Cockshoot Dyke Moorings

[ranworthbreeze]

Please find attached the Broads Authority’s Notice to Mariners 08 2016 which relates to the closure of Cockshoot Dyke moorings during the period 12^th December 2016 through to 31^st March 2017. 

Kind regards. 

Chris Bailey

Administrative Officer Operations

01603 756007

Please note my current working days are Monday - Wednesday. 

Broads Authority, Yare House, 62-64 Thorpe Road. Norwich NR1 1RY
01603 610734
www.broads-authority.gov.uk

 

BROADS AUTHORITY

NOTICE TO MARINERS No. 8 of 2016

Closure of Cockshoot Dyke 24hr Mooring

 

Notice is hereby given that Cockshoot Dyke 24hr mooring will be closed to navigation for re-piling and refurbishment work from Monday 12^th December 2016 until Friday 31^st March 2017.

During this period there will be no public access to the mooring and therefore no access from the mooring to the adjoining boardwalks.

If there is a specific need for access to the mooring or Cockshoot Broad Boardwalk please contact Tom Hunter on 01603 756066.

Tom Hunter

Rivers Engineer

Broads Authority

Yare House

62-64 Thorpe Road

Norwich , NR1 1RY

                                             07 November 2016

[Mark]

Cockshoot dyke moorings closed for re-piling from 12th Dec to 31st March 

 

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/navigating-the-broads/urgent-boating-information/temporary-closure-of-cockshoot-dyke-24hr-moorings-from-monday-12-december-until-friday-31-march-2017

[TheQ]

Which reminds me wasn't the closure of cockshoot broad to navigation meant to be temporary, how long is temporary?

[marshman]

Correct - there was talk about reopening it ( but not to boats ) but that all went very quiet. To be fair, the dyke is generally very clear and full of bugs etc which may well not benefit from such action !!

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, marshman said:

Correct - there was talk about reopening it ( but not to boats ) but that all went very quiet. To be fair, the dyke is generally very clear and full of bugs etc which may well not benefit from such action !!

The Sandford Principle on the QT?

[marshman]

Pete - you would say that, others would say that the Broads is not just about boats. Surely one of the beauty of the Broads is that there is room for both, and indeed you know that as well as anyone, but it suits your agenda to post what you did - in fact it would be a good strap line for anyone wishing to stand on an anti BA ticket when elections are available.

Having a good slogan these days is a key to winning any vote, be it based on fact or fantasy - but why let a little detail like that get in the way of a jolly good ramp up!!! Someone today has a lot to be grateful for, as people cared less about fact but let themselves be " inspired " by fantasy rhetoric!!

[ChrisB]

It seems to me, that today, people do not vote for a person, principle or organisation.

Rather they would prefer to vote against something real or perceived to the detriment of what they would normally do.

[JennyMorgan]

7 hours ago, marshman said:

Pete - you would say that, others would say that the Broads is not just about boats. Surely one of the beauty of the Broads is that there is room for both, and indeed you know that as well as anyone, but it suits your agenda to post what you did - in fact it would be a good strap line for anyone wishing to stand on an anti BA ticket when elections are available.

Having a good slogan these days is a key to winning any vote, be it based on fact or fantasy - but why let a little detail like that get in the way of a jolly good ramp up!!! Someone today has a lot to be grateful for, as people cared less about fact but let themselves be " inspired " by fantasy rhetoric!!

Marsh, I don't disagree with you but give an inch now and I suspect that we both know who will eventually demand another closure stating that no one objected to Cockshoot Broad being closed, it's how he works, witness the National Park name. Gently gently catch the monkey being the name of the game. It's taken a few years, and tens of thousands of pounds, but he's finally got the name, all he needs now is Sandford. I often wonder why I can't trust the man? Fantasy, possibly, but it's based on what's gone before.

By the way, just remind me, what percentage of the Broads is actually available for navigation?

[Viking23]

I just wonder if the refurbishment is a pre requirement before handing the lot back to the original owner.

If that is the case, then the moorings will be lost for all visiting craft.

Richard

[marshman]

Richard - you are quite correct. I remember seeing an Asset Plan relatively recently somewhere where all these were shown and with all the dates - it is indeed due to be repiled where necessary near the end of the lease so my guess is negotiations are currently ongoing. However don't assume that these will be lost - they do not have here the competition of a pub landlord eager to force more punters into his pocket!!

I am not really sure how these things actually work in practise but presumably the value or the price they can pay for moorings is not something the BA can actually decide - I recall reading that they are advised largely by some other department - does the District Valuer get involved or do they even still exist? 

But going back to Pete's point, the situation has not changed so its not really creeping! The lease at Cockshoot is to the NWT and rather than the BA, it would always have been their decision - it was their decision to dam the dyke but even I can never remember that Broad being open for navigation. Knowing who owns all of that, it would seem unlikely. 

Shame really, over the top of all of this thread, is the fact that this is "Private Land" and once again these large private landowners will shape the future of Broadland whether you or I like it or not, and if they want to ignore everyone, they will continue to do so, as they have in the past. And thats a real shame because they rarely act for the benefit of everyone.

 

 

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, amen to that.

[MauriceMynah]

23 minutes ago, marshman said:

Shame really, over the top of all of this thread, is the fact that this is "Private Land" and once again these large private landowners will shape the future of Broadland whether you or I like it or not, and if they want to ignore everyone, they will continue to do so, as they have in the past. And thats a real shame because they rarely act for the benefit of everyone.

I don't see how they possibly can "act for the benefit of everyone"! given that twitchers requirements are different from anglers whos requirements are different from boaters. How can they please all?

[JennyMorgan]

32 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I don't see how they possibly can "act for the benefit of everyone"! given that twitchers requirements are different from anglers whos requirements are different from boaters. How can they please all?

They can't, simple as that.

For me the issue is one of reasonableness. A large percentage of the Broads is denied to boaters & anglers, more than I think is reasonable. On land we now have the right to roam, perhaps it would be reasonable that we have similar rights of access over water. After all, whilst the land might be owned the water isn't. Isn't it also reasonable that we should be able to trust the BA to maintain, as the Broads Act demands, our rights to access what we already have? 

[MauriceMynah]

Am I right in saying that if the dam were to be removed, the water level would go up in Cockshoot broad?

If so would that increase be significant?

Who is responsible for having the broad dammed?

Who would be responsible for getting the dam removed?

Surely it would be in the interests of the hire companies to increase the scope of the area, to encourage those who have "been there seen it done it"  to return as there was somewhere new to go to?

 

[JennyMorgan]

Re removing the dam, all that would happen is that water movement and tidal levels would naturally revert to the previous state. 

Regarding responsibility, I presume the ultimate responsibility is that of the BA's enforcement dept. As I understand it consent was given subject to the dam being eventually removed.

[MauriceMynah]

10 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

As I understand it consent was given subject to the dam being eventually removed.

Do we have any form of tangible evidence of that?

[Timbo]

'You can't please all of the people all of the time', so goes the adage. However in landscape management compromise is the name of the game. Compromise in landscape management is a lesson that Parks the world over teach, and no matter how much the administration yearn to become a National Park unless they learn this lesson they will be as big a failure as a National Park as they are fast becoming as the Broads Authority.

Talk to a landowner in a National Park and they will tell you of their inability to 'do as they please' with their own land. The constant rounds of 'if I do this for you, will you do this for me' are almost endless, however at all times they are working to a strict criterion. From personal experience in the Lake District I know if a landowner does not tow the line, the authorities descend like a tonne of bricks. The problem we have on The Broads is that the Authority's administration have a (personal) interpretation of The Broads which is at odds both historically and contemporaneously with the landscape. Stakeholders will find it much easier to coexist should we ever get someone in control of the Authority who can appreciate Broadland for what it is...not what they think it should be. 

The Authority as both a planning authority, port authority and the myriad of controls it has access to, such as the Transport and Works Act 1992, have more than enough power to stipulate the price of land for moorings. If they wanted to they have access to enough statutory 'umph' to issue an ultimatum of 'we use it or you lose it'.

As someone interested in archaeology, landscape, wildlife, angling and boating...to be honest I don't have a problem fitting my interests side by side. I don't want to lose any more of the navigation or the facilities but I can appreciate the need for SSI's. Having said that, the Hoveton Great Broad debacle is a prime example of where the Broads Authority should have used its muscle. 'Using public money?Then if you want our support then you create habitat AND access for navigation'. It can be done. You just have to WANT to do it. And therein lies the rub.

To cross as many threads together as I can in one post...to me the place to start with compromise and understanding the Broads is with Marshman and the Wherries. They are the Broads. A flat rate for tolls on wherries? Stuff and nonsense. No tolls on wherries and here's a sizeable contribution to their upkeep. Need help? Just ask! Need to legitimately restrict boating access for wildlife needs? Sure but what's all this about us paying for public moorings when you have the ability to fund projects in the millions? Why not offer access and facilities to the boaters so that they can enjoy...oh yes and part fund your project? So Mr Landowner you want to build a what? Let's have a look shall we...while you look at the price you want paying for those moorings? It's not rocket science.

A final adage? 'Where there's a will there's a way!'

[JennyMorgan]

John, not that I can find with my limited ability. I shall ask a man who probably knows. As I understand it the original agreement was that the dam would be removed at the end of the experiment, a not disimilar situation and agreement now exists at Hoveton Great Broad. I think that Cockshoot has largely escaped attention because whilst the Broad was wet it really wasn't a practical navigation, due to neglect, rather like  HGB..

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Timbo said:

'You can't please all of the people all of the time', so goes the adage. However in landscape management compromise is the name of the game. Compromise in landscape management is a lesson that Parks the world over teach, and no matter how much the administration yearn to become a National Park unless they learn this lesson they will be as big a failure as a National Park as they are fast becoming as the Broads Authority.

Talk to a landowner in a National Park and they will tell you of their inability to 'do as they please' with their own land. The constant rounds of 'if I do this for you, will you do this for me' are almost endless, however at all times they are working to a strict criterion. From personal experience in the Lake District I know if a landowner does not tow the line, the authorities descend like a tonne of bricks. The problem we have on The Broads is that the Authority's administration have a (personal) interpretation of The Broads which is at odds both historically and contemporaneously with the landscape. Stakeholders will find it much easier to coexist should we ever get someone in control of the Authority who can appreciate Broadland for what it is...not what they think it should be. 

The Authority as both a planning authority, port authority and the myriad of controls it has access to, such as the Transport and Works Act 1992, have more than enough power to stipulate the price of land for moorings. If they wanted to they have access to enough statutory 'umph' to issue an ultimatum of 'we use it or you lose it'.

As someone interested in archaeology, landscape, wildlife, angling and boating...to be honest I don't have a problem fitting my interests side by side. I don't want to lose any more of the navigation or the facilities but I can appreciate the need for SSI's. Having said that, the Hoveton Great Broad debacle is a prime example of where the Broads Authority should have used its muscle. 'Using public money?Then if you want our support then you create habitat AND access for navigation'. It can be done. You just have to WANT to do it. And therein lies the rub.

To cross as many threads together as I can in one post...to me the place to start with compromise and understanding the Broads is with Marshman and the Wherries. They are the Broads. A flat rate for tolls on wherries? Stuff and nonsense. No tolls on wherries and here's a sizeable contribution to their upkeep. Need help? Just ask! Need to legitimately restrict boating access for wildlife needs? Sure but what's all this about us paying for public moorings when you have the ability to fund projects in the millions? Why not offer access and facilities to the boaters so that they can enjoy...oh yes and part fund your project? So Mr Landowner you want to build a what? Let's have a look shall we...while you look at the price you want paying for those moorings? It's not rocket science.

A final adage? 'Where there's a will there's a way!'

That that is highlighted in red is probably the best interpretation of the Packman ideology that I have encountered to date.