Another Eye Sore

[jeffbroadslover]

Looking at the photos I cannot see any registration number so would assume that a toll has not been paid. (Offence No 1)

If it has been "abandoned" then is this not a form of Fly Tipping (Offence No 2)

There must be some way of tracing who the owner is so that they can be contacted in order to arrange removal or disposal and forward the fines for offences 1 and 2 and also an invoice for the cost of removal/disposal and any other costs to the BA for admin time etc.

Jeff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

It is my understanding that the BA started a consultation on residential moorings on the broads well over a year ago and have sent marina owners outline proposals should they wish to be considered  for a licence. I was granted a peak at these and noted a list of points that the owners had to be able to fulfil even to be considered. From what I recall good access roads, waste bins, supply of water, maybe fuel, toilet block, maybe a washing area ie showers and storage areas for residents ie push bikes and a host of other things had to be provided for.

How many of us think their place of mooring might comply and the owners might pay a fee to be even considered. 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

5 minutes ago, jeffbroadslover said:

Looking at the photos I cannot see any registration number so would assume that a toll has not been paid. (Offence No 1)

If it has been "abandoned" then is this not a form of Fly Tipping (Offence No 2)

There must be some way of tracing who the owner is so that they can be contacted in order to arrange removal or disposal and forward the fines for offences 1 and 2 and also an invoice for the cost of removal/disposal and any other costs to the BA for admin time etc.

Jeff

A boat without name or reg numbers is difficult to trace back I would assume.

[jeffbroadslover]

If all else fails there  is always faceache. Apparently people cannot resist telling you what they think they know on there

Jeff 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

3 minutes ago, jeffbroadslover said:

If all else fails there  is always faceache. Apparently people cannot resist telling you what they think they know on there

Jeff 

Or showing others what they eat!

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

Don't know what you mean

[750XL]

5 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

The triangle Island between Sutton 'Broad' (That's a joke still calling it a 'Broad' nowadays) and the Ant leg to Stalham,

Most will be aware that the houseboat wreck above the waterline was eventually removed leaving the base sitting on the bottom.  The Ba have since tried to hide it with floating lumps of reed bank staked down with yellow posts rather than removing it.

There was just room to the left of sunken wreck remains to mudweight as a fishing spot.  I now see we have lost that to yet another abandoned wreck.  Will it never end?  At this rate all the attractive wild moorings on the Ant will soon be permanently taken up by live-aboards or discarded wrecks.  It makes my blood boil, it really does.  Johnny Crowes staithe is still ongoing, I've had emails exchanged with the council but looks like it is to be lost for the foreseeable future now 

Griff

 

As only a mere Broads holidayer myself…

Can anyone educate me on the reasons why somebody would abandoned their boat there? Surely if you wanted rid of a boat, it’d be easier to sell it on than abandon it like this?

[OldBerkshireBoy]

1 minute ago, 750XL said:

As only a mere Broads holidayer myself…

Can anyone educate me on the reasons why somebody would abandoned their boat there? Surely if you wanted rid of a boat, it’d be easier to sell it on than abandon it like this?

Some reach a level where you would need to pay others to be rid of.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

In the marina where I moor residential moorings are not allowed, or at least not as far as the BA is concerned, but there is now approaching double figures of "very very frequent visitors" to their boats. I think you know what I mean. It has always been the case in many marinas, although there are a few marinas that strictly abide by the rules and don't allow residential usage. The point is, if you want to live on your boat and know where to look, you can find a mooring in a marina, however like all marina moorings they have a cost, and that is why you will never stop the wild mooring and hogging of popular wild moorings as they are free. 

It would be nice however for the BA to make it easier to legitimately live aboard your boat in a marina for those who are happy to pay for their residential mooring.

Sadly the provision of more moorings won't solve  anything, enough marinas and I am sure also the BA turn a blind eye to those who are prepared to try and play fair, the problem ones don't want to pay or comply just like a lot of squatters.

Fred

[RumPunch]

You trace them, eventually you get them to Court. They get a small fine, that they can't pay as they have no income.

Cycle starts again

[Ray]

Well, in cases of genuine hardship maybe the way forward is to help them rather than punish them. Make them feel part of the Broads network rather than an enemy of it and they may be more inclined to follow the rules that are for the benefit of all.

I realise of course that saying this is far easier than doing it but it is possible and you have to start somewhere.

[rightsaidfred]

51 minutes ago, Ray said:

Well, in cases of genuine hardship maybe the way forward is to help them rather than punish them. Make them feel part of the Broads network rather than an enemy of it and they may be more inclined to follow the rules that are for the benefit of all.

I realise of course that saying this is far easier than doing it but it is possible and you have to start somewhere.

I try not to generalise but you can't help someone who  won't help themselves and I say that from family experience, to many now don't want to be a part of or contribute to society, just use or abuse it to suit their own desires.

Fred

[Vaughan]

58 minutes ago, Ray said:

I realise of course that saying this is far easier than doing it but it is possible and you have to start somewhere.

Like Jenners basin, as it was intended.

But both the resident (paying) boat owners and the land owner were deliberately persecuted by the BA for over 10 years until they were finally driven out to find a mooring somewhere else on the rivers, wherever they could end up.

"Starting somewhere" would mean the BA taking a fair and reasonable approach to the problem and not making such a costly and infamous mistake again.

[Meantime]

A look at the BA compound at Thorpe shows that for one reason of another there seems to have been a lot more abandoned boats recently. The majority in the compound seem to be of reasonable condition. Does make you wonder if the BA are more targeting seizing the boats where they have a reasonable chance of recovering their costs when the boat eventually goes to auction?

Going off at a slight tangent, my understanding is that the landowner is responsible for policing and evicting people illegally moored on their property. Lots of precedent here, the BA saying that it is up to Network Rail to get boats moved of the railway embankment at Thorpe, the BA taking on Pye's Mill from the local council so that the BA 24hr mooring byelaws can be applied etc. So why is it that in some places the BA spend money placing BA no mooring signs on private property? Surely any no mooring signage should be placed at the land owners expense? and shouldn't carry official BA logo's etc.

There is plenty of mooring on the approach to Norwich which whilst more than likely privately owned has public access, and carries BA no mooring signs. A cynical person might think it is because they want to drive boaters into the yacht station where you have to pay the BA to moor. However between Surlingham and Bramerton on the North bank there is some reasonable wild mooring spots and in the past I've seen boats moored there, but now there are BA no mooring signs, yet this is arable grazing land presumably owned by a farmer, so why are the BA, not the land owner placing signs here. Yet if you go even further up stream just barely 100 yards before Commissioner's Cut there are a few boats wild moored that have been there for years and no signs are placed or action taken? It just seems so random.

In effect all wild moorings spots are owned by someone, so why does the BA decide to police or place signage for some, but not all. It's a good thing that they don't and I don't see why they should when it is the land owners responsibility to take action, so why therefore do the BA place no mooring signs at some when presumably they have no ability to take action unless the boat is not tolled, insured or has a valid BSS etc.

[vanessan]

13 minutes ago, Meantime said:

why therefore do the BA place no mooring signs at some

A good question to ask directly of the BA I reckon. No doubt they’ll have a ready answer though!

[Oddfellow]

11 minutes ago, Meantime said:

A look at the BA compound at Thorpe shows that for one reason of another there seems to have been a lot more abandoned boats recently. The majority in the compound seem to be of reasonable condition. Does make you wonder if the BA are more targeting seizing the boats where they have a reasonable chance of recovering their costs when the boat eventually goes to auction?

Going off at a slight tangent, my understanding is that the landowner is responsible for policing and evicting people illegally moored on their property. Lots of precedent here, the BA saying that it is up to Network Rail to get boats moved of the railway embankment at Thorpe, the BA taking on Pye's Mill from the local council so that the BA 24hr mooring byelaws can be applied etc. So why is it that in some places the BA spend money placing BA no mooring signs on private property? Surely any no mooring signage should be placed at the land owners expense? and shouldn't carry official BA logo's etc.

There is plenty of mooring on the approach to Norwich which whilst more than likely privately owned has public access, and carries BA no mooring signs. A cynical person might think it is because they want to drive boaters into the yacht station where you have to pay the BA to moor. However between Surlingham and Bramerton on the North bank there is some reasonable wild mooring spots and in the past I've seen boats moored there, but now there are BA no mooring signs, yet this is arable grazing land presumably owned by a farmer, so why are the BA, not the land owner placing signs here. Yet if you go even further up stream just barely 100 yards before Commissioner's Cut there are a few boats wild moored that have been there for years and no signs are placed or action taken? It just seems so random.

In effect all wild moorings spots are owned by someone, so why does the BA decide to police or place signage for some, but not all. It's a good thing that they don't and I don't see why they should when it is the land owners responsibility to take action, so why therefore do the BA place no mooring signs at some when presumably they have no ability to take action unless the boat is not tolled, insured or has a valid BSS etc.

I haven't been past the BA dockyard in months so I don't know how many wrecks may have been recovered. 

However, there is a fenced compound within the BA dockyard that has a number of boats on stands/chocks. This compound is sub-let as a BSS tester training centre and those boats within the fenced area are part of the training. Prior to this, the only training centre in the country was at Evesham and the only boats they had to look at were narrowboats which are very different from a Broads boat. 

[YnysMon]

Thanks for that info Andy. I must admit having been very puzzled the last few times I've passed the BA dockyard, seeing so many lovely looking boats there.

[MauriceMynah]

As most of you know, I now have a foot in both camps though perhaps not yet having the correct information to live-aboard in the propper manner.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on a few points. I have to ask, is it thecraft or the morring that is designated as "residential". I have non residential moorings at Stalham yet I don't live their. I am moored there often but not as often as I am moored elswhere. Does that mean my moorings shuld be classed as residetial or not?

I don't yet know the history of the boat at the Sutton cut, and will make no comment until such time as I do. I remember not very long ago talking to a ranger about an apparently abandoned boat. He said "Nothing, it's not abandoned, it's just very dirty." and grinned at me!

One thing that has amazed me is the number of live-aboards / continuous cruisers  there are on the broads. i can understand that there are those who flout the broads who are unpopular, but I would mention that if the BA comes down hard on those who do this, the side effect would be homelessness for me and at least a hundred other broads loving people. Plase be careful what you wish for, for my sake. Thank you. 

 

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Perhaps you can enlighten me on a few points. I have to ask, is it thecraft or the morring that is designated as "residential". I have non residential moorings at Stalham yet I don't live their. I am moored there often but not as often as I am moored elswhere. Does that mean my moorings shuld be classed as residetial or not?

A lot of it comes done to semantics. Technically it is the mooring berth that has to have planning for residential use, or not. I believe to be classed as residential it has to be your primary address for postal communications. A previous marina I moored at was happy as long as you were having your mail delivered elsewhere to your "main" address as then they just viewed you as a "very frequent" visitor to your boat. Therein lies the main issue. I have a house and a boat, how often, or how many nights would I have to spend on my boat for it to be classed as residential use? I am planning on coming to the boat for a week and using it as a base so will be living on it for a week. To me I shall be living aboard for the week. Is that in breach of my mooring terms.

A lot of marinas say no residential usage, because they don't have planning for such, but don't actually state what residential usage is. Is it a number of nights onboard? is it having no other postal address? For the most part I think it's just box ticking to keep the BA happy. When you look closely there are very few marinas without people living quite happily on board their boat. I have seen adverts for a few that do state very categorically no residential usage, but for the best part most marinas seem to turn a blind eye.

[annv]

Hi There were a couple that lived on there boat next to mine, yard didn't mind as they kept it clean and didn't fill the bank up with clutter in fact if you didn't know you would just think they used it a lot, plus for yard is 24hour security, they did have a address at there daughters for post, voting, NHS address etc, its the water gipsy's that hog 24hr moorings and look like a rubbish dump that cause the upset. John

[ChrisB]

I was at Broadsedge and I never asked or saw anything in writing, However I have owned Boats in Lymington, Cobbs Quay and Ridge and they were at that time all the same:- Not more than 30 days continuous onboard in Marina. We always assumed therefore thata night out at anchor reset the clock to zero.

[ChrisB]

3 minutes ago, annv said:

Hi There were a couple that lived on there boat next to mine, yard didn't mind as they kept it clean and didn't fill the bank up with clutter in fact if you didn't know you would just think they used it a lot, plus for yard is 24hour security, they did have a address at there daughters for post, voting, NHS address etc, its the water gipsy's that hog 24hr moorings and look like a rubbish dump that cause the upset. John

A proper address is vital otherwise you will find car ownership, mobile phones, nhs etc. etc. Very difficult.

[addicted]

Back in 2004 we had sold our bungalow and a hitch  in the buyer's chain of 6 meant we lost the new build we were planning to buy. The chain quickly righted itself and we soon found  another house but it hadn't even been started so we bought off plan. We decided rather than go back to the beginning we'd stay with the buyer we had and move onto our boat for the  period we'd be  waitjing for thr new house to be finished. We were moored at Ely Marina in the time of the previous owners Jon and Pat Loveys not the nasty individual that took over from them .  We understood that  liveaboards were not permitted but they very kindly turned a blind eye and we were there for a  little over 2 months. We really enjoyed our time as liveaboards. It wasn't a particularly large boat , A Fairline Mirage 29  aft cabin but perfectly comfortable. We were sorry to move off when the time came.

 

Carole

[OldBerkshireBoy]

53 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

A proper address is vital otherwise you will find car ownership, mobile phones, nhs etc. etc. Very difficult.

Not all is very difficult. Vehicle registration and driving licence isnt a problem but vehicle insurance can be, NHS and local doctors dont care and mobile phones and other monthly payments schemes are more interested in your credit history. There are a number of places that will take in any mail then scan and forward it by email for a price, I know this because an ex neighbour went through the hoops when living on their boat.

[Bytheriver]

On 24/08/2021 at 20:45, OldBerkshireBoy said:

It is my understanding that the BA started a consultation on residential moorings on the broads well over a year ago and have sent marina owners outline proposals should they wish to be considered  for a licence. I was granted a peak at these and noted a list of points that the owners had to be able to fulfil even to be considered. From what I recall good access roads, waste bins, supply of water, maybe fuel, toilet block, maybe a washing area ie showers and storage areas for residents ie push bikes and a host of other things had to be provided for.

How many of us think their place of mooring might comply and the owners might pay a fee to be even considered. 

The 80 page "Residential Moorings Guide" ( Google it) was presented to the July Broads Authority Meeting. The decision/updates will be in the Papers for the September Meeting