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

On 29/11/2019 at 15:05, dnks34 said:

how about some savings BA, when are you going to tighten your belts?

Exactly, when? No need though, just hammer the toll payer.

It would be interesting to know whether the Authority exceeded its budget last year or whether it ended up with a surplus. No mention in the Broads Bulletin of having to make up a deficit so I can only assume that there was an operational surplus, I wonder if I am right and just how much that surplus was and whether or not it's been carried forward or been lost in the reserves? Just a thought! Time for a public inquiry perhaps?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A public inquiry???? You are of course joking Mr Waller - what will you think of next??

A public enquiry would cost more than the total budget!! Can you REALLY think of neither a better way to spend the money or a problem here in the UK rather more worthy of such an event??

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly JM,  the toll payers would be forced to stump up for the cost of any enquiry - public or otherwise ! :default_icon_rolleyes:

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Sadly JM,  the toll payers would be forced to stump up for the cost of any enquiry - public or otherwise ! :default_icon_rolleyes:

Perhaps that fact is being relied upon.

Despite things not being right, carry on regardless then, sod the toll payers :40_rage: .

I understand that financial statements  are now presented differently, read into that what you will :default_norty:!  

5 hours ago, marshman said:

Can you REALLY think of neither a better way to spend the money or a problem here in the UK rather more worthy of such an event??

Please remember that this is a Broads interest forum. 

You may be prepared to overlook profligacy and obfuscation, personally I am not.  You might be prepared to whitewash the Authority's shortcomings at every opportunity, personally I am not. Get over it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally I do not think a public forum is the place to pursue, for whatever reason, what seems to be some kind of personal vendetta. As I said earlier, the fact that the BA in this instance are using the money to provide for much needed moorings on that side of the Dyke, and with it I guess access to the new Visitor Centre, then I for one, will welcome it. And I will use it if space is available. Quite where the money comes from seems pretty irrelevant - it is as far as I am concerned part of the Navigation, and their duty to provide

And neither will you put me off commenting on any issue by such comments as "Get over it! " I have just as much right to state my view as you and if you think my views are a bit hackneyed in that I always support the BA, you will also know there is two sides to every argument.  In this instance I cannot really see what deserves a "public enquiry" and thats my view - and I guess the vast majority of people living in and visiting the area, as the BA are merely providing more of what is frequently asked for.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/11/2019 at 13:12, JennyMorgan said:

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!

 

On 29/11/2019 at 21:01, JennyMorgan said:

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.

Just to add another angle to the overheads debate, in 2011, in response to the Defra Consultation on the Governance Arrangements for the National Parks and the Broads, the NSBA wrote “By 2014/15 tollpayers will provide 48% of the Authority’s income, the proportion of toll income being used to fund overhead costs rising from 21.5% to 43% in that time.” The full text can be found here.

Does anyone (apart from Dr Packman) think that proportion has changed in favour of toll payers in the intervening 8 years?

This contemporary article also makes for interesting reading.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

. . . . . . . I have just as much right to state my view as you . . . . . . . 

Exactly, in that we agree, presumably wholeheartedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43% knocks JP’s quoted 19.1% well and truly out of the water.  If you are going to go on record you really should make sure you have got your facts right!

Share this post


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

 If you are going to go on record you really should make sure you have got your facts right!

 

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I understand that financial statements  are now presented differently, read into that what you will :default_norty:!  

DNKS, I have no doubt that we have entered into an era not only of creative book keeping but also of self disillusionment, NP included. I also have no doubt whatsoever that 19.1%  can be justified but the methodology of arriving at that percentage has to be open to question, and so it should be. No wonder that we have the level of distrust that we do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Equally I do not think a public forum is the place to pursue, for whatever reason, what seems to be some kind of personal vendetta. As I said earlier, the fact that the BA in this instance are using the money to provide for much needed moorings on that side of the Dyke, and with it I guess access to the new Visitor Centre, then I for one, will welcome it. And I will use it if space is available. Quite where the money comes from seems pretty irrelevant - it is as far as I am concerned part of the Navigation, and their duty to provide

And neither will you put me off commenting on any issue by such comments as "Get over it! " I have just as much right to state my view as you and if you think my views are a bit hackneyed in that I always support the BA, you will also know there is two sides to every argument.  In this instance I cannot really see what deserves a "public enquiry" and thats my view - and I guess the vast majority of people living in and visiting the area, as the BA are merely providing more of what is frequently asked for.

Don't forget that they have a duty to provide maintainace of existing moorings something that is sadly lacking in other areas .

That said im not too happy that you seam to be delighted at a new mooring at very likely the maintainace of existing ones , sure it all comes from the same account but surely what needs to happen first is the existing infastructure is maintaned to a decent standard , or is that just wishful thinking ? , I can think of more than one mooring that has a ability to moor more boats than this pontoon that cannot be use all due to lack of maintenance nothing else .

As for JMs apparently personal vendetta that's total rubbish , many people feel the same way or haven't you noticed ? .

Sooner or later people will get so fed up with this attitude from BA yr in yr out that they will take direct action .

Sitting on the fence is fine but it achieves absolutely nothing , if your content to do that then fine , but trust me others are definitely not prepared to do the same .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D46 said:

As for JMs apparently personal vendetta that's total rubbish , many people feel the same way or haven't you noticed ? .

I couldn't word it any better if I tried!  Thank you D46.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I respectfully suggest a bit of therapy:

Try typing out your post for the forum in a text document then when finished, put it aside and have a cup of tea (or other NON alcoholic beverage). Now re-read what you've written and ask yourself, "am I contributing positively to the argument or am I just having a go at someone else because he doesn't agree with me?"

It's beginning to get childish.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Could I respectfully suggest a bit of therapy:

Try typing out your post for the forum in a text document then when finished, put it aside and have a cup of tea (or other NON alcoholic beverage). Now re-read what you've written and ask yourself, "am I contributing positively to the argument or am I just having a go at someone else because he doesn't agree with me?"

It's beginning to get childish.

Sadly its a good way past that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for JMs apparently personal vendetta that's total rubbish , many people feel the same way

I've never thought of JM having a personal vendetta, more like championing topics that otherwise would not be brought to the wider attention of the membership.  Some of the times JM is factual some of the times just an opinion - He normally says so.  I'm glad JM keeps the likes of me informed.

Yes, I do feel the same way too

Griff

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this thread has centered on the proposed new mooring rather than tolls in general my thoughts have wandered to a different alternative.

As it would appear the main purpose behind the location is to provide easy access to the new RSPB reserve and visitor centre then maybe they should be "encouraged" to dip into their coffers and provide or contribute to the new moorings, the ones at Hoveton Great Broad nature trail are not BA so it is not without precedent.

Fred

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

As this thread has centered on the proposed new mooring rather than tolls in general my thoughts have wandered to a different alternative.

As it would appear the main purpose behind the location is to provide easy access to the new RSPB reserve and visitor centre then maybe they should be "encouraged" to dip into their coffers and provide or contribute to the new moorings, the ones at Hoveton Great Broad nature trail are not BA so it is not without precedent.

Fred

There does appear to be something of a benefit for the Broads Authority (and for boaters) in that SWT is providing somewhere to deposit the dredged waste from Oulton Broad. As we have seen in the Hickling area, such disposal facilities are often difficult to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Paladin said:

There does appear to be something of a benefit for the Broads Authority (and for boaters) in that SWT is providing somewhere to deposit the dredged waste from Oulton Broad. As we have seen in the Hickling area, such disposal facilities are often difficult to find.

Agreed but as there seems to be some mutual benefit a sharing of the cost dosn`t seem unreasonable, I did unintentionally omit that it is a SWT not RSPB reserve but I am sure the RSPB do have an interest here.

Fred

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There does appear to be something of a benefit for the Broads Authority (and for boaters) in that SWT is providing somewhere to deposit the dredged waste from Oulton Broad. As we have seen in the Hickling area, such disposal facilities are often difficult to find.

The Authority already has an extensive lagoon for spoil disposal adjacent to the Dutch Tea Gardens, that is in conjunction with SWT. On the other side of the Tea Gardens is another disposal site, on the Church marshes, this time in conjunction with the EA I believe. That aside I have absolutely no grouse with a good working relationship between BA & SWT, indeed its to be encouraged. 

And onto other issues, I would like to see the plan showing just where these new spoil disposal sites are to be located. I rather suspect it is the existing lagoon and perhaps the Wherry Dykes on Jensen's Island, both subject to previous agreements.  BA Tom, should you read this then perhaps you could look into this for us please, perhaps elicit a response from John. I do have my suspicions and would like to be proven wrong! What is this agreement between the BA & SWT? Since we are paying for this pontoon it is only reasonable that we should know.

From a boating point of view, the toll is presumably paying for it, I see no need for this second 24hr mooring in Oulton Dyke at this time. There is good access to both the SWT visitor centre and the Angles Way  footpath from Oulton Broad Yacht Station and the Tingdene marina. This project should have joined the long queue behind other more pressing mooring projects, Commissioner's Cut near Norwich for example, there is an as yet unconfirmed rumour that we are losing the 24hr mooring at Whitlingham so that would be especially pressing. Another and seemingly overlooked aspect is that of the navigation. JP has suggested that these moorings are opposite to each other. That being the case then a bottle neck is being created very close to quite a sharp bend. I'm not entirely convinced of the wisdom of increasing manouvering boat traffic at this particular location. On top of the question of need  I'm beginning  to question whether this project has been as well thought out as it might have been.

I'm afraid that JP's justifications for this mooring pontoon are leaving me entirely nonplussed with rather more questions than answers. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter, thanks for your questions, I'll follow them up .

I can answer some of your points now though:

1. Your comment about the Whitlingham moorings is just as you've written, a rumour. I've had confirmation from various members of staff that we're working towards retaining the mooring there and I know that it is in our interests to keep the current arrangement (despite the situation at Whitlingham Country Park).

2. Secondly we're not going to be ignoring Commissioner's Cut (specifically 'for at least two years' as I've read elsewhere). I have been told that we are hoping to repair and refurbish the moorings in 2020, pending it being properly budgeted and scheduled into the work plan.

Obviously we can't promise anything on either of the above but as far as I know that is the plan.

Thanks,

Tom

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


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

1. Your comment about the Whitlingham moorings is just as you've written, a rumour. I've had confirmation from various members of staff that we're working towards retaining the mooring there and I know that it is in our interests to keep the current arrangement (despite the situation at Whitlingham Country Park).

Thank you, Tom, your efforts are as ever much appreciated. I note that BA staff are working towards retaining the Whitlingham moorings. That being the case it does suggest there are questions surrounding the continuation of the existing agreement. For all our sake's I hope that that conclusion is positive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

Further to my message above:

1. The Broads Authority’s lagoon at Horseshoe Point is currently full. If BESL/EA use some of the material for crest raising then that gives us some more capacity, however there isn't any capacity at the current moment. Furthermore the disposal site at Dutch Tea Gardens is also full. We have no plans to do anything at Jensen’s Island nor at the Dutch Tea Gardens or Horseshoe Point (it's also worth noting that our recollection is that disposal of spoil at the Wherry Dykes on Jensen's Island was opposed by some members of the public in the past).

This would create a major problem because of the volumes of material in Oulton which continue to increase with every season, however we are delighted to have reached agreement with SWT to deposit material on Peto’s Marsh to create habitat of river-level reed rond – about 20,000 cubic metres. I'm not able to provide you with specific locations for the disposal sites at this moment.

2. The proposed new moorings at Peto’s Marsh are not directly opposite the pontoons at the Dutch Tea Gardens.

3. We are hoping for a favourable outcome regarding Whitlingham too. We aren't expecting there to be any issues with regards to the moorings. However saying that, as with many of our sites, we have to work with the landowner to reach a suitable arrangement and I therefore can't say it's 100% set in stone.

Thanks,

Tom

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets assume that the proposed mooring is a little further up the dyke from the Tea Garden - if so I calculate it will be nearly a 4 mile walk from the YS and back - even if it is on the corner , its still 3 miles. A number of people who may wish to enjoy it, are not really fit enough to do that. Having said that, I am not sure exactly where the pontoon will be, nor where it will be in relation to the proposed Visitor Centre. Does any one have any idea?

Not sure either that the reference to Tingdene is fair either - I doubt that will be free unless someone knows different?

We could of course carry out a poll to see who wants a mooring in the area to visit the Reserve inter alia - my guess is it not just me in approval? I could of course be wrong - equally I am not too concerned about it being too busy. It won't ever be a patch on Ranworth or How Hill in August!!:default_arms:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Although not directly relevant to the ongoing discussions in this thread, a number of individuals elsewhere online have been questioning whether we actually bother to prosecute non-payers of tolls and also what our powers are with regards to not paying.

There seems to be some friction between those who pay their toll and those who openly refuse to despite being regular users the broads system, I thought the below information provided by our Collector of Tolls would be interesting to some of you on here.

"Last season we submitted 46 non-payment cases for prosecution, 12 of those cases were settled out of court (owners paid the toll and our costs) and one case was withdrawn as the owner and the boat disappeared from the area. Of the remaining 33 cases all were found in our favour and we were awarded over £7,000 in compensation and over £4,500 in costs. Fines totalling over £9,000 were issued to non-payers.

During the current tolls year we have to date received a total of £5313.80 in compensation and old year payments.
"

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 7

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.