News From The BA

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

That’s a very fair point.
We all pay towards schools whether or not we have kids.
We all pay towards the emergency services whether or not we use them.
It makes no difference does it? We’d just pay more for the bits we do use plus a bit extra for all the admin wouldn’t we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes schools and emergency services are paid for by all tax payers that's indirect taxation I believe,    tolls , council  tax etc is direct taxation totally and different. 

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, marshman said:

And Vaughan, not sure I really agree with that comment about bitterns - saw more last year than ever before! There is no doubt that at places like Minsmere where the reed beds are managed, bitterns now thrive. Sadly in the Broads reed bed management, despite several initiatives, continues to struggle through funding issues but bitterns do need a managed bed - if the reed is not cut periodically bitterns cannot get around them so readily

However what has happened, is that no one is actually counting them anymore, although the BA help keep an eye on them.

I said this for two reasons :

1/. I read it somewhere, last year. It seems that the lack of management of the reeds is allowing them to naturally evolve into fen, then carr and then dry land. This is because bodies such as RSPB believe in leaving the "natural" wetlands alone, as a haven for wildlife, without realising that reclaimed land such as the Broads has to be continuously maintained or it will not stay in what they call its natural state. I said on another thread, that we have lost an enormous amount of open water on the northern Broads over the last 100 years and we are still losing it now.

2/. I have spent 15 years living and working in the Camargue, where thousands of acres of lowland in the Rhone delta are commercially exploited as reed beds, which are harvested in rotation, each portion every 4 years. water level is controlled in exactly the same way as on the Broads or in Holland. The reed is sold in Belgium and Germany and is considered second only to the Norfolk reed, for thatching. The area is a haven for wildlife and the Bitterns are out there like free range hens!

 

[JohnK]

Alan is moored in a privately funded, man-made water that receives no maintenance funding from the Authority.
Alan remains moored at the WRC by choice.
On this one I can see both sides of the story.
Do I think that the adjacent waters toll grab is fair? No.

I can see both sides too.
It doesn’t seem right to pay for what you don’t use (even if that does happen almost everywhere)
But were they the rules when when he chose to moor there? Or is the adjacent waters thing new? If it’s new I have a lot of sympathy for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnK]

Yes schools and emergency services are paid for by all tax payers that's indirect taxation I believe,    tolls , council  tax etc is direct taxation totally and different. 

It’s a good point Ricardo.
But if we assume the tolls are set based on what the BA needs (stick with me if if you don’t think that’s true ) where does the extra money come from? Charge higher tolls for people who use the navigations more? Where would the money come from to do the admin for that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughan]

10 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Do I think that the adjacent waters toll grab is fair? No.

The article says the BA don't want to create a precedent but there is one already! Until the BA came along, there was always a houseboat toll on the Broads. See my avatar.

Alan has stated clearly that he is not trying to avoid a toll : he merely feels that there should be a reduced rate in accordance with his use of a houseboat, in a private basin and I agree.

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

I can see both sides too.
It doesn’t seem right to pay for what you don’t use (even if that does happen almost everywhere)
But were they the rules when when he chose to moor there? Or is the adjacent waters thing new? If it’s new I have a lot of sympathy for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I shall have to ask him. The adjacent waters thing came in with the new Broads Act.

 

3 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

It’s a good point Ricardo.
But if we assume the tolls are set based on what the BA needs (stick with me if if you don’t think that’s true ) where does the extra money come from? Charge higher tolls for people who use the navigations more? Where would the money come from to do the admin for that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

40 to 50% of the toll is hived off for overheads so arguably reducing those overheads would free up more money for navigational projects.

[Vaughan]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

40 to 50% of the toll is hived off for overheads so arguably reducing those overheads would free up more money for navigational projects.

So would not spending "tens of thousands of Pounds" chasing spurious court cases.

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So would not spending "tens of thousands of Pounds" chasing spurious court cases.

Regretfully Authorities hate having their authority challenged, especially when they have a bottomless purse at their disposal.

[JohnK]

Regretfully Authorities hate having their authority challenged, especially when they have a bottomless purse at their disposal.

If they didn’t chase non payers (ignoring whether it’s a spurious toll or not for a second) what percentage of boat owners would actually pay?

So whilst they may have spend thousands chasing hundreds on a single case I guess you could argue it’s paid for itself by convincing others to pay? Maybe??!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnK said:

 

I can see both sides too.
It doesn’t seem right to pay for what you don’t use (even if that does happen almost everywhere)
But were they the rules when when he chose to moor there? Or is the adjacent waters thing new? If it’s new I have a lot of sympathy for him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Who "owns" the water his boat floats on?

[grendel]

3 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Who "owns" the water his boat floats on?

anyone would think it just dropped out of the sky. 

[marshman]

Vaughan - bitterns!

The RSPB do manage reedbeds where they own them and its appropriate - Minsmere and indeed Strumpshaw are both reserves where beds are managed specifically for bitterns and have been very successful in attracting them, and/or keeping them.

Elsewhere, in the Broads the BA have a real problem in managing the reedbeds - remember they own very little land so again you should be pointing fingers at the landowners who own marshes! Whilst I suspect the BA will help with some management, the weather is a major player in whether (!) they have a good year or not. If you have a dry spring and river levels remain low and marshes dry out, bitterns suffer as the supply of frogs etc diminishes and I think climate change (if it exists! ) is not helping - we are also at the extreme edge of their area of distribution and despite numbers increasing of late, it is a long slow slog.

I agree Norfolk reed is one of the best, but where are the reedcutters? Its a really hard job as most of you know and difficult to mechanise efficiently in the Broads and whilst there are a few still around, it is certainly less than even ten years ago. Its fragmented, and the individual areas cut modest in size and a struggle when you can only cut for 3 months of the year and imported reed from China is cheaper - hard to find new dedicated cutters I suspect with the economics involved.

[Vaughan]

I must say that in the Camargue on a spring night, the call of all the frogs (by that I don't mean Frenchmen) is even louder than the boom of the bitterns!

I think you and I are saying the same thing, but in different ways.  I am trying to say that the maintenance of the reclaimed wetland levels is essential in maintaining the habitat.

You are saying, rightly, that the ancient skills of exploiting the marshes for such things as reed cutting, are also essential, to make it commercial.

For that matter it is silly for the RSPB to suggest that dredging was not necessary in the days of the wherries when we both know that a laden 40 ton wherry draws four foot six, and that's without the slipping keel.

 

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, JohnK said:

 

If they didn’t chase non payers (ignoring whether it’s a spurious toll or not for a second) what percentage of boat owners would actually pay?

So whilst they may have spend thousands chasing hundreds on a single case I guess you could argue it’s paid for itself by convincing others to pay? Maybe??!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The issue of adjacent waters is still a contentious issue on the Broads and, as I have said I do sympathise with both parties on this one.

I won't bother you with a link but there is a thread running on Facebook at the moment where someone has resurrected threads on what was called Speakers Corner in relation to the Broads Act's passage through Parliament.  The issue of adjacent waters is also well covered in Hansard, the formal Parliamentary record of events. I really don't think that the affair was satisfactorily concluded and the resultant legislation is a tad woolly, hence the Authority is being challenged. Witness the various exemptions around the Broads where the BA has not acted for one reason or another. I think it was a pity that Allan conducted his own defence, I wonder if a savvy defence barrister might not have come up with a different result. 

As things are perhaps the BA had no option but to pursue their case, but in this case it was not a win in the High Court so I would question whether that sets a legal precedent or not. I just don't think that the matter has been settled once and for all. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The issue of adjacent waters is still a contentious issue on the Broads and, as I have said I do sympathise with both parties on this one.

I won't bother you with a link but there is a thread running on Facebook at the moment where someone has resurrected threads on what was called Speakers Corner in relation to the Broads Act's passage through Parliament.  The issue of adjacent waters is also well covered in Hansard, the formal Parliamentary record of events. I really don't think that the affair was satisfactorily concluded and the resultant legislation is a tad woolly, hence the Authority is being challenged. Witness the various exemptions around the Broads where the BA has not acted for one reason or another. I think it was a pity that Allan conducted his own defence, I wonder if a savvy defence barrister might not have come up with a different result. 

As things are perhaps the BA had no option but to pursue their case, but in this case it was not a win in the High Court so I would question whether that sets a legal precedent or not. I just don't think that the matter has been settled once and for all. 

I suspect that the BA is concerned that some could use adjacent waters exemption  to avoid paying tolls (not houseboats).

Keep your boat in adjacent waters for most of the year legitimately without a toll being paid, then if you are an infrequent user take a chance at not being caught by the Rangers, if you do then pay the minimum visitor toll period and hope to "escape" next time. What is the worst that could happen; you get caught enough times so that you have used up the 28 days visitor toll that you have buy a full year toll, but the cost of the temporary tolls is deducted from the annual toll, so actually nothing lost 

[VetChugger]

" Do I think that the adjacent waters toll grab is fair? No. "

Devils advocate sort of question! Would there be a marina there if there was not a maintained navigation adjacent to access said marina??

I suppose the fella could simply dig and fill a big puddle and plant his houseboat on it! Now that would be exempt!

[Islander]

Or he could just buy the freehold!

Colin

[ZimbiIV]

Knowing Alan, he is probably already considering the European courts.

paul

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, ZimbiIV said:

Knowing Alan, he is probably already considering the European courts.

paul

He'd better get a move on then!

[Paul]

7 hours ago, Ricardo said:

schools and emergency services are paid for by all tax payers that's indirect taxation I believe,    tolls , council  tax etc is direct taxation totally and different.

I'm sure that's the wrong way round Ricardo. Schools, emergency services etc are paid for (largely) from Income tax which is considered "direct", being made on income (or profit for the self employed). As a country we pay too little income tax as a result of government after government lowering rates in an attempt to buy votes and gain re-election. This is why our schools, health service, police force etc. are in such a dire state. Indirect taxation is the use of revenue raised from things such as VAT, Alcohol duty, Road fund license etc to fund services.

 

[Hockham Admiral]

23 hours ago, Philosophical said:

I suspect that the BA is concerned that some could use adjacent waters exemption  to avoid paying tolls (not houseboats).

Keep your boat in adjacent waters for most of the year legitimately without a toll being paid, then if you are an infrequent user take a chance at not being caught by the Rangers, if you do then pay the minimum visitor toll period and hope to "escape" next time. What is the worst that could happen; you get caught enough times so that you have used up the 28 days visitor toll that you have buy a full year toll, but the cost of the temporary tolls is deducted from the annual toll, so actually nothing lost 

I think that "What is the worse that could happen" might be a complete ban on the third time. 

I'm sure that the BA wouldn't let one get away with it more than that.   

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Hockham Admiral said:

I think that "What is the worse that could happen" might be a complete ban on the third time. 

I'm sure that the BA wouldn't let one get away with it more than that.   

Yes. I guess they could, but how many people have actually had a complete ban for toll avoidance/evasion in the last 5 years?

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Yes. I guess they could, but how many people have actually had a complete ban for toll avoidance/evasion in the last 5 years?

The simple answer is none , I'm quite sure BA don't have the powers to ban anyone to be honest , that said they do take people to court but they pick and chose who , tolls they defiantly do other bylaw offences they don't .

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

The simple answer is none , I'm quite sure BA don't have the powers to ban anyone to be honest , that said they do take people to court but they pick and chose who , tolls they defiantly do other bylaw offences they don't .

 

6 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

The simple answer is none , I'm quite sure BA don't have the powers to ban anyone to be honest , that said they do take people to court but they pick and chose who , tolls they defiantly do other bylaw offences they don't .

So one could argue that given very limited use of a boat moored in "adjacent waters" it is a very plausible risk to "run the gauntlet" in the circumstances that no annual toll is levied.

[JennyMorgan]

In real terms I do not believe that anyone can actually be banned from navigating on a public, tidal water anymore than someone can be banned from walking along a public footpath. 

Would we really want the Authority to be able to decide who of us can use the Broads?