet but the BA's position is not helped when the landowner uses them as a bargaining factor (allegedly! ) I am really not sure how this is all going to pan out but you can only offer the 24hr moorings if you can organise a lease and if you cannot then you hands are "constricted " so to speak!

 I agree some extra pontoon moorings would help a little but one would wonder how long Robins extension would last given some helms! In any case I wonder who actually owns the Broad or claims to - could you just stick a pile in to anchor it I wonder without some prospective landowner making a claim? Someone immediately springs to mind......!!!

 

 

[kfurbank]

I really cannot see temporary pontoon moorings working because they need decent piles into the ground to hold the whole thing stable from drifting away, or being blown away in the windage created by lots of high sided boats being moored against them. Perhaps the solution for Ranworth could be to extend the green into the Broad and backfill it using dredging, thus permanently extending the green into the Broad, however that flies in the face of planning in a flood area where generally planning is more likely to be given when removing, rather than creating extra land.

[rightsaidfred]

4 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

One way to help with moorings would be to have floating pontoon– but only at certain times of the year e.g. May to August.

Such are towed in – anchored to the bottom and allow boats to moor – not necessarily with access to the shore but that again might be ‘negotiable’ with a land owner who would know that for just three months a year they will have people on the land, and be paid by the Broads Authority a sum for the pontoon to be ‘land linked’. 

At other locations, such as Ranworth pontoons could be used to created extended moorings out away from the staithe into the Broad (see photo) again between peak periods.

 

This sort of temporary mooring could be used to extend other moorings even for businesses such as pubs (Bridge Inn, Acle) but of course would require a more 'lenient' approach to planning so their use would be allowed.

Don`t really see the Cator`s agreeing to this especially since Charles`s passing away, as for Acle I could be wrong but always understood these moorings belonged to the farm,  whether or not Horizon leased them I don't know but I can`t imagine them or any other hire yard wanting to see more moorings go.

Fred

 

[Guest]

All that area of land shown on the photo belongs to the Broads Authority except the shop. The broad is Cators. How many extra boats would that pictured proposal allow as opposed to the current system? I suspect not many. Make the pontoon longer to accomodate more boats and you run into all sorts of safety issues. Also you make Malthouse Broad look like a marina rather than a broad.

I dont think this is the answer unfortunately.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

My own personal opinion is that Bridgecraft should take the Acle site on. They now have a growing fleet, with some pretty large boats, and their current site is extremely small, with very limited moorings.  With the land the Acle yard has, there`s scope for visitors moorings, some private moorings, and with a bit of thought, maybe even a small caravan and camping site. Look at Gale riverside, a neat and compact but pretty site, with pitches for 5 vans. If the land at the Acle site extends to say 100 yards back from the river, that would allow plenty of room for a small caravan park. One thing i think is an absolute MUST, is that whatever happens, the boatyard, along with its slipway and facilities MUST remain as a working yard.

[JawsOrca]

Niceties and musts don't always work when things have to make money to survive. For Acle, fingers crossed, hope for the best but no one knows what will happen. 

For Ranworth, I've always thought a pontoon would be a good idea.  It will soon fit in.. The more visitors the area the better really. I'm sure the land owners will agree if it makes money and yes I would pay a tenner a night to moor on a secure pontoon there as it's a nice spot and I hate the scrap for moorings there. 

 

[SwanR]

If he's on O2 he won't be getting any signal down at Horizon Craft either. Having said that he just needs to sit on one of his boats and use his own Wi-fi! 

[kfurbank]

Thinking more radically about the moorings situation, I wonder how long it will be before the remaining hire yards have to get together and take action on this? Consolidation of the hire industry into a smaller quantity of much larger yards is all very well, but who is going to want to hire a boat if there is no where to moor it? If you hire a boat from Wroxham, then your choice of mooring in other hire yards becomes Potter, Stalham or Ferry at Horning. I know there are a few other smaller yards around but they don't realistically supply enough spaces to cater for the 600+ boats that the big five put onto the network.

If the BA keep failing to renegotiate leases at a realistic price, then is it time for the hire yards to get together and take on leases in a few key places, even if those moorings then become reserved for hire use only? Looking at Thurne mouth, I believe if the land owner gets his way with planning, then a small part of the moorings will be gifted to the BA, but what about the rest, and that only happens if the BA give way on planning. Perhaps the hire industry could lease the rest? Assuming the Acle yard and moorings are leased by Richardsons from the farm, then how about the hire industry jointly taking on the lease?

 

[Vaughan]

29 minutes ago, kfurbank said:

Perhaps the hire industry could lease the rest? Assuming the Acle yard and moorings are leased by Richardsons from the farm, then how about the hire industry jointly taking on the lease?

Going back to the 50s and 60s then, when that is exactly what they did.

The difference now is the inverse proportion of private to hire. In the 60s there were 3000 hire boats, but, although there are said to be the same number of boats in total, only 800 of them, or less, are hire boats now.

So I would suggest that hire boats, in the season, are only part of the problem. It remains to be seen whether the National Park ethos of our feudal governors really does include boating, as well as cycling?

[grendel]

3 hours ago, kfurbank said:

Assuming the Acle yard and moorings are leased by Richardsons from the farm, then how about the hire industry jointly taking on the lease?

They are not leased from the farm, I have seen the title deeds, but to preserve the data confidentiality, I will not post on here as to who does appear on that document. You can find out for yourself by ordering a copy of the deeds at a modest charge from the land registry.

[Wussername]

What exactly does re-profiling the bank involve. Why does it have to impact against the ability of a boat to moor. Can it not be so engineered to provide a bank fit for purpose as well as to provide a suitable mooring.

The ronde anchor has held us in good stead for generations. You don't need a post, you don't need a piled bank.

Why is the bank considered by the land owner as being so sacrosanct. Do you ever see a field of sugar beet, wheat, barley or whatever up to the rivers edge. Of course not. Why, I'll tell you why, they don't want their Massey Fergie Costa a lot ending up in the noggin. So why are they so uncooperative. Agriculture has to no small extent been responsible for the issues with regard to nitrate contamination. Is it not appropriate for the EA to recognise this situation and to put pressure on the land owners to except at least some form of contribution, recognition, for those who also wish to enjoy the rivers and Broads of our unique National Park.

Well, National Park family, distant relative, several times removed.

I'm not criticising our local farmers but the land owners, the pension funds, the councils, indeed the Church, those who use land as an investment. With that ownership comes a social responsibility with regard to the access of that land, not only by boat owners but fishermen,walkers, bird watchers, butterfly hunters, plant enthusiasts, one can go on and on.

Sadly, that which we took for granted is steadily being eroded by those who have a different agenda. An agenda which does not include you and I.

Andrew

[MauriceMynah]

Andrew,

For as long as "no win no fee" lawers exist, waving £1000's under the noses of anyone who hurts thenselves, Land owners will be reluctant to let the general public have access to their land.

For as long as public libility insurance costs an arm and a leg, Land owners will be reluctant to let the general public have access to their land.

For as long as there are people out there who know how to "play the law game" Land owners will be reluctant to let the general public have access to their land.

These days we have people who will bump into your boat and sail off into the sunset without so much as an acknowledgement, let alone an apology. What level of respect do you think they will proffer to the land on which they moor? Do you imagine they will take their litter home? Who will pay for the damage done?

10 hours ago, Wussername said:

With that ownership comes a social responsibility with regard to the access of that land,

What a delightful thought! and what level of social responsibility are you expecting from the general public? What sort of behaviour can the land owner expect.

Until such time as society encourages... no, demands that people act in a socially acceptable way land owners will not welcome the general public onto their land.

It's a sorry state of affairs but that's how it is. Blame society as a whole, not the land owners.