Guest Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Hi Dan Sorry to be the bearer of "bad news" but I have it on good advice that Topcraft may well be in their last season - it is possible that they will sell to contractors next door for houses/flats to be built. It will be a shame as they are a good boatyard and will be missed. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundings Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 So Topcraft will be another yard that capitalises on land/development values. I don't blame them but it brings into question planning and change of use. If it carries on like this all yards will become flats and there will be no hire boats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senator Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Unfortunately with hire yards the owners only see any benefit from them when they sell up to retire. Very high capital investment with very low return but remaining asset rich. As the people who started these yards move towards retirement age the lure of a return on their years of hard work will be very hard to resist. Residential boats could well provide an alternative to this where there is no longer any need to maintain and turn round boats while generating a guaranteed year round income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 i hear many new homes are planned for the broads how many more floating homes that arnt permanent land based construction could fit into the area that bricks and mortar will take? oulton broad with no boat yards that will be a sad day, would it have been so bad if there were residential boats there to to help keep it going? viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6676 jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senator Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Could be a lot worse if my previous post makes any sense. One thing not making much profit during the ownership of the yard, quite another to not be able to sell it for whatever purpose brings you the most retirement money, due to rights claimed by residential boats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundings Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 It is always difficult but when people buy an existing boatyard business (or set-up a new one) they do so on the basis that they are providing a service/amenity to the boating fraternity. And it is on that basis that planning was permitted in the first place. The fact that a boatyard is now worth more as a building site does not to my mind mean the owner has the right to sell it as such and it is wrong for the planners to allow it. Account should be taken of the place the business takes in the community and change of use should not be granted if the business is seem as key and workable. If planners do not play the game properly we will end up with an Oulton Broad with no boatyards and then maybe rivers without boatyards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senator Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 That is down to the BA and planning to police, you can't really blame the yard owner for getting as much back on his investment as possible. If having legitimate residential boats in his yard is likely to influence planning as far as change of use, then I can see that being a problem for people looking for a residential spot within an existing yard. With the current under the radar scheme this doesn't happen as no one has mor than a 12 month mooring contract and there are no residential boats officially on the Broads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundings Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I don't blame the yard owner, I blame the system. Many yards on the canals have a fixed percentage of residential berths. I am not sure how the contract works but I cannot imagine the ressy's have a long security of tenur. What I do know is that the rental of the berth is at a premium rate and that helps with the income/profitability of the boatyard. Quite often berth holders take on certain admin duties such as harbour master and for this they either get a small fee or a reduction in berthing costs. It seems a good model to me and as has been said before makes the yards more secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshman Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Usual old rubbish now popping into this post so like Rod i will put my head above the parapet too and have voted no!!!! Cannot see why the old National Park red herring came into the story - it isn,t, it won't be and for the life of me cannot see why, even if it were, you would expect to see boats banned and wildlife encouraged!! It has not happened in other Parks - they exist to encourage visitors and please don't throw into the equation the Sandford Principle until you can give me an example of when that has been invoked!!! The argument that residential boats help prevent crime is totally falacious - since when has a next door neighbour being around prevented theft in a housing situation - it does not happen!!!! So how many of you would vote for a caravan to be parked outside just to prevent crime - cannot see the difference. Manko proudly says earlier on that the Thorpe Island residents do not pay Council Tax - why ever not? I suspect some of them actually step off the island to use facilities which they take for granted but now get free!!! In fact i would be seriosly worried if I did not pay tax - payment gives a degree of legitimacy and it is for that reason and that reason alone the Council will not claim tax!! They do not want them around either and to stop residents paying is just that, not a victory for the residents!!! And none of you going on about the demise of the smaller yards and their development seem to be aware that it is in fact BA Planning Policy to insist that a yard remains. Now I know that the Pegasus situation is ongoing and yet to be resolved but the intent is there - it is no good keep going on about yards closing if you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is - how many people in Norfolk apart from 1 or 2 are prepared to invest into new yards and new facilities? And no doubt many would be up in arms if you were prevented from developing the bottom of your garden for housing if you were able - it just would not be possible to invoke a policy banning this type of ongoing development especially as the yards such as Topcraft continue to decline. These places close down often for many reasons and the Topcraft situation is typical following the tragic death, but are you really advocating denying an individuals freedom to perhaps sell to another person? Try selling it with such a restriction and see the kind of offers you would get!! Sorry JillR and all that but you can see why they wish to regularise the situation. And if you have to start from somewhere without any precedents being made , you start from a Nil situation - although in the end i hope common sense prevails!! So its a no, with reservations!!! But you must admit your cause is not helped by the fact that many, but not all, give the cause a bad name. Generally people like the romanticism except when they are in their back yard!!! Of course these comments will be picked to pieces by many but hey, whats new!!! Its water off a ducks back!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soundings Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I'm not going to pick anything apart other than I know of instances on other waterways where residential boats have been a deterrant to break-ins. True they are not the answer to everything but they help and that must be a plus. I favour the residential element but only if controls are strict - I don't want to see wrecks all over the place (and a ressy wreck moored by me the other day). Equally there is no room for those ressy's who think it is a free ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senator Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Think we almost agree on this one Marshman but as a visitor and boat owner I would not like to argue against others liberty and right to live as they choose within the area. I do not see any major advantages to Residential use but providing that it is properly managed neither do I see any major disadvantages to it. Jill I do wish you luck with gaining residential status but your arguments for are easily countered with arguments against. I can see your biggest problem being the very visible presence of the more undesirable residentials around the broads, as is always the way the good ones are not seen which is exactly as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 marshman Usual old rubbish now popping into this post so like Rod i will put my head above the parapet too and have voted no!!!! Cannot see why the old National Park red herring came into the story - it isn,t, it won't be and for the life of me cannot see why, even if it were, you would expect to see boats banned and wildlife encouraged!! It has not happened in other Parks - they exist to encourage visitors and please don't throw into the equation the Sandford Principle until you can give me an example of when that has been invoked!!! A. The argument that residential boats help prevent crime is totally falacious - since when has a next door neighbour being around prevented theft in a housing situation - it does not happen!!!! So how many of you would vote for a caravan to be parked outside just to prevent crime - cannot see the difference. B. Manko proudly says earlier on that the Thorpe Island residents do not pay Council Tax - why ever not? I suspect some of them actually step off the island to use facilities which they take for granted but now get free!!! In fact i would be seriosly worried if I did not pay tax - payment gives a degree of legitimacy and it is for that reason and that reason alone the Council will not claim tax!! They do not want them around either and to stop residents paying is just that, not a victory for the residents!!! And none of you going on about the demise of the smaller yards and their development seem to be aware that it is in fact BA Planning Policy to insist that a yard remains. Now I know that the Pegasus situation is ongoing and yet to be resolved but the intent is there - it is no good keep going on about yards closing if you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is - C. how many people in Norfolk apart from 1 or 2 are prepared to invest into new yards and new facilities? And no doubt many would be up in arms if you were prevented from developing the bottom of your garden for housing if you were able - it just would not be possible to invoke a policy banning this type of ongoing development especially as the yards such as Topcraft continue to decline. These places close down often for many reasons and the Topcraft situation is typical following the tragic death, but are you really advocating denying an individuals freedom to perhaps sell to another person? Try selling it with such a restriction and see the kind of offers you would get!! D. Sorry JillR and all that but you can see why they wish to regularise the situation. And if you have to start from somewhere without any precedents being made , you start from a Nil situation - although in the end i hope common sense prevails!! So its a no, with reservations!!! E. But you must admit your cause is not helped by the fact that many, but not all, give the cause a bad name. Generally people like the romanticism except when they are in their back yard!!! Of course these comments will be picked to pieces by many but hey, whats new!!! Its water off a ducks back!!! ............................................................. ian Jill I do wish you luck with gaining residential status but your arguments for are easily countered with arguments against. I can see your biggest problem being the very visible presence of the more undesirable residentials around the broads, as is always the way the good ones are not seen which is exactly as it should be. .................................................................. A. one of the reasons that i feel so at home afloat is the attitude of peeps as soon as they get aboard. no longer the attitude of the land based, every man for himself. the same way as i was brought up in the army of a community that looks after each other. B. as manko stated, the charge is levied but not as community tax and the cost still passes on to the moorer. C. residential boaters are. D. im sure existing residential boaters would be as horrified as every one else if there were no caveats to protect us all. E. not the many but the few. as ian says the good ones are not seen which is exactly as it should be. jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 site down time reminder viewtopic.php?f=58&t=8780 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manko Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Manko proudly says earlier on that the Thorpe Island residents do not pay Council Tax - why ever not? I suspect some of them actually step off the island to use facilities which they take for granted but now get free!!! In fact i would be seriosly worried if I did not pay tax - payment gives a degree of legitimacy and it is for that reason and that reason alone the Council will not claim tax!! They do not want them around either and to stop residents paying is just that, not a victory for the residents!!! You obviously failed to read or understand my post so I won't bother explaining it again. I would obviously be wasting my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 Poll runs till Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:04 pm tomorrow is the final day to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshman Posted June 24, 2010 Share Posted June 24, 2010 Manko - i apologise that I misread your post but not sure it alters my overall opinion. Whilst it is so easy to knock the BA and its planners, I do see where they are coming from. Whether in the end it ends up with the desired effect, I do not want to see creeping onto the Broads what has happened in some other waterside locations.Again i am probably out of date , but I recall many moons ago thinking how the approach to Cambridge, a very beautiful waterside town, was spoilt by the string of floating shacks. Just shows i suppose how one can be influenced by things from the past. There is perhaps an analogy with residential caravan sites where again there is a real reluctance on the part of Councils to approve new ones. Perhaps it is again perceptions but even you must agree that your cause is not helped by SOME of your neighbours and those others close by. The problem is how do you stop them and encourage the better ones? And at the same time regulate expansion just as planning laws have always done on land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 24, 2010 Author Share Posted June 24, 2010 hi marshman The problem is how do you stop them and encourage the better ones? i dont really see that the granting or not of planning permission for boat yards to have residential moorings will have an effect on the problem boats bar for maybe some who are struggling to maintain their boats in harsh circumstances would be able to get on top of the job if they had the support of a mooring. that could take a percentage of problem boats out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 25, 2010 Author Share Posted June 25, 2010 perhaps we could have boat asbos for bad maintenance and taste but to be fair it would have to be for all boats not just ressys jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbird Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 The Broads should be for the enjoyment of everyone no matter the depth of their pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveS Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 There must be something about single guys in their mid 40's I live in a close of seven detached properties, and its probably fair to say that they are priced well above the national average. Six of the properties are maintained to a high standard, along with the gardens. However, in the seventh one, lives a single guy in his mid 40's, who has lived there for many years. That paint is flaking of the garage door, the garden is like a jungle, and the driveway is in a bad way. Must be a stereotype thing. BTW, he is actually a nice guy. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senator Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Maybe Dave If you were single you would have more exiting things to do than push a lawn mower round and paint garage doors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillR Posted June 25, 2010 Author Share Posted June 25, 2010 the poll is now closed. id like to thank you all very much for your comments. its good to talk. good luck to the BA with their unenviable task of trying to bring this situation to a good conclusion for all. ill move this thread to the broads related politics section tomorrow. jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts