Broads Authority Posts

[JennyMorgan]

Colin, I'm not convinced that the Council are the ones that need to make the first move. You make it clear that you would talk to the council but ONLY as an individual. From thirty miles away I see that as a huge part of the problem. In this instance you ALL need to work as a collective but I fear that that is now too late. As far as Roger is concerned I firmly believe that he has accepted some appalling and aggressive advice and I agree with you about him burying his head in the sand. Roger is also probably well overdue in approaching the Council but sitting on hands by both Roger & the boat owners  has helped no one, in my opinion of course. 

[Islander]

Peter, I'm all in favour of a collective approach and will standup and be counted but I have no time nor ability to head up a revival of Thorpe Island Residents Association. Anything agreed with Thorpe TC would still have to be rubber stamped by Roger. One option maybe to rent a section of quay for our EXCLUSIVE use. Unfortunately, due to other commitments I will not be able to attend the next council meeting but think other islanders may be there to table a question or two. 

Colin

[Vaughan]

I have only been on this forum for a year and a bit but Colin and others on the island know that I have been supporting them, behind the scenes, for several years now, ever since Roger bought Hearts Cruisers. I don't suppose anyone left alive except me, knows how difficult it can be to have good access to Harts Island! In this respect the local council have always been a hindrance rather than a help!

I agree that Roger is the landowner and so he has his own problems but surely, he is renting you a mooring, which does not necessarily imply access to the green, by dinghy? This may sound simplistic, but who is actually responsible? Should the council feel obliged to allow you free access across the Green, because you rent a plot on the island?

Answer, yes, in my opinion, as long as you get together and insist upon the ancient right of access to the PUBLIC STAITHE. In fairness, I have warned several times now that the council's closure of the staithe (with the tacit approval of the BA) is insidious. It could also lead to the closure of the navigation itself, and don't say I didn't warn us of this!

It is obvious that there is change afoot on the Green and I feel that the island community should get together and negotiate to be part of it, rather than ending up excluded from it. I agree that your own specific mooring area, for a suitable fee, would be a good solution but don't wait for Roger! - negotiate it with the council.

Have you considered a community ferry? They could not refuse this as there has been a ferry on the green for a couple of years. There was also a ferry across the river, at the Horse Water, before the railway came, and before the island was ever an island!

I remember the ferry at Coldham hall, which in the evenings and at lunchtime, was run by the regulars in the pub! It was an old reed barge which was rowed by pushing it, standing up facing forwards. Whoever heard the bell ring on the other side of the river would nip out and take the boat across. A public service, run by the public. I don't remember the ferry at Surlingham but I am told the operation was similar.

In the days of Hearts, if you arrived on the green and there was no boat, you simply went into the phone box, dialled 33666 (the number was written on the front of the boat sheds) and as soon as it was answered, without putting a coin in, you simply hung up. Someone would then come out of the sheds and ferry you across to the island.

It's not rocket science! It just needs a community organisation.

 

[riyadhcrew]

It sounds too simple Vaughan. Somebody will have something against it for sure.

[MBA Marine]

Island community have already taken steps to get together and they wish to engage in talks with the town council, waiting for Roger is not wise, they will im sure keep him informed and in the loop but waiting for him will get them nowhere.

I know for fact that the council have been trying to talk with Roger for Months, right back to when I 1st asked to use the Green, I also asked Roger if he would kindly respond to them as part of what they wished to discuss was if he had any objection to us operating day boats there, still he chose not to talk with them.

I don't speak to much on this subject as I need to stay professional when I am dealing in a business capacity will both Roger and the Town council but something I have learned directly is that 80% of what archant write about the goings on at Thorpe Green/the island is sensationalised rubbish, they take one line from council meeting minutes and run with it, or a brief telephone call and you find yourself quoted or sort of quoted to suit the point they want to put out, the point that will get them the most clicks, shares and comments under the article on the website or sell hard copy papers.

[Oddfellow]

19 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Since Peter's post yesterday I have been trying to get my thoughts in order, as this is a multifaceted situation.

Thorpe River Green is historically one of the oldest and most important public staithes on the Broads. It is on the old main river which brought commerce to Norwich for a long time before even the railway was built (right back to the Romans, Timbo!) and it was an important quay for wherries loading sand, gravel and chalk from the quarries in the high ground behind the Yarmouth Rd.

I remember how busy it used to be in the 50s and 60s, especially on Friday and Saturday night, with all the boats coming home or departing from the 4 hire yards that were based on the reach between the bridges, but what about now? Last year Susie and I were in Thorpe, in the spring, for more than 3 months and my camper van could be seen parked in the Buck on most lunchtimes. During all that time I hardly ever saw a hire or private boat moored on the green. So why is this?

 

1/. Getting on for half of motor cruisers on the Broads nowadays can't get under the bridges anyway.

2/. Traffic noise.

3/. Nothing much to do when you get there. The tea shop and barbers opposite (which used to be a supermarket) has announced itself opposed to the mooring of boats on the Green - believe it or not. Meantime there is no general stores anywhere within walking distance.

4/. There are no facilities for pumpout, water, fuel, showers or bins as there are no boatyards any more.

5/. The Thorpe Gardens used to be one of the busiest riverside pubs on the Broads. Now it is the Rushcutters, a young Norwich businessman's eating factory whose manager once told me to my face that he regards boating people as the wrong kind of customer, and doesn't allow mooring on the quay. It is not a "pub" any more anyway.

6/. The River Garden (ex the Kings Head) and the Town House no longer encourage moorings on their quays for visitors.

7/. Ever since Patsy Dashwood left, the Buck has gone through disastrous times and was certainly not a place for an evening meal. The present managers seem to be succeeding in turning this around, thank goodness. One wonders what the mooring requirement would be, if the Buck were as popular a pub as Surlingham Ferry?

 

So as things stand, I don't think Thorpe Council are going to re-cup a great deal out of overnight moorings but I feel it is vital that this facility should remain available, on the PUBLIC STAITHE.

As to private moorings, these cannot be stern on, or they will block the navigation, so how many boats are they going to moor alongside, at the western end of the green? Probably about 8 boats, of average 30ft at £10 a foot - for locals. Is that plus or minus VAT? Whichever, it is not even going to pay for cutting the grass, let alone replacing the quay heading in 2030!

The only good idea to come out of this is the hiring of day boats. Why not? The only problem would be parking and I am told that public parking on the Yarmouth road is soon to be much better regulated and much more generally available.

 

A separate issue from all this (and I fully agree with Peter) is the access across the river from the green to the island for houseboat residents in their dinghies. The council minutes which have been published on this thread, state clearly that approaches have been made more than once to the owner of the land and his residents to discuss this, but no reply has been forthcoming. Time to sort that one out for themselves, maybe?

 

 

 

 

Parking for the day boat hire has been arranged with The Buck. 

There is a discussion elsewhere on t'interweb that River Green is not a public staithe and I understand that there has been a great deal of investigation on this matter with the council. 

I am gobsmacked that the cafe is opposed to boats mooring on the green. 

[JennyMorgan]

Re public staiths the BA has wisely employed a gentleman to research this issue.

[Islander]

Andy,it was Steve Harley that put us in touch with Roger for a mooring. I've even done some work on his property some years ago. Some of the islanders use his cafe. 

As as far as parking is concerned, only the two pubs provide parking for their customers. Very few cars belong to islanders. Most use bicycles or public transport. A few have private arrangements with The Buck and The Rushcutters. Rarely am I unable to park where I like to be. Most vehicles parked in this area are from surrounding businesses and property at the back of Buck yard and Chapel Lane.

Colin

[quackers]

21 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Re public staiths the BA has wisely employed a gentleman to research this issue.

That's interesting, and slightly ominous, Peter. I trust this is not a prelude to another attempt at introducing mooring charges at Reedham, which is a Public Staithe, (as opposed to a Parish Staithe). Is Thorpe Green listed by Roy Kemp as a Parish Staithe?

Bill Saunders

[Poppy]

35 minutes ago, quackers said:

That's interesting, and slightly ominous, Peter. I trust this is not a prelude to another attempt at introducing mooring charges at Reedham, which is a Public Staithe, (as opposed to a Parish Staithe). Is Thorpe Green listed by Roy Kemp as a Parish Staithe?

Bill Saunders

Public or Parish - why should either be chargeable ?

[marshman]

Maintenance comes to mind, and perhaps public liability? 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, quackers said:

That's interesting, and slightly ominous, Peter. I trust this is not a prelude to another attempt at introducing mooring charges at Reedham, which is a Public Staithe, (as opposed to a Parish Staithe). Is Thorpe Green listed by Roy Kemp as a Parish Staithe?

Bill Saunders

Bill, whilst I view absolutely every utterance from Packman Towers with a degree of cynicism I do see this one as a positive. As I understand it the BA has enlisted help to complete Roy Kemp's list. Granted that it could be used against us but equally it could be a positive and, unusually perhaps, I see this one having more plusses than it does minuses. It's what is done with the information that matters though, there lies the rub. We have to trust that all  the information gained is released to us rhond rodents and is not manipulated/doctored for use against us. I can understand anyone having concerns when it comes to BA surveys and consultations but fingers crossed with this one. No doubt that the BA will charge where it can but equally it may not be able to charge where presently it does, possibly 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Maintenance comes to mind, and perhaps public liability? 

Surely, in regard to public staithes, this should be covered by our tolls. 

[marshman]

I believe, for what its worth, the report is merely looking at a history of staithes and will not have any legally binding information.

Whilst I think it may be of interest particularly when looking at the history of them generally, to try and enforce ANY issues over staithes, public or private,  would require a very large pocket and I do not think the BA would wish to embroil themselves in any such actions. They would be, IMHO, on an expensive hiding to nothing!!

My guess it would be a bit like trying to enforce issues over, and or claiming, common land, where again the primary requirement is to have loads of dosh!! The trouble generally is that many people make claim, and counter claim over many, but the costs of actually proving anything, is way beyond my pocket!! 

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, you could well be right, we shall have to wait & see! Unless Dr P is both transparent and even handed in regards to further research then he might regret delving into this one hence my suggestion that this project is a plus point.

[Vaughan]

Susie and I are looking for a 6in OS map of the early 1800s which we know we have got, but not where we last put it! When we find it I will post it. It clearly shows the straight, made up part of the quay which was the staithe and which ran from the eastern boundary wall of the green as far as about level with the big conker tree. Immediately opposite Hearts boat sheds and office.

This was a made up quay heading, built of railway sleepers, and the rest of the green was an earth bank with osier bushes. There was another quay, virtually opposite the gunboat, made in the early 50s. The map also shows the track leading southwards from the ferry slip at the Horsewater,  until it joins the Trowse road near Crown Point.

As Roy Kemp lived on South Avenue in Thorpe, just a few hundred yards from the Green, I am sure he was aware of the staithe! As it had proper access at that time however, from both road and river, it would not have concerned him.

[grendel]

I can find this one from the 1880's - http://maps.nls.uk/view/101582876

[marshman]

The answer of course then, if you are so sure of any ground, prove it all in Court!!

Strangely enough we were talking about this only this morning with a group of volunteers, including a lawyer. He was recounting that he was once involved in a dispute over a "village" duck pond which eventually went to court. Cost over £200k and the judgement was one not even anticipated!!

Plunge in , if you dare.......!!!!!

 

[quackers]

If Thorpe Green was established as a parish staithe by Act of Parliament, as many were in the early nineteenth century, the council could well be entitled to regulate its use as they see fit. The classic example of this  is on South Walsham Broad, where the parish staithe used to provide a  very nice overnight mooring, albeit only for one cruiser, until the parish council restricted mooring to dinghies only - as presumably they were entitled to do. A public quay on the other hand is a place where the right to free public mooring has become enshrined in common law by long established custom and practice - a much rarer animal.

Bill Saunders.

[Islander]

For everyone's information, please read the proposed new signage for river green carefully. Not yet in place but coming very soon.

Please note the 48hr rule. This is not the same as the BA 24hr moorings.

 

2. Jenners has allegedly been sold. Eviction notices to occupants. Here we go again.

 

Colin

[Islander]

Ok, things not going to planI'll try again.

With reference to my last comment.

 

Mods please move if you feel it necessary. I'm of for a beer until the dust settles.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Islander

[JennyMorgan]

Bad and sad but probably inevitable news, my sympathies to those involved. I feel strongly that Roger has not helped himself and accordingly those whose home the Island is will suffer both upheaval and uncertainty.

[Islander]

I don't wish to side track this thread as the new forthcoming restrictions for river green is what most people need to know.

I hope the Jenners situation does not become another mini Dale Farm. It would do no favours to those of us that wish to live quietly on our boats.

Colin

 

[Vaughan]

I was told that the sale of the land on the west of the island was completed this afternoon and the letter posted above certainly confirms it. The negotiations have been going on for some time.

It will seem strange, immediately, that the new owners seek to evict private boats who pay for moorings in the basin, when the ONLY thing permitted on that land, by planning covenant, is the mooring of private boats? A planning application to update this mooring permission has indeed been submitted but is so far still witheld in the BA's "procedural system". Whether the previous owner will wish to continue his uphill battle against them, to bring this process to conclusion, is now rather doubtful! So we fall back on the original argument - is the original 1967 planning permission abandoned, or is it still valid??

"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not collect £200."

It remains to be seen, therefore, what will now "develop" on that land. One way or another, if the new owners are now to be granted planning permission for anything other than the mooring of a strictly limited number of private boats in the basin, then that would be no less than a scandal.

Not forgetting that moorings on the river frontage are also banned, ever since the Norwich City Council got "roped in" to this situation to ban them. At least for the moment. Perhaps "time will tell" on that one as well.

It also remains to be seen whether the dark cloud of officialdom, obfuscation and obstruction which has hovered over Jenners Basin for so long, will now dissipate in the spring air, or will simply drift eastwards to re-settle itself over the other end of the island?

 

[Vaughan]

29 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

"Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not collect £200."

Sorry, I forgot something in that quote from "Monopoly" - Do not pass "GO"!