Broads Authority Posts

[Stationerystill]

Riccardo, I said they have planning for mooring because they inherited that from the days of Hearts.. You need a different planning permission for actually living on a boat.This seems to be the confusion.. A few residents have got established use permission due to the length of time they lived there before the B.A. acted . The rest have not got that permission.

[JennyMorgan]

It is not so long since an appeal was won against a planning enforcement on the Thames. Seems that the boat owner won because the planning inspector ruled that there was nothing about one boat over another to suggest that one was being lived on and one was not, if that makes sense! Fact is that on the Broads thousands of folk live on boats, we normally call them holiday makers.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Stationerystill said:

Riccardo, I said they have planning for mooring because they inherited that from the days of Hearts.. You need a different planning permission for actually living on a boat.This seems to be the confusion.. A few residents have got established use permission due to the length of time they lived there before the B.A. acted . The rest have not got that permission.

On less I'm mistaken planning has nothing to do with the local council but rests with BA , yet its the local council that are screaming planning law , when will the council actually start talking to those affected , its ridiculous to claim they can only talk to Mr wood as far as I can see the folks on the island are only too willing to talk and resolve this issue , so far i have see them had council tax thrown at them and I know if they are on a standard mooring agreement which they most likely are then its not payable , it just seams to me that he local council will use just about anything but refuse to enter talks with those concerned , at the end of the day the council need to get revenue from these moorings , the fact its been indicated that they are willing to pay for a section of quay heading should be enough for the local council to engage in talks but I'm not seeing that all I see is barriers being built and that's hardly reasonable .

[MauriceMynah]

I have no business saying this but I've just got back from a good session from the pub so here goes...... and if I'm wrong I apologise.

Stationarystill (Malcolm) is involved in a "debate" on the other forum with RickH on this subject. I believe Rickh and Ricardo to be one and the same person.

Well however friendly we wish to be on this forum, I personally have no great desire to see the debates over there repeated here verbatim.

Neither member here has reached the 50 posts required to be full members here, but when they do I shall not be supporting that membership to either party unless either one of them can give evidence of interest in other subjects discussed on this forum, and can give some level of undertaking to be less confrontational here than they are there.

I post this in open forum as to do otherwise could be construed as "hiding" behind membership privilege.

If this post gets me a slapped wrist, I shall take it,  but at least I've been open and frank about my position.

 

[JennyMorgan]

As one who only very occasionally visits the other place I have to say that I have appreciated Malcolm's input and the balance that he's introduced to this debate. He hasn't only replied to Rickh but also to PeterW and in both cases with courtesy and conviction, I appreciate that. 

However, I do agree with John in principle.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

I have no business saying this but I've just got back from a good session from the pub so here goes...... and if I'm wrong I apologise.

Stationarystill (Malcolm) is involved in a "debate" on the other forum with RickH on this subject. I believe Rickh and Ricardo to be one and the same person.

Well however friendly we wish to be on this forum, I personally have no great desire to see the debates over there repeated here verbatim.

Neither member here has reached the 50 posts required to be full members here, but when they do I shall not be supporting that membership to either party unless either one of them can give evidence of interest in other subjects discussed on this forum, and can give some level of undertaking to be less confrontational here than they are there.

I post this in open forum as to do otherwise could be construed as "hiding" behind membership privilege.

If this post gets me a slapped wrist, I shall take it,  but at least I've been open and frank about my position.

 

Maurice I did try to gain the same I'd but wasn't for some reason to do so hence I have chosen something that is at least inline with my name , I really don't know why I'm explaining myself to you to be honest its none of your business what name people  choose after all many on here use names nothing to do with their name .

As for posting on other threads if there is something that I feel I can either help someone with or I have an opinion on then I will but at this rate I doubt that's going to happen , you remarked about it being friendly here , why do you think I joined ? But your post I feel is anything but friendly , my posts have been put  politely have they not ? And yet I get this attack , why is it beyond the bounds of reason that 2 forums can be discussing the same subject and people be members of both forums ? .

With regards to you backing or otherwise me moving to full membership that really doesn't bother me which way you vote the decision is not one persons I believe if you choose to blackball me as it were then so be it .

Thank you BTW for pointing out who I am regardless of if I wanted that know or not , yes you are right and I've nothing to hide at all but like o said I would have used exactly the same name if I could have done and I'm sorry that you think I have infiltrated the forum by appearing to be something I'm not .

As for what happens now I'll leave that to administration to deal with but you can be sure of one thing you didn't make a friend today and yes I'm pretty hacked off at this treatment .

[Vaughan]

Didn't I say that there would be tears before bedtime?

I will just state one FACT. The owners of boats on Hearts moorings need access to the Green for their dinghies, whether or not they are living on their boats. Ancient arguments about "use" are therefore irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

I am going to "sleep" on this one and I recommend we all do the same.

[JennyMorgan]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Didn't I say that there would be tears before bedtime?

I will just state one FACT. The owners of boats on Hearts moorings need access to the Green for their dinghies, whether or not they are living on their boats. Ancient arguments about "use" are therefore irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

I am going to "sleep" on this one and I recommend we all do the same.

Thank you for reminding us of the obvious, a fact that appears to have been forgotten. Reconsidering this issue leaves me wondering if after all it isn't up to Roger to take the lead & look after his customers. However it still appears that Roger needs help in doing that and that the Islanders need to help themselves.

It also appears that the bridge has been forgotten. 

[MBA Marine]

Some shout, some rant, some stay calm, all have a view some from not to far along the river, some from afar and some at source.  

Some of us know bits of fact as we have connections to those on the Island, the BA or the town council but none know all aspects from all sides,  you can all argue your points in cyber land until your tinternet devices fail you but it will achieve nothing.  There are plan's afoot, people are trying to engage in talks, some people are trying to start putting some failings right these people have my every support and I will do all I can to aid grease the wheels of dialogue with all parties.

 

As for a bridge, there are three, two for rail and rail only with no access, and the third to Jenners basin, this as we all know has been sold, there is no access to Jenners basin and that bridge from the Hearts end, and you would get cut to shreds, stung and very wet if you tried it.

[grendel]

surely a liveaboards dinghy will be moored at the staithe less that one moored and used occasionally, as the dinghy would have to be land side for the owner to get to the island. common sense says there needs to be dinghy mooring (or a ferry service)

[JennyMorgan]

Back in the eons of time, when the Island was created as part of the Lowestoft to Norwich Navigation and the then new railway line crossed the river, some provision surely was made for access to the then newly created island? Somebody must have owned the land prior to it becoming an island or was the entire island sold to the railway company thus no provision required? A week or two spent in the local Public Records Office might pay dividends. Please note, I stress 'might'!

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Back in the eons of time, when the Island was created as part of the Lowestoft to Norwich Navigation and the then new railway line crossed the river, some provision surely was made for access to the then newly created island? Somebody must have owned the land prior to it becoming an island or was the entire island sold to the railway company thus no provision required? A week or two spent in the local Public Records Office might pay dividends. Please note, I stress 'might'!

To answer one of your questions, since the railway, the land on the island has been owned in strips, opposite the properties on the Yarmouth Rd. So the Three Tuns (Cattermole's Gardens) the Buck, the Kings head and the Town House all have their parcels, as well as Guild House, Point House, the St Lucia Hotel and, of course, Thorpe Old Hall. The Church also owned their part, which was later purchased by my father. The reason that Hearts never got connected by road to Jenners bridge is because the owners of these strips of land refused access down the back of the island.

I am only guessing here, but it may be that John Hart was able to purchase the part originally known as Hart and Son in one bit as it is opposite the River Green and there were no large "town" houses with property opposite. He also rented the church land. Remember that the present South Avenue was a sand quarry, also one of the reasons for the historic use of the Green as a staithe.

Actually I would go back a lot further than just the railway or the Lowestoft Navigation, as in those days the Yarmouth Rd didn't go through the village of Thorpe! It went across the high ground at the back, nearer to the present Plumstead Rd and rejoined its present course to the east of the Griffin pub, where there is still an old toll house, if it has not been removed by the Postwick hub development. I am told that this was the course of a Roman Road.

So Thorpe was a village which, like so many others, grew up around the commercial trade on the Yare up to Norwich and as such, it thrived on it. Rich business people from Norwich built houses on the high ground, with that lovely view right over the Crown Point meadows to Trowse and Whitlingham. The local businesses existed because of the commercial river traffic, not the main road, and the River Green was right at the very heart of it. There was a coal merchants and even a steam laundry at one time. I therefore think it a bit silly to now suggest that it was never "officially" a staithe. The Town Council (whom Malcolm Martins does not represent) should in my view, be more aware of the traditions and history of the River Green and the public's continuing need to have use of it. Certainly the River Commissioners and the BA, had respect for this. It is the very foundation of the village of Thorpe St Andrew Episcopi. 

By the way, one can also see the large number of old Dutch gabled houses in Thorpe. These come from the Dutch engineers who came here to drain and re-claim the Yare valley in the first place.

 

[smellyloo]

14 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I have no business saying this but I've just got back from a good session from the pub so here goes...... and if I'm wrong I apologise.

Stationarystill (Malcolm) is involved in a "debate" on the other forum with RickH on this subject. I believe Rickh and Ricardo to be one and the same person.

Well however friendly we wish to be on this forum, I personally have no great desire to see the debates over there repeated here verbatim.

Neither member here has reached the 50 posts required to be full members here, but when they do I shall not be supporting that membership to either party unless either one of them can give evidence of interest in other subjects discussed on this forum, and can give some level of undertaking to be less confrontational here than they are there.

I post this in open forum as to do otherwise could be construed as "hiding" behind membership privilege.

If this post gets me a slapped wrist, I shall take it,  but at least I've been open and frank about my position.

 

Sorry MM but this stance makes me feel uncomfortable.

Why single out these two individuals for their postings made elsewhere.

The two forums are very different and the other one creates an environment where heated debate happens all to often.

Also refering to topics posted on another forum here, is very confusing for those who do not visit  that forum.

Discussing "blackballing" potential new members like this suggests a very clique, closed forum which NBN definately is not.

I feel if you had concerns regarding the content of posts made my individuals then you should have reported your concerns/reasons to admin visa PM.

 

[brandenjg]

It's very much a Them and Us situation between the forums in my view. Anyone's welcome to NBN but we don't want to become Them and they don't want to become Us.

 I personally wouldn't want to see NBN become a mirror of another forum because I prefer this forum for a reason but at the same time I wouldn't want to miss out on anything Broads related and if anyone from the other forum has useful info to share on here I'll certainly want to be able to read it.

Branden

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

Sorry MM but this stance makes me feel uncomfortable.

Why single out these two individuals for their postings made elsewhere.

The two forums are very different and the other one creates an environment where heated debate happens all to often.

Also refering to topics posted on another forum here, is very confusing for those who do not visit  that forum.

Discussing "blackballing" potential new members like this suggests a very clique, closed forum which NBN definately is not.

I feel if you had concerns regarding the content of posts made my individuals then you should have reported your concerns/reasons to admin visa PM.

 

Of John's own admission 'the beer was in', I won't complete that well known saying but I suspect that some of you have encountered it. I have a huge respect and liking for John (MM) but in this I agree wholly with Loo, sorry John.

[JennyMorgan]

Vaughan, thank you for that potted history, I had a feeling that if I fished then you might take the bait which, conveniently, you did and with style!

I am quite certain that amongst all the history there lies the answer. The Island was clearly sold off or leased in strips and surely any astute business person would have ensured access rights, unless there was a public staithe thus those rights already and conveniently existed. 

[Vaughan]

Just now, JennyMorgan said:

I am quite certain that amongst all the history there lies the answer.

Actually I forgot to mention that before the railway, this land was part of the Crown Point Estate, in the Colman family (think Colman's mustard).

It occurs to me that this was probably a joint operation between the Norfolk Railway (later the Great Eastern) and the Lowestoft Navigation, in a similar way to the New Cut at Haddiscoe. The railway still own the embankment on both sides and it is fenced off from the properties on the Thorpe side. I imagine that the railway, having bought the land from Colmans, then decided to sell off the north side of what was then an island, as they didn't need all of it.

The new cut - or Back Reach as we call it in Thorpe - would also have involved a purchase of land from Colmans and the railway actually own the south bank of the island as well as the embankment, which is why it is forbidden to moor there.

[MauriceMynah]

I need to be very careful how I phrase my reply to this, as not to be so, could, and indeed would give the wrong impression and be distinctly misleading. That is not my intention.

 

Permit me to take certain things that have been said.  Firstly “Blackballing” which was not mentioned by me but by Ricardo.

 

This forum does not have a “blackball” policy. Someone who has submitted the appropriate number of posts is forwarded for full membership. If nobody objects, full membership is granted. If objections ARE raised then these objections are discussed  but if there is sufficient support for the proposed member, or if the person/persons who objected fails to argue their point, the proposed member still goes through to full membership.

 

Blackballing is where if a member blackballs a proposed member, that proposed member does not get through...End of!.

 

What I said was

 “Neither member here has reached the 50 posts required to be full members here, but when they do I shall not be supporting that membership to either party unless either one of them can give evidence of interest in other subjects discussed on this forum, and can give some level of undertaking to be less confrontational here than they are there”.

 

I did not say I would “object”, but that unless certain criteria were met, I would not support them. I stand by that.

 

Smellyloo asks…”Why single out these two individuals for their postings made elsewhere.”

 

It is because of those postings “elsewhere” I feel the way I do.

 

Smellyloo  then goes on to say…

 

 “The two forums are very different and the other one creates an environment where heated debate happens all to often.”

 

I agree. “All too often” which is why I said as I did.

 

Finally Smellyloo says

 

“I feel if you had concerns regarding the content of posts made my individuals then you should have reported your concerns/reasons to admin visa PM.”

 

No, I make my points openly, not behind Ricardo’s back. I do at least give him that respect, and the right to reply, which he did.

 

I stand by my post. The bickering between those two parties on the other forum should remain on the other forum. I have no objection to either of them enjoying an active part on this forum, but they each need to understand the difference between here and there.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

I have no objection to either of them enjoying an active part on this forum, but they each need to understand the difference between here and there.

Well said, Sir!

I have also "stuck my head up over the parapet" in defence of standards on this forum and I am glad to see that you are also prepared to do so.

 

 

[BroadAmbition]

MM - I'm not going to quote all your last post but just to say - Good post Sir

I especially agree with:-

The bickering between those two parties on the other forum should remain on the other forum. I have no objection to either of them enjoying an active part on this forum, but they each need to understand the difference between here and there.

All to often I see posts on the nbf that are way more aggressive and strongly posted, far more than on here, the NBN to me seems much more friendly even when the members disagree or want to get a point over, we just seem to be able to do it in a much more polite manner.  That in turn enables our moderators to be just that - Moderators, not censors.  Long may that continue

 

Griff

[Vaughan]

It used to be known as "common courtesy".

[Vaughan]

I have been thinking about the broader issues surrounding this dinghy problem and there are things that occur to me :-

First question: Why did the BA not renew their lease on the Green?

Obviously because they had realised that there is now hardly any overnight holiday traffic, so there is no point in them maintaining it any more. I can see this, just by being a regular in the Buck and noticing that there is hardly ever anyone moored there.

Second question :

This is a village green, so why do the council now say it has to finance its own maintenance, just because they are no longer enjoying the luxury of a maintenance lease. Look at Mulbarton Common - who pays for that? The council.

Third question :

If the council have the funds to indulge themselves in the creation of a war memorial garden and arboretum (on the front of the loading staithe) when we already have a perfectly good memorial on the same site, then they probably have the funds to maintain the green, in the same way they fund the other public services in the town.

If it were down to me I would wait a few years (they estimate 10) until the quay needed renewing and then simply let nearly all of it go back to earth bank with osier bushes, as it always used to be in the past. You can still moor there by using rhond hooks and the only maintenance is to cut the grass. There used to be a quay opposite Hearts sheds (the staithe) and a shorter quay near the Buck which was the loading quay for the coal merchant. Both were made of railway sleepers, before the war, and lasted for donkeys' years.

I remember this well and it used to look very much nicer, in my view, than before all this campshedding came along. On the thread "Vaughan's memories" in the history section, page 3, Peter has posted some great photos of how this quay used to look over the years. Judge for yourselves.

By the way on that same thread, is also a good aerial view of the land that is now Jenners basin. Perhaps the new owners should be expected to maintain it like that in future?

 

On 4/16/2017 at 3:35 PM, Poppy said:

On 4/16/2017 at 0:39 PM, Islander said:

 

This photo shows the part of the quay that they plan to use as private moorings. This is where you are supposed to park your aesthetically pleasing pride and joy.

About 10 yards from the busy Yarmouth Rd, access down a steep and slippery grass bank (lets hope you can stop in time) and no services whatever. Even over at Hearts they have full boatyard services, including toilets, shower and laundry facilities. The only thing missing is fuel, as bulk deliveries can no longer be made from the green.

This cannot be fenced off for security, since it is a village green, with public access.

I know nothing about running a Town Council but I do know how to run a boat business. Perhaps time will tell but this just doesn't look commercial to me. Sorry.

[JennyMorgan]

Wise words, Vaughan, relevant questions too. In my view the proposed moorings are okay just as somewhere to moor and at what appear to be reasonable prices. Not for me though, nor I suspect for many owners of 'acceptable' boats. 

The more I think about this the more it appears that the Island businesses took it for granted that they had access over the Green, ergo it was/is a public staithe, common land. History suggests that it was a working area and subsequently a village green/common with public access. Trouble is that I doubt that there are any written, legal agreements. However, if the area is a public, open space then that is what it is, shouldn't be an argument. There is exactly the same situation at Beccles and Oulton Broad and consequently there is free mooring, only I won't tell folk exactly where 'cause I'll lose my free mooring spots!

[Stationerystill]

On the subject of the creation of the island here is the view of a historian from Norwich which was published in the E.D.P. The Dean and Chapter of Norwich owned the land and rented it to their tenant Archibald Money who owned Whitlingham Hall. The Navigation Company bought it from them in c 1833 and Archibald Money was compensated for his loss. The new cut was made in order to facilitate the passing of ships to Norwich. The reason for this was the river through Thorpe was too shallow and narrow for ships.On Sept. 30th. 1833 the first two seagoing ships reached Norwich and there were great celebrations. They were going to straighten out Whitlingham bends as well but ran out of money. The Navigation lasted less than 2 years and went bankrupt No buyers could be found until 10 years later Morton Peto bought the whole navigation very cheaply,for his railway company. This followed the line of the navigation. The railway opened in 1844. The cut predates the railway by 11 years.The island was divided into strips after this, owned by the properties opposite. For many years it was in Trowse with Kirby Bedon and not Thorpe but was eventually transferred over in the mid 20C. This can be checked with newspapers in the British Newspaper Archive, but I have not done so myself.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Stationerystill said:

The island was divided into strips after this, owned by the properties opposite. For many years it was in Trowse with Kirby Bedon and not Thorpe

I well remember that, as we were being charged business rates by Thorpe Parish Council although we were not in the same parish! We were also in the constituency of south Norfolk, not North, and so had to vote for a different MP.

The council, typically, even in those days, provided us with no services whatever and we even had to bury our own rubbish in the marsh!

Some things never change, do they?