Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

ranworthbreeze

Broads Authority Briefing September 2019

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Let`s not forget, although we all appreciate the fact that Tom is posting on this forum, he IS representing an authority which is becoming very political. The question is, are we being listened to, or are we being allowed to speak, yet also being ignored because our wants and needs are NOT that of the said authority?. I sincerely hope that Tom is here for the benefit of the boating and Broads community as a whole, and NOT just finding out what our concerns are, and using it as ammo for their personal agenda.

Hi SPEEDTRIPLE,

Just wanted to assure you that there's no secret agenda for us being on here. I'm on here representing the Broads Authority to hopefully answer your questions, share some useful information and to help wherever I can. I work within the Communications Team at the BA, so I certainly don't know the answer to everything, but I'm always able to go and have a chat to the relevant officers when required.

Just for a bit of context, we did have an account on the other Broads Forum and had been aware of Norfolk Broads Network for awhile, it took some time to get an account set up and get the resources in place to start using it as a direct way to engage with you all.

Thanks,

Tom

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tom. Reassuring comments. It's not just the chilly office temperature that matters but also the knock on effect of Authority activities, e.g. road mileage both of staff, committee members and customers. Re mileage we all have a responsibility, we must all ask ourselves 'is our journey actually necessary'? No bad thing if the such as the Authority takes a lead on this one. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/09/2019 at 19:42, Paladin said:

That offer sounds just too good to be true.

The Broads Authority has been aware for many, many years that Crome’s Dyke has been becoming more and more restricted to navigation, by vegetation on the north side (which Catfield Parish Council would be very happy to have cut back, but can’t afford to do themselves) and by reed growth from the south side (owned by the BA, who do nothing to control it). The dyke, which was once used by wherries as far as Crome’s Broad, and which leads to the remains of  Crow’s Staithe, is now, for all practical purposes, unnavigable, even by a kayak, as the accompanying photo, taken in May this year, shows.

Earlier this year, the BA took over the maintenance of the sluice and bridge near the top end of the dyke, to open up a footpath from How Hill to Crowe’s staithe. While the dyke no longer gives access to Crome’s Broad, because of the sluice, it is still part of the navigation (unless, of course, the BA allows it to become totally overgrown and silted). As recently as 4 or 5 years ago, two vessels were permanently moored in the dyke, with the permission of Catfield PC. One a day boat, the other a Cleopatra 700 (22'8" length, 8' 4" beam).

Entrance to Crome's Dyke, May 2019.JPG

Good morning Paladin,

I can only assume there's reasoning for this area being left to grow out, however without speaking to some of my colleagues I can't be sure. I've followed up internally and will come back to you on here when I hear back.

Thanks,

Tom

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

what I do think is that the tidal rise and fall has changed. The variation is far less than it used to be effectively making it "high water" for most of the time

Sorry, MM.  The tidal rise and fall at Potter Bridge has been 4" twice daily for the last thirty-odd years.  Perhaps once or twice a year the tidal range may be 5" or, just as rarely, no range at all i.e. no drop in water level during the ebb phase before the next flood tide begins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Good morning Boycee,

I've let David our lead weedcutter know about this and hopefully we'll be able to address the problem areas next time we're near Beccles - I'll keep you updated when I hear anything back.

Cheers,

Tom

Hi Boycee,

I've heard back from a colleague and we are aware of the areas you refer to in your message. The growths were left there in accordance with the Environment Agency's guidance of there being a 3 metre margin, however it sounds like this may have been exceeded now. The growths in question (along with all margins we leave) are there for environmental reasons including providing a site for fish spawning and helping with water oxygenation. I've asked if the section could be checked next time someone is in the area to assess whether cutting needs to take place.

Thanks,
Tom

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pally - I did read somewhere that the access dyke to that old Catfield Staithe is going to be cleared - but I cannot remember when!!!

However don't hold your breath about whether it will be dredged or the staithe refurbished so it can be used as a formal mooring! Dilham can be tight at times and I would be really surprised if that Catfield could ever hold one of Richardsons finest, let alone turn it! However we shall see.....!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google earth still shows a vessel up the dyke as late as november 2017, so it could well still be there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we not just kill two birds with one stone and like put a link between the Ant here and hickling? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've taken Martham's Juliette up to Catfield and had to turn with only whisker of room bow and stern, made for an interesting afternoon, chap fishing asked if it something he'd said why we were buggering off lol, we were only exploring :default_jumelles: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynsey, I think you are referring to the dyke to Catfield from Hickling, I think paladin was referring to a dyke just up river from How Hill, off the Ant, that leads to Cromes Broad (but is in Catfield parish).

I too took a judith up to Catfield Staithe and yes its a tight turn up the top there by the staithe, when I went up there Tumblehome was moored up at the staithe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes doh  :default_dunce: I'm in the wrong place it would seem, simples mistake lol 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry - to confuse the issue Catfield has two staithes, or possibly 3, if you count Wood End Staithe, but Pallys picture shows the dyke up to the derelict one by Cromes Broad - both the dyke and the staithe fell into misuse  "several" years ago and whilst Grendel is correct in that there is a boat shown up the dyke, I think that has long been abandoned. It belonged to a guy who was trying to go "off the radar" a long time ago there was a thread on here about it - I think the BA at the time were trying to get him to get a licence so he did not "hide" that well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of the Potter Bridge sinking........ I believe it has on one side more than the other. Look at the smaller arches each side and you can see the difference in height. I'm sure I have a photo somewhere from around 1974 ish where there was not so much difference? Unless the river leans to one side of course...:default_icon_e_biggrin:........Or...... the builders had a jar too many when they were building that bit...........:default_rolleyes:

Just to add that what with moving house last year, I can't find anything now!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi Boycee,

I've heard back from a colleague and we are aware of the areas you refer to in your message. The growths were left there in accordance with the Environment Agency's guidance of there being a 3 metre margin, however it sounds like this may have been exceeded now. The growths in question (along with all margins we leave) are there for environmental reasons including providing a site for fish spawning and helping with water oxygenation. I've asked if the section could be checked next time someone is in the area to assess whether cutting needs to take place.

Thanks,
Tom

Now that's interesting.  Any chance of a layman's explanation of these 3 metre margins and the criteria that allows for such?

For example, a 3 metre shelf both sides of the lower ant would not be workable from a boating perspective which suggests sites must be chosen rather than a blanket approach of the E. A. guidelines?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, expilot said:

Sorry, MM.  The tidal rise and fall at Potter Bridge has been 4" twice daily for the last thirty-odd years.  Perhaps once or twice a year the tidal range may be 5" or, just as rarely, no range at all i.e. no drop in water level during the ebb phase before the next flood tide begins.

Thank you Expilot for that information, it was certainly not what I expected to read so my thinking cap is back on. is there anything you can say about salt water surges? I'm wondering if the lack of dredging has, as BA suggest, reduced these occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saltwater surges are still encroaching further up the Bure, but how far they come depends on the size of the surge!!!

The last time I chatted to one of the EA guys about them, the effects were to be seen up by Horning Hall Farm but other factors have to be taken into account too like the amount of freshwater coming downstream to hold it back. Anything about tides and surges is very complicated depending on many factors but it doesn't do the fish a lot of good at all. And yet some individuals are still in denial that sea levels are increasing

There is no doubt that further significant dredging away of the Bure hump would exacerbate the issue however but there are just so many differing factors to be taken into account which impact Broadland tides and surges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, marshman said:

There is no doubt that further significant dredging away of the Bure hump would exacerbate the issue however but there are just so many differing factors to be taken into account which impact Broadland tides and surges.

No doubt??? I can accept that you have no doubt but what are others opinions? Does anyone other than myself have doubts?

 

28 minutes ago, marshman said:

And yet some individuals are still in denial that sea levels are increasing

Yes, I'm sure that such people exist, but whilst I can accept that sea levels are rising, I do not have the data for 'how much the sea levels have risen' nor 'by how much the rising sea levels have caused the reduced clearance at PH bridge'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM - clearly that is the opinion of the EA as well and as their permission is required before you can do any dredging on the Broads then we might as well get on and accept it I suspect

When I was a lad I used to spend a lot of time making dams in streams and playing with water and I quickly learnt that if you put a pile of mud in the middle of a watercourse, you restricted its flow - I have extended that principal to my belief that is what occurs in the Lower Bure, but I would expect their will be others using their "expert" knowledge to think otherwise and probably disagree with my conclusion!!

 However I am also aware that that "hump" is not new and have "heard" about it many times before, but I do not have access to the info the EA have so I cannot even guess how long it has been there!! Looking at it logically, or in my case some would say probably not very logically, you will be aware that Yarmouth has real issue with flooding - just to add another variable or thought, perhaps the EA are keen to hold water up in the Bure to stop it meeting up with the incoming tide through Yarmouth???

These issues are never straightforward and I wish you well in getting to the bottom of it - as you might but I doubt there is just one easy answer to this and other associated issues!

None of this alters my selfish view that nothing should be done about Potter Bridge either, as it helps preserve one of the last vestiges of a precious area harking back to a bygone age which you could so easily destroy by uncaring visitors intent on "going everywhere" with little or no regard for the consequences, especially as that facility still remains, albeit not in the conveyance of their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, marshman said:

MM - clearly that is the opinion of the EA as well and as their permission is required before you can do any dredging on the Broads then we might as well get on and accept it I suspect

When I was a lad I used to spend a lot of time making dams in streams and playing with water and I quickly learnt that if you put a pile of mud in the middle of a watercourse, you restricted its flow - I have extended that principal to my belief that is what occurs in the Lower Bure, but I would expect their will be others using their "expert" knowledge to think otherwise and probably disagree with my conclusion!!

 However I am also aware that that "hump" is not new and have "heard" about it many times before, but I do not have access to the info the EA have so I cannot even guess how long it has been there!! Looking at it logically, or in my case some would say probably not very logically, you will be aware that Yarmouth has real issue with flooding - just to add another variable or thought, perhaps the EA are keen to hold water up in the Bure to stop it meeting up with the incoming tide through Yarmouth???

These issues are never straightforward and I wish you well in getting to the bottom of it - as you might but I doubt there is just one easy answer to this and other associated issues!

None of this alters my selfish view that nothing should be done about Potter Bridge either, as it helps preserve one of the last vestiges of a precious area harking back to a bygone age which you could so easily destroy by uncaring visitors intent on "going everywhere" with little or no regard for the consequences, especially as that facility still remains, albeit not in the conveyance of their choice.

Sorry I cant agree with that last bit given how much of the area would remain unnavigable anyway, while I regret not being able to access that part of the system even though I have a boat that was designed to and used to go through regularly I am realistic enough to know that nothing is likely to change soon, that doesn't mean it shouldn't if ways could be found to reinstate the original clearances, while the hump may have always existed and there may be  some justification for keeping it there is no disputing that the Yarmouth area in general has silted up quite considerably in recent years, I have also noticed both at Potter and Horning the increase in the number of times there can be quite a strong flood with no following ebb tide.

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

No doubt??? I can accept that you have no doubt but what are others opinions? Does anyone other than myself have doubts?

 

Yes, I'm sure that such people exist, but whilst I can accept that sea levels are rising, I do not have the data for 'how much the sea levels have risen' nor 'by how much the rising sea levels have caused the reduced clearance at PH bridge'

 

http://www.eacg.org.uk/docs/smp5/the smp main report.pdf

A lage report, but essentially if you care to scroll down to page 48, you will discover that projections from 1990 indicate a rise in sea level (for the East of England) of approx. 100mm - or 4" by next year (2020). Historic data (same page, same link) show a similar change up unril that date.

The 'Bure Bump' will have effects on surge tides but unlikely on 'normal' tidal events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Poppy said:

http://www.eacg.org.uk/docs/smp5/the smp main report.pdf

A lage report, but essentially if you care to scroll down to page 48, you will discover that projections from 1990 indicate a rise in sea level (for the East of England) of approx. 100mm - or 4" by next year (2020). Historic data (same page, same link) show a similar change up unril that date.

The 'Bure Bump' will have effects on surge tides but unlikely on 'normal' tidal events.

If that's the reason why has there been no noticeable difference with the exposure of the mud flats on Breydon or the costal beaches at low tide and has there been a corresponding change with clearance levels with the Yarmouth and southern bridges to that at Potter and Wroxham, serious question as I don't know from my own experience, I am aware of the changes to the northern system but havn`t noticed the same changes elsewhere.

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

here is a pdf that contains the data graphs for sea level for the UK from about 1900 

https://www.ntslf.org/sites/ntslf/files/pdf/images/bslindex.pdf

this shows that on average the sea level has risen about 100mm (4")

from here -

https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends

bslindex.gif

Edited by grendel
add image of graph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looking at the graph, you will notice quite a large dip (nearly 50mm) through the 1970's until the late 1970's, so going back to our childhood memories for the bridge clearances clearly is putting those memories in a significant dip of sea levels, the level then climbed steadily through the 1980's until it dropped again sharply around 1990 before starting a steady rise to today, looking at the pattern, it could be about to have another sharp drop soon (fingers crossed)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JanetAnne said:

Now that's interesting.  Any chance of a layman's explanation of these 3 metre margins and the criteria that allows for such?

For example, a 3 metre shelf both sides of the lower ant would not be workable from a boating perspective which suggests sites must be chosen rather than a blanket approach of the E. A. guidelines?

Hi JanetAnne,

Without going into masses of detail the 3m margin applies as a general rule on the upper stretches of the main rivers. However in stretches where the river is thinner the margin is liable to be reduced (for example at Geldeston Dyke) so that there's a larger navigable area.

Thanks,

Tom

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.