Strange Question On Mooring!

[TheQ]

11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Oulton Broad is owned and the owners are known, your's truly owning a bit of it. At one time Oulton Broad was largely owned by the Coleman's mustard dynasty before being handed over to the Borough of Lowestoft. The main navigable channel is part of the Norwich to Lowestoft navigation and therefore owned by the successors of the railway company that bought the canal company out of bankruptcy. The only advantage of owning a portion of Oulton Broad's bottom is that I can have a mooring buoy and can, although never have, turf noisy oiks off who have dropped their mudweight onto my mud. The disadvantage is that the BA won't dredge my mud for free! 

OOps sorry I remember there is a broad that they don't know the owner of and thought it was Oulton, I'll try to dig around and find out which broad it was....

[kfurbank]

Mowjo,

There are four byelaws that would prevent your theoretical mooring. Some or all may play a part depending on whether you are talking about mud weighting broadside to the bank along a river, or mud weighting fore and aft stern on to a mooring such as Salhouse Broad.

Byelaw 66 Obstruction of Moorings

No person shall prevent, obstruct or hinder the lawful mooring of any vessel.

Clearly by mooring just of a recognised mooring you are obstructing the mooring for any legal use by anyone else.

 

Byelaw 62 Vessels to Moor Broadside to Banks

(1) Unless otherwise permitted by the Authority, the master of a vessel moored to a quayhead or bank shall ensure that either the vessel is made fast to the quayhead or bank at each of its ends and is laid so close as possible to and along the side of that mooring place or, if the vessel is moored alongside another vessel, it is not moored in contravention of Byelaw 63.

If stopping alongside a bank for the purpose of mooring then clearly you need to tie off fore and aft to the bank. Whilst Byelaw 62 does not mention the use of mud weights, if clearly specifies the correct way to moor if lying alongside a bank. If you are not directly alongside the bank, then it could be argued you are obstructing the navigation which is covered by Byelaw 64 Vessels not to Anchor in a Channel. You are either moored in a mooring place and therefore should use the prescribed method of mooring, or you are outside of the mooring, in which case you must be in the channel.

 

Byelaw 57 Place of Mooring

Subject to Byelaw 62(2) the master of a vessel:

(a) shall ensure that the vessel is not anchored, moored, berthed or stopped in such a position or manner as to impede the clear and free passage of any other vessel, or otherwise to obstruct the navigation of a waterway or channel or the use of a right of way on the banks thereof;

Mooring as suggested would clearly obstruct the legal right of way to the bank for the land owner or anyone wishing to pay to moor there.

 

Byelaw 58 Moored Vessels to be Properly Secured

(1) The master of a moored vessel shall ensure that the vessel is properly, safely and effectively secured and fendered so as to hold the vessel to the mooring and to prevent the risk of avoidable damage to the vessel or any other vessel or to the place of mooring or to any mooring equipment provided therein.

Again if moored at a mooring, you should be secured against it, otherwise you are just mud weighting off the mooring, and in which case moored in the channel.

 

Look forward to others interpretations of these byelaws  

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

OOps sorry I remember there is a broad that they don't know the owner of and thought it was Oulton, I'll try to dig around and find out which broad it was....

That will be an interesting task. I suppose it all goes back to the Enclosures Act, parish boundaries and granted rights of turbary for peat digging. I suppose ownership could have been abandoned, no value seen in land that is under water. Boundaries also tend to migrate thus ownership can sometimes be hard to establish. Don't suppose that there is anything to be gained by a spot of research but nevertheless intriguing, I wish you well in your endeavours.  

[RumPunch]

Must admit I've sometimes wondered what the legal position in mudweighting opposite a river mooring and rowing across are, if the moorings are all full.

So long as the main channel was not restricted......

[JennyMorgan]

Q, after a few attempts on Google i tapped in 'unowned Broads' and this came up, hugely interesting, with the suggestion that Breydon is, in part, unowned. This whole link looks interesting and deserves more than the quick browse that I have so far given it.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XjLOCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT257&lpg=PT257&dq=unowned+Broads&source=bl&ots=PzMGAKg5WZ&sig=30s3hkn_olgU4gNsaBqhqODhcAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnqMml1sDPAhXrCcAKHXB2AkwQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=unowned Broads&f=false

[TheQ]

It looks an interesting book but I'm not sure I have a spare £23 for it...

[Vaughan]

Thanks for that Kfurbank, and it is exactly as I expected. I have stayed "behind the sofa" on this one, as some might say I am out of date (which I am) but it may help if  I explain what the law was up until the 80s - up until the BA - and we can then see how it compares to nowadays.

Basically it was all a matter of the tide, and the line drawn on the Ordnance Survey Map. Where the river on the map was dark blue it was "tidal" and where it turned light blue, in the upper reaches, it was "non tidal".

Of course this was simply an official definition, but it meant that on tidal water you can own the sides and the bottom of a broad or a basin but you don't own the water in it. If a broad is non tidal then you own the water as well and you have the right to close it off to the navigation.

As it happens, the tide line on the Bure is just below the downstream entrance of Gt Hoveton Broad, which means Black Horse Broad is tidal. Hence the famous forced re-opening of that broad in the early 50s when Herbert Woods and several others came in the night in an old landing craft and dug up the posts and the chains. So now there is a compromise and it is open for certain months of the year. In the old days you could sail around in it, but you could not moor, or drop a mud weight.

This is why although Gt Hoveton is an old navigation, attempts to re-open it failed in the old days - and still seem to be failing now - as it is not tidal.

Wroxham Broad is private, but the Trafford estate decided to leave it open and lease it to the NBYC. So you can cruise over it, and mud weight round the sides, but the NBYC used to charge a fee for overnight. The club steward, Jimmy Fawkes, would go round in the launch every morning to check the club buoys and take fees from boats. He usually had a crate of milk with him, in case they wanted to buy some. Quite sociable! I imagine, for the same reason, that if the owners want to charge a mooring and mud weight fee on Salhouse Broad, they have the right.

As to the rivers, it has always been forbidden to anchor in the navigation, or moor stern on except in certain places. On the Yare it is also forbidden to moor on the outside of a bend. Who owns the bottom? On tidal water it is the Crown but the upper reaches are rather more difficult, as the rivers we know today are no-where near where they were in ancient times. Until the marshes were re-claimed in the 12th century they were meandering all over the place. Need to ask Timbo!

In the film that Robin posted about the BA in 1986, I noticed they said they were not responsible for the Yare. This would be because it was a maritime navigation, and may still be now?

So that is the law as it was, pre BA. How does it compare with nowadays? Over to you!

 

By the way there is also a very old law which states that a sailing vessel may moor anywhere on the bank, even on some-one's garden, for the turn of one tide. This was because the wherries, on passage when the wind dropped at night and the tide turned, had to moor up, or start going backwards. If you wanted to invoke that law now though, I don't think you would get away with it if your boat has an engine!

 

 

 

[Wildfuzz]

15 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Oulton Broad is owned and the owners are known, your's truly owning a bit of it. At one time Oulton Broad was largely owned by the Coleman's mustard dynasty before being handed over to the Borough of Lowestoft. The main navigable channel is part of the Norwich to Lowestoft navigation and therefore owned by the successors of the railway company that bought the canal company out of bankruptcy. The only advantage of owning a portion of Oulton Broad's bottom is that I can have a mooring buoy and can, although never have, turf noisy oiks off who have dropped their mudweight onto my mud. The disadvantage is that the BA won't dredge my mud for free! 

Can you not bottle the mud? Mrs Wildfuzz spends a fortune on some greenish stuff that smells like the mud from Mersea island where I went crabbing as a kid, she comes out of the bathroom smelling like the river Blackwater.

 

S.

 

PS don't tell her I said that

[TheQ]

Here's an odd thought, the St Benets straight is man made and therefore not part of the original river could someone charge for the use of that? Certainly I would have thought someone could charge for the use of Waxham cut and any of the other cuts if they haven't been transfered to the BA. Don't tell network rail about the Norwich to Lowestoft navigation....

[Poppy]

42 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Here's an odd thought, the St Benets straight is man made and therefore not part of the original river could someone charge for the use of that? Certainly I would have thought someone could charge for the use of Waxham cut and any of the other cuts if they haven't been transfered to the BA. Don't tell network rail about the Norwich to Lowestoft navigation....

You already do..... if you're a toll payer that is...

[rightsaidfred]

I have always understood the top entrance of Wroxham Broad to be the tidal limit, just found this with Google so don't think anyone would object to it being reproduced here. 

"Don't know about expert but here goes:

The O.S.maps have for years carried the limit of tide as the north entrance to Wroxham broad (interesting in view of the 1920s case over fishing rights on Wroxham broad). Ordnance Survey doesn't have to be taken as a definitive statement. The Public Enquiry into the proposed Wroxham bypass bridge accepted the river was tidal in the village. Anglian Water published tidal research in 1980 - including a measuring station at Hudson's Bay - which showed the river to be very clearly effected by tide at this point. The results of this survey were published by Martin George in his tome on Broads ecology.

The implications are that all the Bure broads below this point can be shown to be tidal. Ranworth, Decoy, Blackhorse, Pound End, Hoveton Great broad, Cockshoot broad, Hudson's Bay, Snape's Water, Salhouse Little Broad, Old Woman's Pulk, etc., etc., are all tidal. Public rights of navigation, anchorage and fishing exist on these waters. In English law there is no freehold to tidal water and the public are currently excluded illegally. Ranworth (as opposed to Malthouse) is one of the most interesting - the water is now too salty for bio-manipulation. Tidal or what?

Similarly Barton broad can be shown to be tidal - as anyone who has tried to sail up the Ant on a dying wind into the tide will confirm. (One of the side issues of this is that Norfolk Wildlife Trust claim to own ten broads - they cheat a bit and count Martham north and south as two broads. NWT would be pushed to prove title to any of these waters - they are all tidal.)

The upper Thurne is tidal - sit and watch the ebb and flow at the eel set on Kendal dyke. The only defence bodies such as the National Trust are able to muster is the 1883(?) Hickling broad case. This was widely rubbished in its time but tidal influence over the broads system has increased significantly over the last fifty years. Even the Environment Agency accepts tidal surges at Potter and fence off the fish at Herbert Woods yard. The Upper Thurne today is all tidal water and public rights exist. In the event that the North Sea breaks through into the Thurne again, the point won't even be worth discussion.

In an age when public access to areas of "National Park" is being increased by legislation (see Right to Roam Acts etc) we are being illegally excluded from large areas of the Broads navigation system. Much of the tidal argument is strengthened by public rights of access to historic public staithes. There are several on the Upper Thurne - and for that matter on the Bure and Ant. Catfield has a public staithe on both the Ant and the Thurne. Fortunately for us the majority of public staithes were set up under the Inclosure Acts - and it takes another Act of Parliament to get rid of them - they can't lapse if left unused.

It isn't so much a question of the Upper Thurne - more a question of the Broads Authority carrying out their 2004 Braods Plan - and adressing this problem within five years. Currently we are simply being cheated of our birthright - and the large conservation bodies seem at least as bad as the large landowners."

Fred

[Mowjo]

Thanks Kfurbank, that all makes sense, all covered by bye-laws that most of us never read!,  and I didn't!! Now reading all that brings another question! depending on how you interpret those bye laws, it also seems that wild moorings contravene them, as any land owner where there is a wild mooring could claim your blocking his right of way, and as most use the bank for fishing and stuff probably trespass as well,

Byelaw 57 Place of Mooring

Subject to Byelaw 62(2) the master of a vessel:

(a) shall ensure that the vessel is not anchored, moored, berthed or stopped in such a position or manner as to impede the clear and free passage of any other vessel, or otherwise to obstruct the navigation of a waterway or channel or the use of a right of way on the banks thereof;

Mooring as suggested would clearly obstruct the legal right of way to the bank for the land owner or anyone wishing to pay to moor there.

[Vaughan]

I totally agree with you Fred, particularly in what you say about staithes. I am passionate about the maintenance of staithes as they hold the key to our rights of navigation.

There is a difference here between the actual fact of a rise and fall of tide, and its legal definition. We all know there is a tide on Hickling and we all know that a spring tide comes up in the boatsheds on most yards in Wroxham. Scientists will tell you that there is a tide in a glass of water. Scientifically there has to be - you just can't measure it.

In my day I clearly remember the colours on the map, which changed at the bottom of Gt Hoveton. Otherwise Herbert Woods would have forced open Gt Hoveton as well as Black Horse. He would have done if he could! I have already accepted that this line may have later been re-defined and I have also been told by friends who are planning professionals, that the tidal argument doesn't carry so much weight any more.

The tide line originally, could not have been to the north of Wroxham Broad, or that broad could not have been private. But it has been changed later, under the auspices of the BA. For what reason, I couldn't tell you.

Like you, I have always wondered about Ranworth Broad. Blakes took out a lease in the 50s, to stop that happening to Malthouse Broad as well.

[JennyMorgan]

We had the opportunity to tackle the problem of the closed Broads in the recent Broads Bill, Packman's response, when I suggested it, was that his 'safety Bill' would be scuppered if Hoveton, for example, was threatened by the Bill. Friends in high places? 

Fred, hallelujah and amen to your most recent post, especially the comment about birthrights, 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

I have always understood the top entrance of Wroxham Broad to be the tidal limit, just found this with Google so don't think anyone would object to it being reproduced here. 

"Don't know about expert but here goes:

The O.S.maps have for years carried the limit of tide as the north entrance to Wroxham broad (interesting in view of the 1920s case over fishing rights on Wroxham broad). Ordnance Survey doesn't have to be taken as a definitive statement. The Public Enquiry into the proposed Wroxham bypass bridge accepted the river was tidal in the village. Anglian Water published tidal research in 1980 - including a measuring station at Hudson's Bay - which showed the river to be very clearly effected by tide at this point. The results of this survey were published by Martin George in his tome on Broads ecology.

The implications are that all the Bure broads below this point can be shown to be tidal. Ranworth, Decoy, Blackhorse, Pound End, Hoveton Great broad, Cockshoot broad, Hudson's Bay, Snape's Water, Salhouse Little Broad, Old Woman's Pulk, etc., etc., are all tidal. Public rights of navigation, anchorage and fishing exist on these waters. In English law there is no freehold to tidal water and the public are currently excluded illegally. Ranworth (as opposed to Malthouse) is one of the most interesting - the water is now too salty for bio-manipulation. Tidal or what?

Similarly Barton broad can be shown to be tidal - as anyone who has tried to sail up the Ant on a dying wind into the tide will confirm. (One of the side issues of this is that Norfolk Wildlife Trust claim to own ten broads - they cheat a bit and count Martham north and south as two broads. NWT would be pushed to prove title to any of these waters - they are all tidal.)

The upper Thurne is tidal - sit and watch the ebb and flow at the eel set on Kendal dyke. The only defence bodies such as the National Trust are able to muster is the 1883(?) Hickling broad case. This was widely rubbished in its time but tidal influence over the broads system has increased significantly over the last fifty years. Even the Environment Agency accepts tidal surges at Potter and fence off the fish at Herbert Woods yard. The Upper Thurne today is all tidal water and public rights exist. In the event that the North Sea breaks through into the Thurne again, the point won't even be worth discussion.

In an age when public access to areas of "National Park" is being increased by legislation (see Right to Roam Acts etc) we are being illegally excluded from large areas of the Broads navigation system. Much of the tidal argument is strengthened by public rights of access to historic public staithes. There are several on the Upper Thurne - and for that matter on the Bure and Ant. Catfield has a public staithe on both the Ant and the Thurne. Fortunately for us the majority of public staithes were set up under the Inclosure Acts - and it takes another Act of Parliament to get rid of them - they can't lapse if left unused.

It isn't so much a question of the Upper Thurne - more a question of the Broads Authority carrying out their 2004 Braods Plan - and adressing this problem within five years. Currently we are simply being cheated of our birthright - and the large conservation bodies seem at least as bad as the large landowners."

Fred

Fred,  the Broads is only a national park when it suits Packman. In other words 'cherry picking' helpful legislation and ignoring the unhelpful stuff. That the Broads is not actually a national park does have its uses!!

I did raise the issue of the right to roam when I was on the navigation committee, the official response was that it was for people on foot, not on boats.

[rightsaidfred]

JM

As much as I would like to claim credit for them they were words spoken by another back in 2006 I only Googled them, you may know of him he went by the name of Old Frank.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

14 hours ago, BroadScot said:

Should that not be a ¿ JM ? 

Iain

Now I know why he is popular with the girlies!!

I see that even the fish don't like poor old Des, what did he do wrong?!

 

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

JM

As much as I would like to claim credit for them they were words spoken by another back in 2006 I only Googled them, you may know of him he went by the name of Old Frank.

Fred

Indeed I do. A man who once suggested to the good Doctor that if he wanted to lead the good folk of Broadland then he should find out where they were going and then walk in front of them. Wise words that were sadly ignored, hence his near zero ratings along the rhond!.

[TheQ]

RightsaidFred,

The rights to navigate on tidal water only Apply to NATURAL waters, Most Broads are not natural but man made, therefore the right to navigate applies only to those where a right has been gained over time.

 Docks Harbours and the odd tidal canal  have no right of access...( except to shelter from a storm)

Just because you tarmac your front drive, doesn't give anyone the right to drive on it. If however it has been used as a foot path over many years then that right may be earned. 

 

Poppy, yes we pay the BA for the broads, BUT do BA actually have rights over all the man made bits, if they don't own them? Could they force access for all, to a boatyard dyke?

[JennyMorgan]

There could be some debate as to whether the Broads, as an area, really is man made. At what point in history should we refer to? There is a legal maxim on that & I really can't remember it, however, whilst the Broads themselves are probably 'man-made' in origination the rivers that flooded them were largely natural in their original state. Yes, tidal flows have been reversed in one case and in reality our rivers, as we know them, are largely the result of industrial intervention, the rivers being the motorway of medieval East Anglia, but at one point in history they were totally, unarguably natural. The Waveney for example, when there was a land-bridge to the continent, was, as I understand it, a tributary of the Rhine. The Broads are unique, even peculiar, they need to be understood as such, something the good Doctor has yet to appreciate, indeed he appears to have fought that reality from his very first day in authority. His quest to downgrade the Broads to lakes and just another national park are indicative of his mindset, for most along the rhond the Broads is the Broads, complete with its idiosyncrasies, legal or otherwise. 

[rightsaidfred]

41 minutes ago, TheQ said:

RightsaidFred,

The rights to navigate on tidal water only Apply to NATURAL waters, Most Broads are not natural but man made, therefore the right to navigate applies only to those where a right has been gained over time.

 

Without getting into a technical debate and while that may or may not be generally true is there not a case to be made with Hoveton Great Broad of a historical right of navigation as created by the Wherries previous to it being closed off.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Quite right Fred. Old Frank actually has a photograph of a wherry crossing HGB. That they did cross HGB is also documented in 'Broadland Sport' by Everett as was the access to The Trinity Broads, that being OF's inspiration when he, I and John Royal rowed/paddled and quanted up the Muck Fleet to the Eels Foot..

[TheQ]

I'd definitely agree Hoveton Great Broad should never have been blocked off.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

Without getting into a technical debate and while that may or may not be generally true is there not a case to be made with Hoveton Great Broad of a historical right of navigation as created by the Wherries previous to it being closed off.

If you're going to take that "route" (and I agree with you) then it is rather longer than that! In the early 1800s the wherries could sail from Wroxham bridge to the other side of Horning Ferry, without sailing on the Bure and only crossing it once.

They went across Daisy Broad into Hudson's bay, across HGB at then crossed the river onto a little broad the other side - forget its name - from there was a channel through the marsh south of Horning which came out on the Bure again near to what was F.B.Wilds. This channel was probably the remains of the old course of the river, such as we still see at St Benet's, and was chosen by the wherries for a better wind in more open water.

Believe me or not as you wish, but there was a serious scheme in the 60s, put forward by Blakes and Hoseasons, to re- open this navigation and thus create a one-way system between Horning and Wroxham, to deal with the overcrowding in this particular area. In the end it didn't come to pass, for all the usual reasons but it would have been a good idea!

By the way JM, do give my regards to Old Frank. Haven't seen him for a year or two. Ask him when he is going to get his boat back in the water? Can't have an iconic piece of Broads history sitting in a shed.

[marshman]

Ah the perennial wish to reopen old waterways, staithes,broads etc etc.....!  You can also add footpaths and long long ago abandoned rights of way whilst you are at it!

Better open up a crowdfunding page as you will need loads a' money - methinks "they" have deeper pockets than the peasants amongst us which of course is the very reason they keep it as theirs and not share it with us oiks!!