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

Poppy

Tolls 2020

Recommended Posts

I agree that it's not a clear description of exactly who is paying what, but overall, not as larger hike as I was expecting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically I don't have an issue with the toll increase as such, at least on the surface it appears straight forward enough, at least to my simple Suffolk country boy mind. I do question the need for blowing thirty thousand on the moorings at Peto's Marsh though. The justification being to provide access to the Angles Way long distance footpath and the Carlton Marshes nature reserve. There is excellent access to both via the East bank of the Waveney just above Burgh St Peter and it has the bonus of being free, both to the Authority and to us mere minions! Access to the Angles Way already exists from Oulton Broad, the Dutch Tea Gardens, Fisher Row/Queens Highway, Worlingham, Beccles and odd 'wild' moorings in between. Effectively any new mooring has to be welcomed but it is not as if we are short of them in this particular area. Spend thirty thousand by all means, but I do think that it could have been spent more wisely. I suppose Carlton Marshes as a destination fits in nicely with the faux national park image that JP is so keen to foster but that is a whole new argument, not! Hats off to Suffolk Wildlife Trust for what they are creating by way of a nature reserve, despite the Visitor Centre that in itself is destroying a little spot of wilderness!

And so to the Green aspect of the tolls, the carbon credentials and the commitment to sustainability in the Broads. Any marketing activities by the Authority, ergo the 'justification' for the BNP, are designed to attract people, people who then make sometimes quite long journeys to the Broads, will they be walking or biking here? The Broads can never be entirely green, not whilst mankind is about, that's obvious. The world is already coming to realise that there is a questionable impact with both battery manufacture and eventual disposal, the inevitable result of supposedly 'sustainable' transport. I suppose it all looks good in the brochures! The toll differential might ease a few consciences but in reality it's probably all a bit pointless. As far as the tolls are concerned, maybe simplification rather than complication wouldn't go amiss after all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, Where are there any FREE 24 hour moorings on Oulton broad? Oh, and not knowing the broad at all well, I have to ask where these proposed moorings going to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter, Where are there any FREE 24 hour moorings on Oulton broad? Oh, and not knowing the broad at all well, I have to ask where these proposed moorings going to be?

The only free moorings are on Oulton Dyke at the Dutch Tea Gardens if I remember correctly. The Yacht station and pub moorings are all chargeable.

Unless JM corrects me as he knows this area far better than I then the proposed new moorings must be on the starboard bank near the Dutch Tea Gardens which lay on the portside bank as you travel along Oulton Dyke towards the broad. This starboard bank is, again if I am correct, Peto's Marsh.

20191129_112237.thumb.jpg.9bcdf1cbc199163812bdf1da5dfa5cf2.jpg

Happy to be corrected however :default_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jayfire said:

Unless JM corrects me as he knows this area far better than I then the proposed new moorings must be on the starboard bank near the Dutch Tea Gardens which lay on the portside bank as you travel along Oulton Dyke towards the broad. This starboard bank is, again if I am correct, Peto's Marsh.

Clarification would be good. Talking with my better half about this last night, we disagreed on the location. I thought like Jayfire but he who always knows best thinks that the pontoon would be between WRC and the BA 24 hour North Cove moorings, left bank going upstream obviously. The latter does give direct access to the Angles Way. Can anyone clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a comprehensive answer to this, including map references, from John Packman on the other forum, to which I am not permitted to post a link.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in which case...


"Peto’s Marsh is the triangle of land between Oulton Dyke and the River Waveney. It is labelled on the OS map at TM 49798 93237. The new moorings will be installed towards the southern end of Oulton Dyke – around TM 50113 92964. We have a set of pontoons on the other side of the river, the Dutch Tea Gardens 24-hour mooring, at TM 50149 93041

The significance of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust acquiring Peto’s Marsh for us as the navigation authority is that with the Trust's agreement it is going to provide a site for the long-term disposal and beneficial reuse of dredged material from Oulton Broad which is something we have been concerned about. It will also provide access to the Angles Way and the new Suffolk Wildlife Trust visitor centre which is under construction"

Here is a link: 

https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/52.47805,1.68220,18

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Peter, Where are there any FREE 24 hour moorings on Oulton broad? Oh, and not knowing the broad at all well, I have to ask where these proposed moorings going to be?

Free moorings on the little advertised 'Free Quay' at Oulton Broad itself, free moorings in Fisher Row, as there has been for donkey's years, free moorings against Carlton Marshes themselves above the WRC. My guess is that the new £30k moorings will be near to and maybe opposite the Tea Gardens but I could be wrong but being there it would be reasonably near to the SWT visitor centre so that makes sense. I think it praiseworthy that the BA works with the SWT as it does, got to be to everyone's advantage but I still question the need for these new access moorings. Don't forget that approx half our toll is hived off for overheads so presumably and regretfully £30k equates to £60k of tolls income. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the BA already has a working agreement with SWT regarding disposal sites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The annual Toll - is it now standard form that it has a mandatory rise every year ?

I see the 2020 toll has rose above the rate of inflation yet again 

Griff

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BroadAmbition said:

The annual Toll - is it now standard form that it has a mandatory rise every year ?

I see the 2020 toll has rose above the rate of inflation yet again 

Griff

The way around an inflation linked cap is to claim additional expenses, e.g. the extravagance of this questionable new mooring. Once again, roughly 50% of OUR toll is hived off for 'overheads'. The more the toll can be edged up the more he has to spend. This new mooring is a one off, but will £30/£60k be deducted from next year's toll? Not if Dr Devious has his way!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that any new moorings are to be welcomed and pontoon moorings do seem to be the way to go. If they can link up with footpaths all the better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - additional formal moorings are to be welcomed anywhere but to be honest you could hardly expect any announcement from the BA to be met with anything other than a negative comment from PW, now could you? To anyone from the Northern Broads, the Southern rivers  with their absence of informal and official moorings, hardly looks attractive - but thats how they like to keep it!!!!!!!

To be fair there are moorings, but woe betide you if you wish to moor on any of the smaller moorings at the weekend, or high days and holidays, as they are invariably blocked by the "Brundall Navy" moored slap bang in the middle to manage to take up three spaces!!!  PW also suggested there are already "free " moorings against Petos Marsh above the WRC - what he means is that this is against SWT land and that technically if he does so he is trespassing! Not quite the same thing unless he has special permission! Are they signed as being available to everyone - if not people are very reluctant to take the risk!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think the new mooring cost is being covered by this years increase alone and there will be some other excuse (as if one is ever needed) by this time next year.   Work out the Toll increase over the last 10 years its borderline obscene.  

The BA like every other Authority in the country will just keep on doing it year on year till someone stops them.  Its about time the Toll was capped. 

Give it another 10 years and I wouldn't be surprised if we are looking at nigh on a 75% increase in the preceding 20 years. 
 

Unlike with other Authorities folk do have a choice.  Some owners might not care much but there will be a lot of owners who may not  have the luxury of a bottomless bank accounts and wont sustain continuous year on year increases like they might be forced to elsewhere.  Its also abundantly clear that the more hire yards go the more private owners will be made to pay.  
 

Instead of re-engining boats how about some savings BA, when are you going to tighten your belts?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked John Packman whether next year's Toll (21/22) will be decreased as the new mooring pontoons are a "one of" expense.

I include part of his reply here, basically each year's Toll sets the baseline for next years, so "one of' expenses are actually included the next year and the next and the next!

I'm not a critic of BA by any means but unless I'm missing something if any business did this it would be called a scam or a stealth tax or something.

He invites questions at the end of each newsletter and as such I feel reproducing this part of his reply is OK, if mods prefer I remove it then I will of course

"Here is a link to the report which went to the Broads Authority last Friday.

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1767363/Proposed_Navigation_Charges_for_2020_2021_in_the_navigation_area_and_adjacent_waters_.pdfba22-11-19.pdf

Paragraphs 1.1 – 1.4 show the methodology we have used for a number of years.

The zero-based budgeting process identifying essential expenditure resets the expenditure targets each year."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

page 11 item 4.1 of the document reads:

“On-going reduction in the hire fleet (estimated loss of income at £11,500)
It is difficult to predict changes in the hire boat fleet. However, the Authority is aware that there will be a further decline next year which has a significant impact on the calculation of next year’s charges.”

This suggests the 20/21 Toll Charges will see a significant increase.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JP has chosen to question my assertion that approx 50% of the toll is hived off for non navigational purposes. He has chosen to do so on NBF rather than here or elsewhere where the toll increase is also being questioned. He has stated that 19% rather than 50% is the actual figure. I have asked several folk less prone to dyscalculia than myself to advise me of the current reality.

Marshman, please note what I wrote previously, namely:

11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Effectively any new mooring has to be welcomed but it is not as if we are short of them in this particular area. Spend thirty thousand by all means, but I do think that it could have been spent more wisely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

page 11 item 4.1 of the document reads:

“On-going reduction in the hire fleet (estimated loss of income at £11,500)
It is difficult to predict changes in the hire boat fleet. However, the Authority is aware that there will be a further decline next year which has a significant impact on the calculation of next year’s charges.”

This suggests the 20/21 Toll Charges will see a significant increase.    

Presumably the BNP tag is failing to attract the extra customers required to counter the reduction in hire boat numbers then?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, marshman said:

PW also suggested there are already "free " moorings against Petos Marsh above the WRC - what he means is that this is against SWT land

It might also be parish land but that aside moorings there have long been commonplace and provide access to the Angles Way public footpath that runs along the riverbank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall (but haven’t checked) that the hire boat multiplier was put forward as a reason for the decline in the hire fleet, so it was reduced, and reduced again. It does rather seem as if there is some other cause. Perhaps the multiplier should rise again, as the level doesn’t appear to have much effect on hire boat numbers. I very much doubt that the rise in the number of private boats was ever put forward as a reason for the private toll to be reduced.

While I understand that the BA has to protect its income stream, I think it is extremely unfair that the private owner should have to subsidise the hire fleet’s inability to attract more custom.

  • Like 8

Share this post


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

While I understand that the BA has to protect its income stream, I think it is extremely unfair that the private owner should have to subsidise the hire fleet’s inability to attract more custom.

It will get to a point where some private owners can no longer afford the extra cost and will sell, thereby less revenue again ....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lulu said:

It will get to a point where some private owners can no longer afford the extra cost and will sell, thereby less revenue again ....

I think that it already has, at least on the Southern Broads. I don't blame the Authority for this apparent decline, at least not entirely. The cost of moorings is now pretty eye watering, as is the cost of transport from home to boat and back. The toll is a factor, nothing more. 

I do have concerns, of course I do and my grouse is threefold, the fairness aspect, Paladin has already touched on that, and then there appears to be general dishonesty and obfuscation surrounding the toll and its application. Thirdly, we need to remember that when HMG preached austerity it made an ineffectual effort to reduce waste by quangos such as the Authority when it cut the DEFRA grant.  We all know what happened, the toll payer largely made up the subsequent shortfall and we have been doing so ever since. The extravagances of the Authority, the Acle Debacle and the BNP charade for example, continue unabated, seemingly the good Doctor has failed to make cuts in line with government intention. It is now claimed that we only contribute 19% to Authority overheads, however this doesn't tally with history. We now have what should be a welcome addition to the 24hr mooring provision, this new pontoon at Peto's Marsh. Questions have already been asked elsewhere as to how and why this project has jumped to the head of the queue so to speak when, very clearly, there is greater demand and justification elsewhere in the system for new or replacement moorings. As I have already suggested, as a project this one must sit in very nicely with JP's obvious national park aspirations and ambitions. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just crossed my mind,  Oulton Dyke is only a little over a mile long yet it appears that it will now have two BA 24hr moorings. No doubt moorings are required on the Broads but surely not practically opposite each other. This money should surely have been reserved for additional moorings of greater priority. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just crossed my mind,  Oulton Dyke is only a little over a mile long yet it appears that it will now have two BA 24hr moorings. No doubt moorings are required on the Broads but surely not practically opposite each other. This money should surely have been reserved for additional moorings of greater priority. 

Or better still repairing the existing moorings to s standard that the can be actually use , ie broken posts and collapsing quay heading both of which can be found on the southern rivers and reported a number of times .

  • Like 3

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.