The Broads Public Staithes

[ChrisB]

For those who have not read this document and for general interest.

ms-files (1).pdf

[Vaughan]

Many thanks for that. I believe this is the report that the BA didn't want to see published?

[marshman]

Well - they commissioned it and I actually went on a presentation on it  about 2/3 years ago, or perhaps more, so theres not a lot new I guess.

Its certainly of general interest but no one is going to  be able to make much use of it I don't think - well not legally anyway! Its a bit like common land issues - a tortuous minefield and only of value to those with very deep pockets I suspect!

[BroadsAuthority]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Many thanks for that. I believe this is the report that the BA didn't want to see published?

It's on our website here and has been for some time: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/looking-after/managing-land-and-water/staithes-of-the-broads

[MauriceMynah]

 

10 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Many thanks for that. I believe this is the report that the BA didn't want to see published?

It's on our website here and has been for some time: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/looking-after/managing-land-and-water/staithes-of-the-broads

Tee hee, Thanks  BA!

Hold your hand out Vaughan you naughty boy!!!

[JennyMorgan]

I do believe that there was some disappointment in that the report didn't produce a comprehensive and definitive document which would result in an increase of access by the public.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Tee hee, Thanks  BA!

Hold your hand out Vaughan you naughty boy!!!

 

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

I do believe that there was some disappointment in that the report didn't produce a comprehensive and definitive document which would result in an increase of access by the public.

Not so naughty boy then.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

 

Not so naughty boy then.

Not so naughty after all. It was an opportunity that some would argue was a lost one. I suspect that the prospects of legal confrontation acted as a deterant to thorough research. 

[marshman]

I don't see it the role of BA to chase people through the civil courts in the, I suspect, never ending hope of just trying to improve access - I can think of much more important places to spend money.

What I think it may have done is to clarify the situation in some cases and remember, it is just as important, to be able to prove ownership when push comes to shove and I suspect the report does just that. Its a useful base from which to start but I do not think it was ever going to be a definitive piece of work, nor one from which the BA was going to base civil actions on.

My guess is that at some stage in the future, it may well help when people pretend they own something which the BA may wish to lease for moorings - and possibly vice versa.

[Vaughan]

36 minutes ago, marshman said:

I don't see it the role of BA to chase people through the civil courts in the, I suspect, never ending hope of just trying to improve access

But that is the whole point, in the context of navigation on the Broads. 

A "navigation" in law, is a waterway which leads to a staithe. 

If we do not maintain the legal right of access to a public staithe, then the BA, as the "navigation" authority, will no longer need to maintain the navigation that leads to it.

It is as simple as that.

[marshman]

Having actually read the report, I must admit I don't see it as quite as simple or straightforward as that as that  - however I am not a legal expert, and I suspect most other readers of the Report are not either, and I am not prepared to enter into the semantics of the issue or issues this brings up.

So I will leave you in peace to discuss it, if you so wish, to your hearts content!

P.S. I might just chip in for the sake of it just to keep you all on your toes though!

[JennyMorgan]

3 minutes ago, marshman said:

P.S. I might just chip in for the sake of it just to keep you all on your toes though!

Don't forget 'balance'!

[Paul]

11 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

It's on our website here and has been for some time: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/looking-after/managing-land-and-water/staithes-of-the-broads

Indeed it has, I raised it in May 2018.

 

[ChrisB]

I posted the report under a new thread simply because I refered to it with regard to the other current discussion about Johnny Crowes Staithe. I did not want to muddy the waters there.

I thought that it would be a useful and interesting download for folks. That is all.

[Lulu]

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

thought that it would be a useful and interesting download for folks. That is all.

It is really interesting. I wasnt aware of the document. Thank you Chris

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

With so much "disuse" of many parts of the broads, be they staithes, or dykes etc, why can`t we make use of volunteer groups etc?. If lived within easy reach of the broads, i`d happily volunteer to help keep down overgrowth on former staithes etc, also to help clean up the navigations that lead to them. 

Looking at the North Walsham and Dilham Canal Restoration group, it`s truly amazing to see what they`ve achieved in a relatively short space of time, so with this in mind, why not get some volunteer groups together to help maintain the facilities which are gradually falling into disrepair and being overtaken by nature?.

WE all moan and groan about losing facilities etc, so why don`t WE, with the guidance and assistance of people like Tom at the BA, do something to help look after OUR broads for OUR enjoyment (with the permission of land owners etc of course?)?. 

If this was to happen, many of these long forgotten places and facilities would still be available for use, and maybe if the public got involved in the maintainance and general upkeep of such staithes, it may mean you will have some say in how you can use them.

 

 

[Heron]

Have you noticed all the No Mooring signs around the Broads? One of the problems is what I can only describe as land grab where the wealthy and influential acquire assets that never really belonged to them and deprive others of their use.

There are many places where there used to be wild moorings or informal moorings that are no longer available, several moorings around How Hill now carry No Mooring signs presumably placed by the BA, to prevent the ordinary boater from making use of what for many years had been good mooring places. Another example is the dyke leading to the village of Acle where I believe a staithe existed, you try mooring there now.

Good luck with your efforts to open up some of these places but until there is a lot of change in our country you will have a difficult task on your hands.

[Smoggy]

27 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

With so much "disuse" of many parts of the broads, be they staithes, or dykes etc, why can`t we make use of volunteer groups etc?. If lived within easy reach of the broads, i`d happily volunteer to help keep down overgrowth on former staithes etc, also to help clean up the navigations that lead to them. 

Looking at the North Walsham and Dilham Canal Restoration group, it`s truly amazing to see what they`ve achieved in a relatively short space of time, so with this in mind, why not get some volunteer groups together to help maintain the facilities which are gradually falling into disrepair and being overtaken by nature?.

WE all moan and groan about losing facilities etc, so why don`t WE, with the guidance and assistance of people like Tom at the BA, do something to help look after OUR broads for OUR enjoyment (with the permission of land owners etc of course?)?. 

If this was to happen, many of these long forgotten places and facilities would still be available for use, and maybe if the public got involved in the maintainance and general upkeep of such staithes, it may mean you will have some say in how you can use them.

 

 

That is pretty much how the canal network got where it is today from the abandoned ditches they once were after the railways scuppered them.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

37 minutes ago, Heron said:

 There are many places where there used to be wild moorings or informal moorings that are no longer available, several moorings around How Hill now carry No Mooring signs presumably placed by the BA, to prevent the ordinary boater from making use of what for many years had been good mooring places. 

I know i`ve been critical of the BA in the past, but i`m very sure you can`t hold the BA responsible for them.  

One of the main reasons why so many wild moorings have been lost is more likely to be the "sue" culture. If a land owner was to allow people to moor on his / her land, by law, they have to accept liability for your safety, so if you put your foot down a hidden rabbit hole or suchlike and break an ankle, said landowners are legally responsible. The old addage "at your own risk" is`nt worth the paper it`s written on. With that in mind, it`s no surprise they withdraw landing permission.

[JennyMorgan]

I think the issue here is one of willingness and that has not always been apparent. Hoveton Great Broad is a prime example and although pushed the Authority has yet to make any efforts to regain historical access and navigation across the Broad despite clear evidence that it was once common practice. Plus now a huge amount of public money, lottery fund, is being used for restoring the Broad. The Authority owned land at Geldeston Lock that was originally purchased by their predecessor in order to provide access to the Upper Waveney (Lowestoft to Bungay Navigation). Regretfully the Authority sold that land thus scuppering any hopes that that navigation would be reopened. 

[JennyMorgan]

44 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

One of the main reasons why so many wild moorings have been lost is more likely to be the "sue" culture. If a land owner was to allow people to moor on his / her land, by law, they have to accept liability for your safety, so if you put your foot down a hidden rabbit hole or suchlike and break an ankle, said landowners are legally responsible. The old addage "at your own risk" is`nt worth the paper it`s written on. With that in mind, it`s no surprise they withdraw landing permission.

I understand that a number of prominent local landowners have withdrawn their co-operation. 

[marshman]

Withdrawn their cooperation? From whom or what?  I get the inference PW, but I think that inference, as I interpret it, is that it is something to do with the BA is a tad misplaced! Its more the attitude of the large landowners whose motto is "whats mine is mine and you are not sharing it!!!"

The loss of wild moorings, especially on the Ant,  has to some extent been reversed  - I notice how they are in lots of cases  opening up again, and thats as a result of people forcing their way into the bank and just using it. Fleet Dyke is slowly happening again but lets face it, people prefer posts to tie up to. Like it or not all the banks, even originally, are private land and technically they are within their rights - but it is a shame how, sometimes , that new sign gets knocked over!

(All posted in the interests of " balance" of course!)

[JennyMorgan]

42 minutes ago, marshman said:

Withdrawn their cooperation? From whom or what?  I get the inference PW, but I think that inference, as I interpret it, is that it is something to do with the BA is a tad misplaced! Its more the attitude of the large landowners whose motto is "whats mine is mine and you are not sharing it!!!"

It is only in recent times that there has been a breakdown in the traditional cooperation that has long existed. 

[marshman]

PW - just say what you mean! A breakdown in cooperation with whom?  Are you actually saying that prominent local landowners have ever cooperated with anyone other than themselves? The inference is that they are no longer cooperating with the BA - I was unaware that they ever had!!! Or are you just inferring a conspiracy over Whitlingham perhaps?

Come on - we all want to know and have all laid bare  or shall we just leave it hanging and leave it individuals imaginations? 

Spoilsport!!!

[MauriceMynah]

Oh Hell! Here I go again.  

I think SpeedTriple has hit the nail firmly on the head. (There! I've said it!) It has little or nothing to do with the BA, and is a thousand percent down to the "Not my fault, Who can I sue to get a bucket full of their money?"

Society is reaping what it has sown. If I ever owned waterside land, "No Mooring" signs would have to go up at the speed of light.

I don't know what happens with household insurance at waterside properties regarding this issue, perhaps Peter would enlighten me.