Loddon Staithe

[Paul]

5 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Be careful what you wish for! At the moment the Authority does not have the power to pick and choose who can navigate on a tidal water. Would you really want them to be able to? Where would it stop? 

If that's what it takes to stop the issue of overstayers, then in a word yes. The whole Yare system is becoming an issue with two distinct groups who move onto moorings for whole weekends or often longer. Loddon, Bramerton, Comissioners and Whitlingham are the more regular haunts. If either group are "in residence" it becomes a no go area for anyone else. 

[LondonRascal]

Unfortunately for too long the Broads Authority have seemingly taken the view that if they try and keep talk of 'continuous cruising' on the the low down it will keep the idea that the Broads is not the same as the Canal system and is not set up, run or a place for live-aboard boaters.

The Broads Authority also will remind people of the rules regarding moorings managed by the Authority being a maximum stay of 24 hours. But things change, and there seems a large swell of interest generally about buying boats to live on them. In London, on the River Lee what a few years ago was a small community has flourished and continues to expand, putting far more pressure on moorings and even when someone might secure a 'spot' and move on for something as simple as a water top up, return to find the mooring gone and they nowhere to go for miles.

I think there are two main issues that need to be faced up and addressed:

The first is that the Broads Authority should be far more open to the idea of residential boating, and help not hinder Marina's who wish to branch out and provide provisions for this.  Equally, as a business on private land those who might take advantage of a home mooring with full residential rights should play fair by the rules imposed by their contract with the Marina. This will mean a general selfless and respectful approach by all.

Secondly for those who have either do not wish to or cannot afford to moor in a Marina on a berth, the Broads Authority cannot have it both ways - being an authority that manage the rivers and many moorings, planning matters and so on and yet turn a blind eye and offer no assistance to those who use the rivers, and pay their Toll to do so, but happen to also live on their boat. I think firstly there needs to be a real push to keep facilities open all year - water, electric and refuse collections should not cease.  I also think that there should be a new Toll category issued. Perhaps this could be simply managed with a different coloured boat toll number to designate it as being subject to these conditions.

In short, you'd pay the Toll fee plus an extra percentage (whatever that may be) which would enable you to stay at certain marked Broads Authority moorings for extended periods, say a fortnight. Let us say there were 8 moorings, and 2 of these would be designated as long stay - maybe with yellow coloured posts. There also needs to be more done for repeat offenders who take advantage of the system and overstay, and while this may not be easy to do and could well open up a can of worms with social issues and responsibilities involving the local authority too then so be it.

What clearly cannot happen is ignoring the situation, hoping it will go away. 

 

[Meantime]

6 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Be careful what you wish for! At the moment the Authority does not have the power to pick and choose who can navigate on a tidal water. Would you really want them to be able to? Where would it stop? 

I don't think anybody wants the BA to have the power to pick and choose who can navigate a tidal water, but I for one would support them controlling just who abuses the free moorings. On the subject of those free moorings, let's just remember that there is no such thing as a free BA 24hr mooring! There may be no charge at the point of usage for a BA 24hr mooring, but all the toll payers have paid through their toll for the provision of those BA 24hr moorings, and all are entitled to a fair amount of usage of those facilities. It has long been recognised that a certain class of boat, namely hire boats, make more use of those facilities than others, and it has long been the case that those boats or the operators pay more for their toll through the toll multiplier. Is it not time that another class of user pay their fair share as well? One that more accurately reflects their increased usage of these "free" facilities?

There is more than one way to counter this problem. How about when you renew your toll you are given a number of mooring vouchers that are valid for 24hrs on a BA mooring. You arrive at a mooring and write the time and date on the voucher and display it in the window. Random spot checks are carried out on moorings and any boat not displaying a voucher gets a £100 fine. Hire yards are issued with enough vouchers to cover their boats for the season reflecting their increased contribution via the toll multiplier. Everyone else who runs out of their mooring vouchers can purchase extra vouchers from the BA thus frequent users will eventually contribute more, average users should be covered by their initial allowance issued with their toll. It may not be the perfect system and I'm sure there are other ways of sorting the issue, but it should be made fairer for all.

[Paul]

9 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

The first is that the Broads Authority should be far more open to the idea of residential boating, and help not hinder Marina's who wish to branch out and provide provisions for this

Couldn't agree more. When I was growing up most yards had the odd boat that was lived aboard, either year round or summer only. Not only did it offer the residential space needed it added the best layer of security possible. If anybody was larking around the yard there was somebody on site to raise the alarm. Sadly this was legislated out of existance.

9 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

Secondly for those who have either do not wish to or cannot afford to moor in a Marina on a berth, the Broads Authority cannot have it both ways

I don't think they want it both ways, and I don't think that anyone should think they have a right to do something which is contradicts the bylaws or is to the detriment of those who abide by them. If somebody cannot afford to liveaboard properly then they can't do it. 

 

8 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

hire boats, make more use of those facilities than others, and it has long been the case that those boats or the operators pay more for their toll through the toll multiplier.

I think we need to get away from the idea that boatyards pay this toll fee. Clive, Matthew et al don't have some bottomless pocket from which this money comes, it is paid by the hirer as part of their holiday cost and is (rightly in my opinion) their contribution to maintaining the navigation. 

 

9 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

In short, you'd pay the Toll fee plus an extra percentage (whatever that may be) which would enable you to stay at certain marked Broads Authority moorings for extended periods, say a fortnight.

I wouldn't support such an Idea, there are simply not enough moorings to make this feasible. We have rules, by way of the bylaws and it is for us, the user to abide by them. I'm not saying that sometimes these bylaws shouldn;t evolve but we should not expect them to be changed just to suit a small minority if users who choose not to abide by them. Enforcement and penalty is the answer. 

 

9 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

There also needs to be more done for repeat offenders who take advantage of the system and overstay

They are not taking advantage of the system, that would infer they are working within the rules to their own advantage. let's be accurate, they are ABUSING the system and currently they are not being stopped. If the current bylaws are not sufficient to allow the authority to deal with them effectively then that is where they need to evolve. 

8 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

but it should be made fairer for all.

In what way are the current regulations not fair for all/ They apply to everybody equally or should do. What is unfair is that a family on holiday, or a couple with their own boat who wish to visit Loddon or wherever for the evening to get a meal, visit their favourite pub or simply take advantage of nice moorings are being denied from doing so because space is being taken by people overstaying, or feel intimidated not to stay by groups of boaters who thing the mooring is theirs and theirs alone. 

[JennyMorgan]

It should be a fairly simple solution if those that abuse that the system were to be banned from using 24h moorings but even then I doubt that the Authority has the power. I'm not sure of the letter of the law but I believe that folk have the right to moor for the duration of a tide or when conditions are foul. The Jenners Basin saga, where a commercial interest was prepared to offer basic mooring facilities, was something of an own goal. The problem was moved from 'off river' to the tidal river consequently we have all missed out one way or another. An answer needs to be found but there doesn't appear to be any willingness to do so. 

[rightsaidfred]

What seems to be overlooked here is that the Broads Authority have very limited powers, they cannot issue fines or clamp and tow vehicles away,  the Broads are tidal waters so I don't think they can deny access subject to size restrictions as long as the boat is insured and has a current BSS, they can issue an enforcement notice as regards tolls and overstaying on moorings etc but then need to take recourse to the courts for any actual penalty to be imposed, while we are all aggrieved at any abuse of the system there is no easy answer without a change of legislation by Parliament and that could open a whole new can of worms.

Fred

[Bytheriver]

There are a couple of BA documents that provide insight into mooring and the emerging local plan that I think could answer some of the questions being asked

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/398726/Mooring_Strategy_20Feb09.pdf

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/771906/Mooring-Strategy-Update-bf280716.pdf

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1461644/Broads-New-Local-Plan-Publication-Modifications-version-January-2019.pdf

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, By the River, and welcome to the forum. Personally I have been involved in the consultation and and have been watching this new local plan with much interest. I am not sure whether the documents are more enlightening than they are confusing or whether it's the other way round! I suspect that most of us would appreciate bullet points that we can relate to. Anyway, good intention on your part and much appreciated.

[Bytheriver]

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Thank you, By the River, and welcome to the forum. Personally I have been involved in the consultation and and have been watching this new local plan with much interest. I am not sure whether the documents are more enlightening than they are confusing or whether it's the other way round! I suspect that most of us would appreciate bullet points that we can relate to. Anyway, good intention on your part and much appreciated.

Thank you JM  - Indeed it is a somewhat weighty document but it would be difficult to decide without personal prejudice what the most important bullet points would be.

When I first read the 2008 document, found by chance, it answered many of the questions raised in various quarters which came up again in this topic particularly the siting of possible residential moorings  needing to  meet the criteria for land dwellings on access and facilities, waste disposal and the like. 

[JennyMorgan]

The problem, both perceived and practical, of weighty documents is that the supposed final deciders, Authority & committee members, don't actually read what has been prepared for their enlightenment, preferring to simply abide by officers' recommendations. Indeed I am past despairing at the lamentable lack of knowledge sometimes displayed at meetings.   

No doubts that the authors have done their research. With regard to residential moorings I well remember a distant cousin, my bloodline is many & varied and not normal for Norfolk in being typically straight, telling me that all he and other showmen/travellers required is a field and to be left alone. Involving local authorities does tend to complicate the issue. There are obvious parallels between those who travel by river with those who travel by water. The final solution, I suspect, often boils down to cost. That boats hop between 24hr moorings is an obvious cost saving and probably the basis of the problem.  Roger at Jenners Basin understood both the ethos and the problems and provided accordingly. Having read the report I don't see that as being replicated. Boats are boats, do they really have to meet the criteria for land based dwellings?

[Bytheriver]

The February minutes from Loddon Parish Council  probably sum up the current situation - http://www.loddonpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Minutes-February.pdf

[JennyMorgan]

53 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

The February minutes from Loddon Parish Council  probably sum up the current situation - http://www.loddonpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Minutes-February.pdf

Seems to me that reaching a conclusion is no nearer than previously. Reading between the lines there does appear to be a dissatisfaction with the BA in that it does not uphold time limits on 24hr moorings but then that is pretty universal. Perhaps the BA should consider appointing local 'mooring wardens' to keep some form of control? 

[Meantime]

There is also an interesting piece in the minutes for the 8th November which probably explains why Pyes Mill may no longer be managed by The BA.

http://www.loddonpc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Minutes-November-2018.pdf

[rightsaidfred]

6 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Seems to me that reaching a conclusion is no nearer than previously. Reading between the lines there does appear to be a dissatisfaction with the BA in that it does not uphold time limits on 24hr moorings but then that is pretty universal. Perhaps the BA should consider appointing local 'mooring wardens' to keep some form of control? 

As there used to be at Ranworth and the occasional volunteer as St. Bennets not a bad idea but who is going to pay for it there are not really enough Rangers now.

Fred

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Seems to me that reaching a conclusion is no nearer than previously. Reading between the lines there does appear to be a dissatisfaction with the BA in that it does not uphold time limits on 24hr moorings but then that is pretty universal. Perhaps the BA should consider appointing local 'mooring wardens' to keep some form of control? 

I believe the crux of the matter is that The BA powers are very limited. As was pointed out in the minutes 8th November, imposing fines on those who cannot or will not pay is a waste of resources. It should be remembered that "resources" means our tolls primarily. The Byelaws probably need changing to include heavier fines which are more easily enforceable with the right of seizure of the craft if the fines are not paid, but we have to remember that in the majority of cases these are also peoples homes!! Who would feel comfortable with seizing craft in that situation. Then again its what they do on the canals where the Canals and River Trust have far greater powers. Then again despite these greater powers a walk along the canals of East London show the number of liveaboards increasing year on year. No easy answers here.

[Bytheriver]

45 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

I believe the crux of the matter is that The BA powers are very limited. As was pointed out in the minutes 8th November, imposing fines on those who cannot or will not pay is a waste of resources. It should be remembered that "resources" means our tolls primarily. The Byelaws probably need changing to include heavier fines which are more easily enforceable with the right of seizure of the craft if the fines are not paid, but we have to remember that in the majority of cases these are also peoples homes!! Who would feel comfortable with seizing craft in that situation. Then again its what they do on the canals where the Canals and River Trust have far greater powers. Then again despite these greater powers a walk along the canals of East London show the number of liveaboards increasing year on year. No easy answers here.

Are the tolls on other waterways not higher than for the Broads - no doubt to pay for the enforcement?  (Genuine question as I don't the answer)  

'

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

Are the tolls on other waterways not higher than for the Broads - no doubt to pay for the enforcement?  (Genuine question as I don't the answer)  

'

There may be an element of that, but there is also a whole lot more infrastructure to maintain as well as a lot more navigable waterway. Very hard to compare the two in terms of value per mile of waterway. If pushed I would say the canals represent far better value for the toll paid than The Broads, but where you keep your boat has far more considerations than just value for money of the toll.

[Polly]

They are higher on the canals.

[rightsaidfred]

 

15 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

There may be an element of that, but there is also a whole lot more infrastructure to maintain as well as a lot more navigable waterway. Very hard to compare the two in terms of value per mile of waterway. If pushed I would say the canals represent far better value for the toll paid than The Broads, but where you keep your boat has far more considerations than just value for money of the toll.

I think there may also be the difference between tidal and non-tidal waters to take into account regarding legislation.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

The Authority missed the boat so to speak when it updated the Broads Act.

In the meantime greater effort with what they have would not go amiss. 

[Seagypsy]

1 hour ago, Polly said:

They are higher on the canals.

I was paying a lot less for mooring, insurance and license on the canals for a 25ft Seamaster than the cost of a mooring on the Broads

[Poppy]

45 minutes ago, Seagypsy said:

I was paying a lot less for mooring, insurance and license on the canals for a 25ft Seamaster than the cost of a mooring on the Broads

Bet that wasn't in a "National Park "  

[Seagypsy]

33 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Bet that wasn't in a "National Park "  

 

33 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Bet that wasn't in a "National Park "  

Marina at Goole on Aire and Calder Canal

[JennyMorgan]

I've noticed that a number of canal moorings are cheaper but many are more basic than the Broads ones plus they don't have to allow for the rise and fall of the tides. That said, perhaps supply and demand plus a degree of greed is also a factor on the more expensive Broads ones. Perhaps also a case that if people are prepared to pay it then there are folk who are prepared to charge for it.  

[Seagypsy]

20 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I've noticed that a number of canal moorings are cheaper but many are more basic than the Broads ones plus they don't have to allow for the rise and fall of the tides. That said, perhaps supply and demand plus a degree of greed is also a factor on the more expensive Broads ones. Perhaps also a case that if people are prepared to pay it then there are folk who are prepared to charge for it.  

We had all facilities chandelry diesel water toilets showers lift in/out rang if any problems such as wind damage ropes or covers