Another Eye Sore

[marshman]

I think Vaughan touched on this in another post - the trouble is that it is my understanding, the BA do not have, and never have had, the same powers that exist now in respect of abandoned vehicles. I believe it is just not within their remit - sadly.

[Wussername]

10 minutes ago, marshman said:

I think Vaughan touched on this in another post - the trouble is that it is my understanding, the BA do not have, and never have had, the same powers that exist now in respect of abandoned vehicles. I believe it is just not within their remit - sadly.

If you are correct MM and I believe that that you are, does that mean if you wish to get rid of your boat simply remove all obvious identification, moor it up against a tree, any old tree and walk away?

What a dreadful  state of affairs.

Andrew

[NorfolkNog]

It's not good. We spotted this baby in February between Surlingham and Bramerton. We were told it had been dumped. Not sure what happened to it. 

[Smoggy]

That one was removed by BA after they posted a 28 day notice on it, it first appeared on postwick wharf dropped in by hiab I believe, sank once there and got raised by BA, then got loose and wound up caught up on roots upstream from ferryhouse.

It was a project boat as there was an engine in it but not fitted and lots of rusted tools in there.

[PaulM]

What I find strange is that the boat above (for example) would be bought by someone! Ok so only worth a few hundred pounds maybe but surely that’s better than pushing it off down the river? 

[vanessan]

The old houseboat type thing is still half sunk in the reeds on the cut through between the Stalham and Sutton channels. As it is not strictly blocking the navigation, I suppose that will be left until it completely sinks. It really does look a mess with loads of detritus around it. The BA did move a couple of abandoned vessels either last month or in May but I guess there are ‘procedures’ to follow before action can be taken. No easy answer. 

[Wussername]

1 hour ago, Smoggy said:

That one was removed by BA after they posted a 28 day notice on it, it first appeared on postwick wharf dropped in by hiab I believe, sank once there and got raised by BA, then got loose and wound up caught up on roots upstream from ferryhouse.

It was a project boat as there was an engine in it but not fitted and lots of rusted tools in there.

A 28 days notice? Does that not suggest that the BA does indeed have the authority as well as a responsibility with regard to such matters.  If that is the case why is the BA seen to be so reluctant in dealing with this problem. Legal, financial implications perhaps. 

Andrew

[Timbo]

52 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Does that not suggest that the BA does indeed have the authority

Paragraph 12 of Schedule 5 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 gives the Broads Authority powers to deal with abandoned vessels. These powers were exercised earlier in June to remove a boat. 
https://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/news/abandoned-boat-at-yarmouth-yacht-station-used-for-drugs-1-6102491

I would imagine the biggest constraints would be geographic and financial, although thinking about it the Public Health Act 1935 would also come into play with regard to notice and execution. However, the only document on policy I could find is dated way, way back in 2010 and is only a draft and I have no idea if it was adopted as official policy.

[Wussername]

Interesting Timbo and thank you for your contribution.  It would be comforting for the BA to acknowledge  their responsibility with regard to this serious matter and I feel that the Authority would gain much sympathy and support if they were to recognise and admit to the financial constraints in which they have to operate and seek the help and cooperation of the many boat owners and hirers who are concerned about this issue which blights the Broads to the detriment of that which we hold dear.

Perhaps, just perhaps, together and I mean together, we could seek and find a financial solution to this issue with the help of other organisations of a like mind.

Andrew

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

As being one who enjoys being "a bit of a stirrer" and one who dislikes trial by forum, might I make so bold as to mention that we don't actually know what the situation is.

We know who we THINK owns the boat, but if the BA were to jump into action I suspect they would have to know in fact who the actual owner is.

They would need to know ALL the circumstances surrounding this situation. Is the owner bankrupt for example. Is there a legal lien (I think that's what it's called)  on the craft? so many questions, so many hoops to jump through... and so expensive if they (the BA) get it wrong.

This is one of those situations where, firstly, the BA has to treat each situation separately, There's no "one size fits all", and secondly they need to take the least expensive option to please the toll payers.

Finally, I would suggest that if the BA takes any action that can be proven as beyond their remit, I have little doubt that the owner will sue the BA for as much as he can. Ant that I suspect is the cause of all delays regarding Pelican and the sunken houseboat on the Sutton-Stalham cut.  

[Smoggy]

26 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

might I make so bold as to mention that we don't actually know what the situation is.

 

26 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I have little doubt that the owner will sue the BA for as much as he can.

Not actually knowing the situation I wasn't going to be so bold as to assume male ownership, that would be sexist without actually knowing the owner.. (ranks of stirrers officially joined)

[grendel]

I guess you could say He/She/It (male/ female/some corporation or company (or alien non gender))

[RumPunch]

Without getting drawn into anything else, Pelican arrived on the staithe Barton Turf whilst I was there yesterday

[CambridgeCabby]

Every time I see a photo of Pelican I can’t help but be saddened to see how a once majestic Broads cruiser has been allowed to deteriorate so badly.

[ChrisB]

I see she is still outboard powered!

I wonder where they have left her "Trailer"

[petersjoy]

I wonder if Karl is still the 'owner'. It featured on Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners about 3 years ago. rewatched a recording of it i still have .

[boycee]

Paul yes he is he has taken back ownership he told me a month or so ago

Alan

[Poppy]

It was moored beyond Paddy's Lane moorings a couple of weeks ago. It didn't have the trailer then.

[vanessan]

Pelican can currently be found at Stokesby. Making her way south maybe??

[Vaughan]

Stokesby used to be a well known "elephants' graveyard" for the beaten-up wrecks of old hire boats, so maybe it has come home to breed and then die.

[unclemike]

time the BA did something positive, this wreck is moving about the system with no toll, and one assumes maybe no BSS or insurance

[CambridgeCabby]

As discussed before , the BA simply respond that they do not have the powers to remove the vessel , something which sadly has become all so prevalent in the U.K. nowadays .

Not that many years ago the attitude would have been so much different and official bodies such as the BA instead off simply giving the same old answer would seek actively to bring in new legislation that would give them the required powers .

There are very few (if any) visitors and residents of The Broads that do not find these unregistered eyesores a blight on the landscape and the image they portray of this beautiful area can only harm the impression visitors remember of what is often referred to as The UKs largest National Park 

Come on BA , instead of being negative and constantly giving reasons why you can’t act to remove these vessels , try and act positively and  actively seek ways of moving forward towards a solution of this very emotive problem .

[Mouldy]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

Pelican can currently be found at Stokesby. Making her way south maybe??

Going to Bargate to moor alongside that other blot on the otherwise wonderful landscape maybe.  Wherry graveyard on one side and sunken cruisers the other.

[ChrisB]

I would not like to be that far downstream with a boat of such displacement with that outboard as propulsion.

[marshman]

I doubt it is as easy to change legislation as CC would suggest otherwise these bodies would do it - there will be differing solutions to every problem, but it will never be "easy" I suspect. Nor cheap nor easy to find the parliamentary time, which I suspect may be necessary, given the current circumstances!