River Chet And Ongoing Problems

[vanessan]

I see elsewhere that the problems on the Chet following the sunken boat saga have not been resolved. Hardley PC have written to the BA outlining their concern that the matter is not being taken seriously. Although signs are apparently in place warning of underwater obstructions, nothing else seems to be happening. (There are of course signs all over the Broads warning of underwater obstructions or similar!) The PC’s concern is that Boatyards will discourage their hirers from journeying to Loddon and Chedgrave and private owners will also boycott the river. That would not be good for local businesses at all. I believe it is the EA who are responsible for the removal or whatever of this hazard so the BA needs to keep hassling them for action. Loads of boats go up and down the Chet totally unaware of any problems and there has only been one incident as far as we know but action is needed urgently before there is another casualty. 

[grendel]

Here is a copy of the letter - reproduced with the kind consent of Bill Maxted Parish councillor  to keep the public informed, and prevent the spread of alarm and despondency.

Quote

This letter from Chedgrave Parish council to the Broads authority may be of import. to members travelling the Southern Rivers. 

Re: Craft obstructing River Chet (Langley with Hardley/Chedgrave area) 

As you will no doubt be aware, a holiday boat recently sank in the River Chet having collided with a collapsed part of a ‘sunken quay heading’.   I have been asked by members of Chedgrave Parish Council to contact you regarding this matter as one of our councillors has reported that she does not feel that the Broads Authority is taking the issue seriously in giving a response that signage was in place to warn river users of under water hazards. 

While this may be the case, the fact remains that the majority of users are likely to be pleasure users/holiday makers with limited awareness of signs and their implications.  It is felt that while hazards like this remain, other pleasure boatyards will be discouraging their customers from visiting stretches of the broads network where there are hazards like this, thus reducing potential commerce in those areas.  If heading away from Chedgrave, the hazard is situated beyond Hardley Flood. 

We would like to request that urgent action is taken to repair the sunken quay heading in order that users can confidently and safely navigate this part of the broads network. 

I am copying this letter to the Clerk of Langley with Hardly Parish Council as I understand that the hazard sits within their parish boundary. 

I look forward to your response. 

Yours faithfully, 



Hayley Goldson, Clerk, Chedgrave Parish Council 

cc: Carla Petersen, Clerk, Langley with Hardley Parish Council 

The quay heading in question is between Hardley Cross and hardley flood

 

[FairTmiddlin]

Good to hear that Bill is still about after his health scare of a few years back.

 Miss his mardles

[marshman]

I suspect that that the issue may surround who is responsible for the sunken quay heading - its all very well the BA footing the cost and I am fully aware of the navigation issue, but the BA are quite keen to not to have to foot the bill for everything which in the end may not be their responsibility!

I must admit I do not know on this one but waste and rubbish come to mind when discussing who should pay for what!!

[Poppy]

Marsh, The BA have the kit and the people. They should sort it  before more boats are damaged, then bill those responsible !

[NorfolkNog]

1 hour ago, Poppy said:

Marsh, The BA have the kit and the people. They should sort it  before more boats are damaged, then bill those responsible !

Perhaps send Mrs Silverline round to Yare House!  

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

8 hours ago, marshman said:

I suspect that that the issue may surround who is responsible for the sunken quay heading - its all very well the BA footing the cost and I am fully aware of the navigation issue, but the BA are quite keen to not to have to foot the bill for everything which in the end may not be their responsibility!

I must admit I do not know on this one but waste and rubbish come to mind when discussing who should pay for what!!

I really can`t understand why you bring up waste and rubbish in this thread, it has NOTHING to do with it, so why bring it up, possibly to divert peoples attention away from the possible fact that the BA are being negligent in THEIR responsibilities to ensure a clear and safe navigational system?.  No, if, as it looks, there is a real and present danger to navigation in a public waterway, the BA absolutely MUST take positive action to remove it IMMEDIATELY, rendering the river and banks safe. After all, is`nt that what we pay our tolls for?.

[vanessan]

From what I have been told, this is not necessarily a BA problem. The broken quay heading would appear to be the responsibility of the EA and it is most likely that department that is dragging its heels. If that is the case then the BA must hassle the EA to take action. It is unfair to blame everything on the BA. This is only my understanding based on others understanding. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 minute ago, vanessan said:

From what I have been told, this is not necessarily a BA problem. The broken quay heading would appear to be the responsibility of the EA and it is most likely that department that is dragging its heels. If that is the case then the BA must hassle the EA to take action. It is unfair to blame everything on the BA. This is only my understanding based on others understanding. 

It may be a quay heading issue, but if it`s interfering with NAVIGATION, then that automatically becomes the responsibility of the BA, which i was told a while ago totally overrides the EA`s responsiblity, though i admit, i don`t know whether that is true or not?.

[Wussername]

Pass the parcel comes to mind.

Ii is my fervent wish that I will be able to witness an authority that is recognised as having accountability and considers itself worthy of accepting that responsibility.

I am unable to identify any such authority within our community or The Broads in particular.

Andrew

[Cal]

My memory may be deceiving me bit are the shallow and dangerous bits in the Chet not marked out with yellow stakes?

If so then surely it is the helmsmans or woman's responsibility to avoid those areas.

Yes obstructions should be removed but if they are clearly marked until the point they are removed then the BA have done their duty.

At least the BA mark their obstructions!

[vanessan]

8 hours ago, Cal said:

My memory may be deceiving me bit are the shallow and dangerous bits in the Chet not marked out with yellow stakes?

If so then surely it is the helmsmans or woman's responsibility to avoid those areas.

Yes obstructions should be removed but if they are clearly marked until the point they are removed then the BA have done their duty.

At least the BA mark their obstructions!

I believe this is the stance the BA have taken, yellow markers are in place so their job done. The problem on the Chet of course is that it is very narrow and twisty. If you meet a boat coming in the opposite direction you can all too easily be pushed into the bank. If there are obstructions there, they need to be dealt with double quick. I understand from the guy at Pacific Cruisers that the broken piling has been there a little while and reported to the EA some time ago, so there is really no excuse. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

We go down the Chet often,for one Graham looks after the boat.Needless to say he does a great job,the other reason is simple.Its a great place to visit.What concerns me is the problem with boats damaged objects in the water,is not only dangerous but may put people off.I think all parties concerned should work together and don't pass the parcel.

[rightsaidfred]

17 hours ago, NorfolkNog said:

Perhaps send Mrs Silverline round to Yare House!  

Perhaps we should send her round to the EA after all they are the ones  responsible not just for this but for desicrating a lot of the river banks.

Fred

[Meantime]

On ‎10‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 21:34, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

It may be a quay heading issue, but if it`s interfering with NAVIGATION, then that automatically becomes the responsibility of the BA, which i was told a while ago totally overrides the EA`s responsiblity, though i admit, i don`t know whether that is true or not?.

To take that point a bit further then, that must mean that the swing bridges automatically becomes the responsibility of the BA? I sincerely hope not, hate to think how much the tolls would go up by.

The BA cannot and should not be responsible for every bit of bank that a land owner decides to not maintain to a proper and safe standard.

Be interesting to know if Silverline could have a claim against the land owner, since it is an obstruction connected to their land.

Vanessan mentions that the obstruction has been there for some while. I have just checked and I was last down there on the 6th April. It was there then! and looked very nasty then. It was marked by the yellow posts, but at high water it would not be obvious just how dangerous it was under the water. Given it's position, it was probably only a matter of time before a boat went a little to wide, got caught by the wind, or took avoiding action from a passing boat and ended up against it.

As a side issue, a lot was made of the danger of the Red and Green marker posts which have now been removed now the reeds have established themselves. In my opinion, given the width and the danger posed by the collapsed quay heading, some form of proper protection, like the insertion of one or two of those spare posts would have been more appropriate rather than one of two sticks that easily get nudged out of the way. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Hi East coast,

Unfortunately your point DOES`NT stand up be cause bridges are NOT in the river, they run OVER it. If below the surface of the river, it`s the BAs responsibility. If however you were talking about the redundant structures at St Olaves and further up nearer Beccles, then because they now DON`T have a bridge to them, they themselves are the responsibility of the BA, or at least being safe for navigation past them.

[Meantime]

19 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Hi East coast,

Unfortunately your point DOES`NT stand up be cause bridges are NOT in the river, they run OVER it. If below the surface of the river, it`s the BAs responsibility. If however you were talking about the redundant structures at St Olaves and further up nearer Beccles, then because they now DON`T have a bridge to them, they themselves are the responsibility of the BA, or at least being safe for navigation past them.

The brick piers on which Reedham and Somerleyton bridges swing are very much in the river as is the fendering leading up to the brick piers. all of which is the responsibility of Network Rail.

The mooring upstream from the Reedham Ferry which is now closed and belongs to The Reedham Ferry is very much in the river, but again not the responsibility of the BA.

The quay heading outside the various pubs and businesses along the rivers belong to those businesses and is not the responsibility of the BA, even if it were to fall into the river.

No different to the situation on The Chet, where who ever is the land owner is responsible for correcting the situation, not The BA. One of the reasons we lost so much piled bank is that the EA stated that once they had done flood defence work in an area the land owner would then become responsible for the piling. If they didn't want to accept the responsibility then the EA stated they would remove it. Not surprisingly there wasn't that many land owners who wanted to take on such responsibility which is why we lost so much piled banking, such as that at Boundary Farm near the mouth of the Thurne. In some places where piling is needed, or has been installed as part of the flood defence work directly outside a private property then the EA have responsibility for its maintenance.

I believe the only piling the BA are responsible for is the piling alongside moorings they either own, or lease under a fully repairing lease agreement.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

ECipa,

everything you mentioned is in structural contact with the land, but once that structural contact with land is taken away, it then becomes the responsibility of the BA, as it`s isolated from land, and in the way of navigation. Yes, if things are structurally in contact with adjacent land, then it`s the responsibility of the land owners, unless it`s protruding into the main navigational area, where it then becomes a possibly serious, maybe even dangerous, navigational hazard and then becomes responsibility of the BA, because the rite of SAFE (and toll payed for) navigation is seriously compromised.  I`m wondering why you obviously don`t want it to be the responsibility of the BA, are you a member?.

[Meantime]

24 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

ECipa,

everything you mentioned is in structural contact with the land, but once that structural contact with land is taken away, it then becomes the responsibility of the BA, as it`s isolated from land, and in the way of navigation. Yes, if things are structurally in contact with adjacent land, then it`s the responsibility of the land owners, unless it`s protruding into the main navigational area, where it then becomes a possibly serious, maybe even dangerous, navigational hazard and then becomes responsibility of the BA, because the rite of SAFE (and toll payed for) navigation is seriously compromised.  I`m wondering why you obviously don`t want it to be the responsibility of the BA, are you a member?.

If my boat was to sink mid river it would not be in structural contact with the land. It would however still be my responsibility or my insurance companies responsibility to recover my boat and remove it. I'm confident the BA would mark the hazard, and if I refused to honour my obligation and responsibility to remove it, they would recover my boat and try to recover the costs from me. At no time would it become their responsibility.

Quite rightly, even if safe navigation is compromised, it should not become the responsibility of the BA to dispose of my boat, nor should the burden ultimately fall to the toll payer. This is why you see boats that sink in the water remain there for some time and the BA take no action, other than to mark the hazard, and perhaps put a boom around the hazard to contain any spillage. Once all efforts to contact the rightful owner have been exhausted they will recover the wreck and store it at the dockyard at Thorpe and continue to make an effort to contact the owner and recover costs. Once all this has been exhausted they will either sell or scrap and try to recover some money from the wreckage.

Just because I'm a realist, does not make me a member of the BA. Not everything is the fault of the BA, or can be laid at their door. I'm far from happy that they seem intent on wasting money to build a white elephant visitor centre at Acle, but as a toll payer, I would also be far from happy if the BA, and ultimately the toll payer, picked up the tab for every errant land, or boat owner!

 

[JennyMorgan]

8 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

If my boat was to sink mid river it would not be in structural contact with the land. It would however still be my responsibility or my insurance companies responsibility to recover my boat and remove it. I'm confident the BA would mark the hazard, and if I refused to honour my obligation and responsibility to remove it, they would recover my boat and try to recover the costs from me. At no time would it become their responsibility.

Quite rightly, even if safe navigation is compromised, it should not become the responsibility of the BA to dispose of my boat, nor should the burden ultimately fall to the toll payer. This is why you see boats that sink in the water remain there for some time and the BA take no action, other than to mark the hazard, and perhaps put a boom around the hazard to contain any spillage. Once all efforts to contact the rightful owner have been exhausted they will recover the wreck and store it at the dockyard at Thorpe and continue to make an effort to contact the owner and recover costs. Once all this has been exhausted they will either sell or scrap and try to recover some money from the wreckage.

Just because I'm a realist, does not make me a member of the BA. Not everything is the fault of the BA, or can be laid at their door. I'm far from happy that they seem intent on wasting money to build a white elephant visitor centre at Acle, but as a toll payer, I would also be far from happy if the BA, and ultimately the toll payer, picked up the tab for every errant land, or boat owner!

 

Agreed!

I haven't been up the Chet for years, silly really because it's a good daytrip from Oulton Broad. Anyway, if I do, and if my boat is damaged by striking a sunken wreck, might I reasonably claim that the owner has been negligent in not recovering their boat? Should it happen then I'll leave it to the insurance company to sort that one out!

[Meantime]

It would appear that the BA have now replied to Chedgrave Parish Council and confirmed that the quay heading in question is the responsibility of the EA. The EA have passed the matter on to their agents BESL. In the meantime the BA are continuing to monitor and mark the obstruction with a yellow float and yellow sticks.

[Pulsedc30]

Interestingly BESL - BAM Nuttall have a yard with equipment not a half a mile away from where the problem is 

Gary Loddon Resident