Broads Authority Study Into Status Of Broadland Staithes

[ChrisB]

I have no real knowledge of the Wherry trade but do know that the operators of alot of Thames Sailing barges had their own quays and jetties in the creeks of Essex for the loading of such items as hay and bricks. The return trade often being manure for the fields.

I wonder if some of the Broadland Dykes had private staithes in a similar manner?

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, ChrisB said:

I wonder if some of the Broadland Dykes had private staithes in a similar manner?

I'm sure that they did. For example the deeds of my house clearly show a nearby brickfield and it's associated mooring and staithe. It can have had no other purpose other than to service the brickfield and clearly both mooring and kilns etc. were owned by one and the same man. My solicitor lives on the other side of me and in his view the present owner of that mooring has a tenuous possession albeit it would take a man with deep pockets to contest that. It does appear that as far as the Broads are concerned staithes are a pretty unique institution. 

[vanessan]

7 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

An interesting point raised by Vaughan, that I suspect has implications for Acle Dyke! I'm sure that Hamilton's refers to a public staithe at the top end of the dyke, and I'm sure there used to be a little bit of public mooring there.

I have a copy of Hamilton’s dated 1978. It refers to a ‘narrow dike alongside Eastick’s boatyard leading to a small public mooring at the top end from which Acle village can be reached. The dike is a public right of way but the right bank going up is private being part of the boatyard, the left bank is public.’ No mention of a public staithe.

[Paul]

Crikey, what a great response, I will have a good read over the weekend. Thanks for finding that for me EastCoastIPA. My original post was borne of general interest, not in anyway intended to suggest that either the author of the report, the UEA or BA were guilty of any failing. 

My interest was originally piqued, or at least I thought by a post on the British Canoe website,  but it might have been something on the Song of the Paddle forum previously referenced which I found whilst looking for something similar conducted on another waterway around 7 or 8 years ago. 

[Vaughan]

Thank you very much for posting the report and I have just had the time to sit here, in a hotel in Portsmouth, and read it through. I have always tried to emphasise the importance of staithes to our rights of navigation and the report goes a long way to show why.

One thing I particularly noticed was the word "private", which the report defined as meaning something different then, to what it does now. When mapping a road, it was defined as "public" - maintained by the council - or "private", which meant "not adopted" by the council for maintenance, but still a public access road. Nowadays we take private to mean something we own but in fact, that may not mean no access, in law.

In the conclusion they made it clear that where highways, by road or water, converged there was a right of transference between the two which cannot be taken away simply because there have been changes in ownership over the years.

In the case of Thorpe Green I notice they say that ownership cannot be proved but that it was quite obviously common land, as part of the road and they clearly define it as a public staithe. No "probably" or "possibly" in this case. I wonder if Roger Wood has read the report?

I think that maybe the BA haven't announced it yet as it simply lists the existing situation as far as can be known by their research, but it does not make any recommendations.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

In the conclusion they made it clear that where highways, by road or water, converged there was a right of transference between the two which cannot be taken away simply because there have been changes in ownership over the years.

In the case of Thorpe Green I notice they say that ownership cannot be proved but that it was quite obviously common land, as part of the road and they clearly define it as a public staithe. No "probably" or "possibly" in this case. I wonder if Roger Wood has read the report?

I think that maybe the BA haven't announced it yet as it simply lists the existing situation as far as can be known by their research, but it does not make any recommendations.

If a public staithe and the right of transference exists, how does this relate to the right to moor for an extended time? By this I mean, is anyone allowed to pass byelaws restricting the right to moor for say no longer than 24hrs? and the no return within 24hrs rule? or does the right to moor only exist for as long as someone is loading or unloading? In which case does this mean that no one should leave a boat of any sort at a public staithe?

I wonder how this affects the BA decision to install bollards at Potter Heigham staithe to restrict vehicle access. Again thinking about Potter work boats are often left unattended for a period.

[ChrisB]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Thank you very much for posting the report and I have just had the time to sit here, in a hotel in Portsmouth, and read it through. I have always tried to emphasise the importance of staithes to our rights of navigation and the report goes a long way to show why.

One thing I particularly noticed was the word "private", which the report defined as meaning something different then, to what it does now. When mapping a road, it was defined as "public" - maintained by the council - or "private", which meant "not adopted" by the council for maintenance, but still a public access road. Nowadays we take private to mean something we own but in fact, that may not mean no access, in law.

In the conclusion they made it clear that where highways, by road or water, converged there was a right of transference between the two which cannot be taken away simply because there have been changes in ownership over the years.

In the case of Thorpe Green I notice they say that ownership cannot be proved but that it was quite obviously common land, as part of the road and they clearly define it as a public staithe. No "probably" or "possibly" in this case. I wonder if Roger Wood has read the report?

I think that maybe the BA haven't announced it yet as it simply lists the existing situation as far as can be known by their research, but it does not make any recommendations.

When I was young, that is still living at home we lived in a road in Chorleywood that had to be closed for 24 hours once a year to maintain it's private status.

I think the Trafford Estates also require NBYC to close Wroxham Broad once a year for a similar reason.

[Stationerystill]

This is a two year old draft.Since then Thorpe Town Council has submitted a file to the land registry and proved its ownership to their satisfaction. It was conveyed to the then parish council in 1919 by the Lord of the Manor and of course their are numerous references to this in the parish records.  Prof. Williamson made reference to their being no copy of enclosure or tithe map. I have both. I had to pay for the tithe map from the National R.O.

He also says it was not fenced from the road. There are paintings by Cotman showing a fence and a picture by N.C.C. of 1883 showing the fence. There are documentary records of the fence being moved by a resident and a public meeting which met and found in favour of the L.of the Manor. He was made to put the fence back. There is also a price list for mooring dated 1921 with the bylaws.This was updated several times. Post war it was leased to the G.Y.P.& H.C. and then the Broads Authority. They handed the lease back last year due to high cost of maintenance. Prof. Williamson did not do his research in our council archive or the Janet Smith Collection. He appeared to only look at some maps in the Norfolk R.O... which rarely can show fine detail. Roy Kemp who wrote the last staithe report did not include Thorpe because he lied here and knew it was not a public staithe. It is still the intention of the Town Council to keep a stretch of free 24 hour moorings for visitors. The Town Council has asked the B.A. for permission to erect a sign the other side of the bridge directing people to the River Green as they want visitors. The B.A. has refused that permission.

[Paladin]

53 minutes ago, Stationerystill said:

 The Town Council has asked the B.A. for permission to erect a sign the other side of the bridge directing people to the River Green as they want visitors.

A bit off-topic, but I haven't visited those moorings since the introduction of the Mooring Penalty Charge. I understand the reason for its introduction, but I'm not prepared to risk having some job's-worth (sorry, mooring attendant) issue me with a penalty charge notice for overstaying by half-an-hour, perhaps waiting for clearance undr the bridges .

(I also avoid car parks with a similar system in force, whenever I can.)

[Islander]

Paladin, the old system still applies. I.e. 24hrs Max stay with no return within 24hrs. Penalty charge still as old bylaws which I think was 30 shillings.

Colin

[Paladin]

Thank you, Islander, but, as far as I can see, the proposal to introduce the Mooring Penalty Charge hasn't been dropped. A year ago, the TC approved the allocation of £7,000+ for the costs of enforcement.

[Islander]

Quite correct Paladine, it's just not been implemented yet. It is rumoured this will be soon once the legal team have dotted all the I,s and crossed all the t,s. The last I heard the day boat company were still waiting for a contract.

Colin