Concerned

[MauriceMynah]

Good point Poppy.

Planting trees is conservation, digging them up again is navigation and watching the resulting bonfire is recreation. The whole exercise would be a waste of money as well as time consuming and the end result could be called progress.

 

I    Politics.

[BroadScot]

8 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

The only common ground is that every damned one of us wants Dr Packman to go anywhere that's over 500 miles from anywhere that's wet. It's all very straight forwards really..

By all means MM, send him up here, then he would see what real NATIONAL PARKS look like!  After he has seen them all, perhaps then he would change his mind, doubt it though.

Iain

[Oddfellow]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

 Clive would have a better idea as to the level this reciprical agreement is taken up along with Andy Banner and MBA.

 

I know that the reciprocal moorings works in busy places like Wroxham, Stalham and Potter Heigham as there is a desperate need for moorings in these places. I suspect that Acle and Horning gets its fair share too. 

I suspect that Silverline and Brooms get very few if any visiting cruisers from other yards. Freedom is not part of the BHBF scheme. However, we would never turn away a visiting vessel if there were safe space for it and I would be surprised if any yard would be unwelcoming to our customers either.

[vanessan]

3 hours ago, Poppy said:

In my view we are already doing with threads like this  We need more of them. Do we really need 'JP ' to be 'apparently' involved here ? Does ANYBODY truthfully believe that The Blessed Authority is not looking in here regularly ? Yes, even in 'Members'. I'm sure they have their ways........

They have plenty of knowledge of what 'we', the toll payers think. The trouble is, I believe earnestly that they don't care, being driven by the agenda of a small cohort of the seemingly untouchable. 

We need a strategy to make them care!

So let's come up with a strategy! It really is time to be doing something, it's a case of WHAT!! 

[Vaughan]

"Wussername, he say!"

We have just seen the words of a Broadsman, with his roots planted in the banks of the Yare. Andrew is a member of the original Jenner family, whose yard in Thorpe went back well before the First World War. They were known as among the best on the Broads and are considered to be the designers and operators of the first purpose-built Broads motor cruisers, in around 1912. Members of his family are still running first class hire craft today and still have the same passion for what they are doing.

What we have read is the grief of a man for the place he grew up in and still loves. I join him in that same grief.

                                           HOWEVER.

What are we going to do about it? There is clearly a ground-swell of opinion in the last few weeks, that this forum has the potential to make its voice more influential in Broads matters. To do, perhaps, what the Broads Society used to do with such big effect in my day. To speak with one voice, we must first define what it is, precisely, that we don't like about the way the Broads are being managed. What are the "issues"? Here they are as I see them :-

 

Water pollution. I suggest that this is now minimal, compared with the old days but the BA must ensure that the other authorities responsible keep it that way.

Bank erosion. Nothing compared to before, due to awareness, and punitive speed limits which are enforced.

Wildlife. I can't see that more can be done than is already in place, at this point in time. I am no lover of the RSPB but there is no doubt they are on the case.

Conservation of wetlands. This is contentious since it depends on what you want to see preserved in a man-made and constantly evolving landscape, but there is no doubt this is being seriously, if perhaps misguidedly, addressed. Where is Dr Martin George when we need him?

Dredging of rivers. Now we are getting down to it! A Norfolk wherry draws four foot six (average) and so do the fast racing sailing cruisers, such as Maidie. I suggest that this should be the bench-mark for the maintenance of navigation in our main rivers, if they are to be truly "navigable".

Not to forget the second reason for dredging, which is drainage. We have seen what happened on the Somerset Levels recently when rivers were allowed to silt up and grow weed. Have we been spending too much on flood banks (to suit the farmers), and not enough on river flow management? If the lower Bure is getting shallow then it must be dredged.

Public staithes. This has always been a vital matter and is the key to the maintenance of the smaller navigations. If the BA are allowed to consider a staithe to have fallen out of use, then they don't need to maintain the navigation that leads to it. An example is Catfield, where boats are actually trapped there, due to failure of upkeep of the navigation to a staithe. The Broads Society re-opened many staithes and this must continue.

Moorings. Navigation is no longer "commercial" in terms of coastal ships and trading wherries, and so its nature must be recognised as "leisure boating", whether private or hire. In this sense, you can't have boating without moorings! Navigation and moorings are in-seperable. If there is no more navigation then no need for a mooring ; but if you can't moor up any more, then there is no need for a navigation!

Public access. You know that I am rather sceptical about this! I grew up when the Broads could only be seen by boat, and I still agree with this principle. There has always been adequate provision for the day tripper, provided by Broads Tours. All these people do for the local economy is buy a selection of knick knacks in Wroxham Barns and then, back on the coach! When a lot of money is being spent - as a priority - on cycle paths and foot ways instead of on navigation and its infrastructure, then we are going the wrong way.

Commercial income. The Broads, as we have inherited them, have had to be commercial, in order to remain as they are, and this is still the case. If the BA have a vision of non-paying day trippers having the place "opened up" to them, they are wrong. We will just be left with people pushing their prams along a replica "medieval causeway" across what used to be Malthouse Broad. I say Malthouse, because it was only the foresight of Blakes that has kept it open to this day. Why? Because it was commercial to do so.

The National Park. I leave this till last as I feel myself that it is more contentious, than relevant. National Parks are all unique in their way, and all need their own particular upkeep. The Broads are not like the others, such as the Lake District, as they have been deliberately evolved by Man, for his own purposes. If the BA wish to join this "Family" they must also make clear that they understand the special requirements of this unique national treasure and they are failing to do that, in my eyes. Otherwise, at this rate, it is going rapidly back to what it was before Man came along - a peat bog!

In addition, the issues above are still there to be tackled, whether or not we are in a National Park.

 

I put this to you as my ideas, for discussion. Let us hear yours. What we need is a document, a letter (I wish Standley Bushell were still here to write it), which represents our opinion and can show how we feel as a body. This can be done, as I understand it, by posting it on the forum, and seeing how many members "like" it. I also suggest that this might not be a letter to the BA, who may not listen, but to Parliament.

 

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Vaughan, You and I don't always see eye to eye on things but here I think you have nailed it. Priorities have to start with navigation and the requirements of a wherry seem to me to be the perfect benchmark.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

This has been a facinating read. I must confess, i know very little about "eco structures", "environmental whatsits" etc etc etc, but i do know the difficulties WE have when cruising the broads. I like the post above laying out all concerns, and support them almost wholeheartedly, with the odd exception.  My own opinion is that the Broads were dug for peat, and that man has made the network linking the Broads with the rivers, making it a man made cruising ground, so ANY kind of conservation MUST be along the lines of keeping ALL the rivers and broads in a fully navigable condition, even opening up many chained off, or damed off waters.  That means dredging, and restructuring ever increasing obstructions, such as Potter Heigham old road bridge.  As a result of modern technology and thinking, the water condition sees much more fishing and bird life, and sees rivers safe to swim in..  Now the important thing is to make sure that the boating industry is sutainable, by making sure there are considerably MORE PUBLIC moorings, and also, and here`s the contetious bit,  encourage hirefleets with financial concessions to carry on hiring.

As for the things i`d like to see,

A fully elected authority that ACTUALLY works WITH toll payers, and not ignore their wishes

Other groups such as angling clubs through the EA being "encouraged" to take MORE financial resp[onsibility for keeping tow paths clear, and fishing platforms up to standard

The RSPB have its powers of influence restricted to ONSHORE riverside areas only,

A blanket bann on any further executive riverside developements

A law forbidding ANY boatyard being sold off for developement and OTHER uses.

A massive programme of cutting BACK, not DOWN  overhanging and encroaching trees etc.

Those are just a few of MY views, but the list could go on.

[JennyMorgan]

7 hours ago, Poppy said:

How about The Broads Authority giving equal status to the three elements, Conservation, Recreation and Navigation, as legislated in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

That would at least be a start!

Or spending OUR tolls on the navigation, as is clearly required by the Broads Act. Un-muddying expenditure and accounts would also be very acceptable.

[JennyMorgan]

I have read and digested Vaughan's very relevant posting, in principle quite right.

 It is the lack of empathy towards the Broads and its culture that worries me. There is clear evidence that the Authority wishes that the Broads should loose it's unique identity with their constant reference to lakes rather than Broads and, if you should visit Thorpe House, the equally constant references to The Park, once again, rather than the Broads.  The Broads is peculiar, unique, that should be our USP, unique selling point, the Broads has its identity, and its not that we are a magical water-land or a mythical national park, the Broads is The Broads, our heritage, not just one myopic man's personal career path.

 

[batrabill]

So in summary, innit awful, something should be done, it was much better in my day, I hate Packman. 

[JennyMorgan]

Actually, Bill, unlike many I quite like the bloke. We generally agree to disagree on many topics whilst agreeing on others. Rather than hate him I actually look forward to and enjoy our occasional meetings. I also respect his ability and obvious intellect. No, I'm not going soft, but I rather wish that he were on our side, that he worked with and for the people of The Broads. That he has been here for twelve or so years then one might have hoped that he had earned wider respect and gained the trust and confidence of a greater proportion of the Broads community.

Hate, no, I reserve that accolade for the likes of Hitler & Co.

[JanetAnne]

My main concerns are navigation, dredging and moorings although the three do seem to go together. I did get to ask JP about the lack of dredging of the lower bure and artificially high water levels caused by this and got this answer.

Dear JanetAnne,

In the last 3 years the BA has dredged over 70,000m3 from the river Bure, however the modelling that we carried out as part of the Sediment Management Strategy showed that dredging has minimal impact on water levels.
In fact, the Bure Loop acts a throttle in the system and restricts the flow of water heading upstream from Great Yarmouth which is why the waterway specification was restricted by agreement with Natural England to reduce the potential for saline incursion.
Generally speaking, water levels are more influenced by atmospheric conditions and rainfall in headwaters and there is good evidence from the bridge pilot records at Potter Heigham that water levels have increased over the last 30 years.
We have also spent a lot of time, energy and money in agreeing a vision for Hickling which is allowing us to carry out dredging on this very sensitive site, and will include Catfield Dyke in a later phase.

Regards
John

Since then I have been researching the 'rainfall in headwaters'  and looking at more general rainfall data for the last 30 years but can find absolutely no correlation between what comes out the sky and what we are seeing on the network. So I figure the fact that less of us can get under 'that' bridge is still down to the lower bure no longer carrying water away on the tide.

I do feel that Natural England saying dont dredge may have been welcomed by the BA though?

In Oulton Dyke the Tea Gardens moorings were extended by the use of pontoons. Is this not an option elsewhere? I sort of figure that we dont need land owners consent to pop a pontoon or two alongside the main channel... 

 

[Poppy]

Natural England know that the Lower Bure silting affects water levels upstream. Indeed it it they who told BA that they should not bother with an 'environmental impact study' in to dredging the Bure loop , since it would lead to a lowering of water levels in the Thurne headwaters which would be judged an adverse effect !  Effectively 'Sanford' by the back door .

Natural England are a large part of the problem, together with the fact that there are many in the BA who are unwilling to oppose them ! 

[MauriceMynah]

31 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Natural England are a large part of the problem,

I couldn't agree more. The damage they have done/supported is byond belief. For example they are in favour of allowing coastal errosion to continue unchecked, and some years ago, objected to somebody trying to defend their property from it.

Unbelievable, indefencable and loads of other 'Uns' as well!

[JennyMorgan]

I have sat it on BA meetings where any excuse for not dredging has been greeted with absolute glee, I kid you not.

I'm quite certain that they have a breeding room for lesser spotted, three spined, double breasted newts or whatever for strategic placement.

Regarding that 'vision' for Hicking, does it allow for varying winds and subsequent drift of sediment? I don't know why I'm asking because I know darn well that it doesn't!

A lot of John's letter makes sense but does it allow for rainfall? If we take the Waveney as an example then there is in excess of one thousand square miles of land sopping up the rainfall, much of which will eventually find its way into the rivers as it finally heads towards the sea. However it can often lay in the system for several days before reaching the sea, held back by adverse winds or incoming salt water tides and surges. The Authority has an unfortunate reliance on its own computer models, dictates from Natural England and a regrettable tendency to ignore local knowledge and observations.

[JennyMorgan]

8 hours ago, JanetAnne said:

My main concerns are navigation, dredging and moorings although the three do seem to go together. I did get to ask JP about the lack of dredging of the lower bure and artificially high water levels caused by this and got this answer.

Dear JanetAnne,

In the last 3 years the BA has dredged over 70,000m3 from the river Bure, however the modelling that we carried out as part of the Sediment Management Strategy showed that dredging has minimal impact on water levels.
In fact, the Bure Loop acts a throttle in the system and restricts the flow of water heading upstream from Great Yarmouth which is why the waterway specification was restricted by agreement with Natural England to reduce the potential for saline incursion.
Generally speaking, water levels are more influenced by atmospheric conditions and rainfall in headwaters and there is good evidence from the bridge pilot records at Potter Heigham that water levels have increased over the last 30 years.
We have also spent a lot of time, energy and money in agreeing a vision for Hickling which is allowing us to carry out dredging on this very sensitive site, and will include Catfield Dyke in a later phase.

Regards
John

Since then I have been researching the 'rainfall in headwaters'  and looking at more general rainfall data for the last 30 years but can find absolutely no correlation between what comes out the sky and what we are seeing on the network. So I figure the fact that less of us can get under 'that' bridge is still down to the lower bure no longer carrying water away on the tide.

I do feel that Natural England saying dont dredge may have been welcomed by the BA though?

In Oulton Dyke the Tea Gardens moorings were extended by the use of pontoons. Is this not an option elsewhere? I sort of figure that we dont need land owners consent to pop a pontoon or two alongside the main channel... 

 

Regarding those blessed pontoons, why oh why were they placed where they were? For various reasons that particular length of river is home to probably the most fickle winds on the Waveney. Doesn't matter which way you are sailing then it is almost guaranteed that you'll encounter difficult winds and reducing the river width at that particular point was a great deal less than helpful. Did the Authority ask the sailing community that sails there? I don't believe that they did. 

[Hylander]

27 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Regarding those blessed pontoons, why oh why were they placed where they were? For various reasons that particular length of river is home to probably the most fickle winds on the Waveney. Doesn't matter which way you are sailing then it is almost guaranteed that you'll encounter difficult winds and reducing the river width at that particular point was a great deal less than helpful. Did the Authority ask the sailing community that sails there? I don't believe that they did. 

Sorry but the pontoons are excellent at The Tea Gardens and make for safe moorings when you dont have to worry about the tide.     They are made full use of during the season and are a blessing.     Ok the river is less wide but I was always taught that a good helm takes any object as the edge of the waterway and reacts accordingly.     If the river's natural course was as wide as it is now it would still be wide compared to The Ant or The Chet and the wind up The Ant can be a nightmare at the spots of open countryside.       

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

This is an exchange I had some time ago on another broads forum. (no, not that one, another one   ) I don’t know if this is going to work but there were 3 people ‘talking’ I shall remain in black writing, of the other two, one will be blue, the other red as I shall keep them anonymous. I think this is relevent to this thread

The conversation went as follows…

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thread Titled  “Ok, so what is REALLY going on ?”

 

 

 It seems apparent that the height under Potter Heigham bridge has diminished over the years. This again "seems" to be born out by old photographs.

Yes I know that modern designs of boats can be less suited to this bridge, but there seem to be fewer of the old boats able to "make the trip" any more.

This leads me to ask the following...

What is REALLY happening?
Can anything be done about it?
If something can be done, who should do it?

This isn't intended as a Bash the BA thread, I am hoping for constructive comments.

 

 

 

 

M-M

I don't believe the bridge is sinking to any extent more than that which has caused it to tilt very slightly over centuries. There's a very small difference in clearance side-to-side which probably wasn't there when it was built.

It seems the water level is generally higher, not due to any grant-attracting sea level panic but because the lower Bure restricts the tidal ebb more than ever before.

The Thurne is badly silted so it's necessary to 'tolerate' the water level in order to accommodate navigation up as far as the bridge.

Which is why the Dutch pressure blast dredging experiment in the lower Bure some years ago wasn't taken up on any scale - it allowed the water to drain from the Thurne and all the ducks got sore feet from walking around on the river all day.

Quite often following a forceful flood tide there is little evidence of a volume ebb because it can't get away, so the next flood accumulates over the previous one and so on.

The BA bridge height data are about right for 50+ years ago but the silting of the lower Bure has rendered them useless now.

Dredge the bottleneck and the level will drop - unfortunately it will just reveal a muddy bottom as there's nobody interested in the conservation of the rivers.

It helps to keep in mind that when the bridge was built the Thurne wasn't so much tidally influenced through Yarmouth but directly by the sea. The river connected through the Hundred Dyke direct to the North Sea roughly midway between Horsey and Somerton, so the up and down river directions were reversed and the tidal scour was much greater than now. The modern navigation channel through Martham Broad to West Somerton wasn't the original course but was cut out for the busy trading traffic.

Martham alone had no less then three public/wherry staithes...

 

 

 

 

Thank you Xxxx, Does this mean that the Thurne needs dredging from the bridge to the mouth and the Bure from the Thurne down to Yarmouth?

 

 

 

 

I believe so, although there may well be soundings available that show odd bits that don't need immediate attention.

Trouble is that if the system were to be dredged from the bridge down river to release the constriction(s), the already critically shallow waters above the bridge would practically heal up.

Which is exactly how to put a big cheesy grin on the face of the RSPB and its misguided and misinformed sympathisers.

 

 

 

 

I am still genuinely trying to avoid the "bash the BA" trap, but if I understand your reply correctly Xxxx, the requirement then is to dredge the entire Thurne, all off shoots recognised as "navigational" in addition to the relevant length of the Bure.
This surely must be the responsibility of the BA.

How long after a navigable area ceases to be navigable, does it become officially not part of the navigation?

 

 

 

 

M_M I hope your final question remains hypothetical ad infinitum. I don't believe it has happened yet, nor do I believe that the several blockaded tidal waters have ceased to qualify as navigable. There are many barricades which appear contrary to law, most are connected to the Bure. Ranworth, Cockshoot, Hoveton Great - surely are all part of the tidal navigation.

The responsibility to 'protect the interests of navigation' is one-third of the Broads Authority's legal brief. Nobody else has any liability toward maintaining the navigation. Recently the BA's navigation revenue has increased as a proportion of its total income to the extent that navigation now funds virtually half the BA existence.

It is thought by some that an influential element of BA executive sympathises with the RSPB's public declaration of their desire to see the waters above PH bridge dedicated to undisturbed nature.

My own belief is that the BA staff and membership largely has no such ambition.

The executive however...

 

 

 

 

One final question Xxxx (unless I think of another one)
When the BA use the term "Navigable", navigable by what? Are there any definitive rules that you know of?
If a dayboat (with a draft of say 16") can just about make it from Potter Heigham to the Pleasure Boat, does that count as the stretch being navigable?

 

 

 

 

MM, there is a document called the Sediment Management Strategy of which various versions can be found on the BA web site. It lays down the required depths at various points in the Navigation and the cross section of the channel. Each year a report is presented to the Navigation Committee demonstrating progress against achieving the specified depths.

There are also maps published on the BA web site showing by means of colour the depths of water in the navigation.

Pressure from the Nav Com over the last few years means that there is a sound evidence base on which to judge the extent to which the navigation meets the required specification, the rate at which things are improving (or otherwise) and on which to set priorities for future work.

The dredging being carried out is slowly moving in the right direction. Each year a larger proportion of the Navigation meets the spec. In very rough terms, there is over a million cubic metres of silt that in a perfect world should be removed. Not all of that silt is economically dredgable - it may be in too thin a layer or in too isolated a location to make sense mobilising equipment to tackle it. In the last few years the BA have dredged about 50,000 cubic metres a year but the estimated deposition rate of new sediment is about 25,000 cubic metres a year. So perfection is 40 years away at current rates of progress.

The perennial problem is finding places to put the spoil. If that could be solved the existing fleet of equipment could remove more silt and the amount of transport required to get it to disposal sites could be reduced, thus reducing the cost. Again, annual reports to the Nav Com provide figures for the cost per cubic metre of dredging and disposing of the spoil.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Yyyy, a pretty definitive answer.

[Poppy]

13 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

The perennial problem is finding places to put the spoil.

And therein, as far as Hickling is concerned lies the problem. The Norfolk Wildlife Trust  owns Hickling Broad and its surrounding banks. They steadfastly deny permission for spoil to be deposited thereon as is the traditional way in Broadland and in other wetland areas all over the world !

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

Sorry but the pontoons are excellent at The Tea Gardens and make for safe moorings when you dont have to worry about the tide.     They are made full use of during the season and are a blessing.     Ok the river is less wide but I was always taught that a good helm takes any object as the edge of the waterway and reacts accordingly.     If the river's natural course was as wide as it is now it would still be wide compared to The Ant or The Chet and the wind up The Ant can be a nightmare at the spots of open countryside.       

 

 

Hi Hy, granted an excellent facility for mooring, I use it myself. However I have been told and I have seen, countless times, sailing boats come round that corner and they meet a backing wind off the trees plus, if it's a foul tide, they then loose all momentum, inevitably drifting into the bank, or moored boats, and there is nothing, other than fend off, that they can do about it and it's through no fault of their own. It's even happened to me!! Great moorings, just a pity that they weren't immediately downstream of the Tea Gardens.

[Hylander]

Weekend party , we could shift tuther end. Not an impossibility.

 

 

[JanetAnne]

I do still wonder what the definition of 'navigation' actually means?

If its a case of by canoe we are all doomed. If it's by wherry then we have an idea. As you know, we have a gay lady trapped at Catfield because Hickling is too shallow to get her out. Should all navigation be dredged to allow such a boat access or is the couple of feet needed to float a Ricco's flat top deemed enough? We are quick to tell people who can't get under Potter that they bought the wrong boat, did the people who can't get out of Catfield do the same?

So, what I ask is a definition of navigation. What is the acceptable minimum standard? Once that is established I know what I am going to start fighting for.

[JanetAnne]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

However I have been told and I have seen, countless times, sailing boats come round that corner and they meet a backing wind off the trees plus, if it's a foul tide, they then loose all momentum, inevitably drifting into the bank, or moored boats, and there is nothing, other than fend off, that they can do about it and it's through no fault of their own...

Has anyone got a pair of oars they can lend our Peter? 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, JanetAnne said:

Has anyone got a pair of oars they can lend our Peter? 

Got a quant! 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, JanetAnne said:

I do still wonder what the definition of 'navigation' actually means?

If its a case of by canoe we are all doomed. If it's by wherry then we have an idea. As you know, we have a gay lady trapped at Catfield because Hickling is too shallow to get her out. Should all navigation be dredged to allow such a boat access or is the couple of feet needed to float a Ricco's flat top deemed enough? We are quick to tell people who can't get under Potter that they bought the wrong boat, did the people who can't get out of Catfield do the same?

So, what I ask is a definition of navigation. What is the acceptable minimum standard? Once that is established I know what I am going to start fighting for.

Anyone got a 'dydle' that they can lend our JanetAnne?

I have a vague feeling that it is, or was, 3'6" at low water on such as Catfield and 6' for the rivers.