Jump to content

Dishonesty Regarding Toll Rise?


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I would think the 'no return within 24hrs' restriction would prevent the trip boats using the moorings.

I think that you are entirely right on that but I am mindful of a conversation between myself, JP & Trudi Wakelin on our personal aspirations for the Share Marshes. Surprisingly, to some maybe, we were in broad agreement and today we see many of those shared thoughts reaching fruition, thanks to the SWT. One of those thoughts was that either a round the island trip on such as the BA's Electric Eel at How Hill could be developed or that a 'walk & ride' circular trip could be created. The 'walk'  being to or from the nature reserve with a boat trip to complete the journey. It could really be a worthwhile and popular attraction involving both navigation and conservation, well worth thinking about, but it would require either separate, dedicated moorings or a change in 24hr mooring policies. The BA is not adverse to changing or creating policies to suit its agenda, witness amended Broads Plans over the years. We were also told 'no road signs', ha ha ha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good news perhaps?

In 2007 the BA took out a loan of £290,000 at a fixed rate of interest of 4.82% pa, to buy the dredging operation from May Gurney. It has cost something in the region of £14,000 pa in interest charges. Consideration is now being given to repaying that loan in full, using the proceeds from the sale of the Ludham Field Base and money in the Capital Receipts Reserve.

Repaying the loan early would release funds (from the capital and interest repayments) back to the navigation chest and relieve the upward pressure on tolls. There will be a consultation with the Navigation Committee in April, as the loan is regarded as 100% Navigation.

On the other hand, wasn’t dredging carried out at Hickling for conservation purposes? Perhaps the Navigation Committee should challenge this "100% Navigation" position, but I don’t hold out much hope.

Would spending the money from the Ludham Field Base sale impact the amount available for the proposed Acle Visitor Centre? I note the BA is opening a Visitor Centre at the Forum in Norwich. Is that the cheaper alternative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Would spending the money from the Ludham Field Base sale impact the amount available for the proposed Acle Visitor Centre? I note the BA is opening a Visitor Centre at the Forum in Norwich. Is that the cheaper alternative?

The Field Base dosh was apparently ring fenced for the Acle Debacle so that it has been released to pay off that loan is good news on two fronts. One being that it is no longer required for that reason, which should be good news, secondly, obviously, the loan has been paid off which sounds as if the BA has done good! 

I wonder how many boaters will visit the Forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Field Base dosh was apparently ring fenced for the Acle Debacle so that it has been released to pay off that loan is good news on two fronts. One being that it is no longer required for that reason, which should be good news, secondly, obviously, the loan has been paid off which sounds as if the BA has done good! 

I wonder how many boaters will visit the Forum?

From the draft statement of accounts 2018/19:

"This year’s sees the introduction of the Capital Receipts Reserve within the useable reserves. This reserve has been created following the sale of the Fieldbase at Ludham, previously classified as Investment Property held for Sale. This can be used for future capital purchases or the repayment of debt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

This can be used for future capital purchases or the repayment of debt."

There has been some criticism within Yare House both of the level of reserves and also the seemingly stagnant nature of the Field Base windfall. Whilst I applaud the BA for releasing the cash, better late than never, I do suspect that this logical move failed to receive universal applaus within JP Towers! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there was me thinking that the dredging of Heigham, and Hickling was carried out in the channels especially when many sailing yachts were running aground and recently to provide better access to the Pleasure Boat and Catfield Dyke! Well to me thats pretty obviously the underlying reason but no doubt someone will be along to point out to me the error of my ways!!

Again does it matter who uses the visitor centre in the Forum? However the Forum is indeed one of the main attractions for visitors to Norwich and as it is also one of the most visited public library in the country, some must be boaters- yes indeed I use the Library regularly and also avail myself of the refreshment facilities. So I suspect it may attract one or two other people as well...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, marshman said:

And there was me thinking that the dredging of Heigham, and Hickling was carried out in the channels especially when many sailing yachts were running aground and recently to provide better access to the Pleasure Boat and Catfield Dyke! Well to me thats pretty obviously the underlying reason but no doubt someone will be along to point out to me the error of my ways!!

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/world-wetlands-day-a-new-vision-for-hickling

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Pally for pointing that out - hardly surprising though that I read all of that when it came out originally!

BUT all of that cannot be achieved without the help of the dredged material, all of which is obtained, from the marked channels. Surely as Andrea Kelly acknowledges, "improved waterway depths" helps both the boatyard, the Pleasure Boat, and the sailing club and the spoil is then used in the creation of the new reedbeds. The latter I accept is conservation, but surely the dredging of the channel is improving the navigation, so why cannot the Navigation budget be used for this?

Hickling is a unique environment but dredging in that area is difficult and you should not just dump a great heap on the marshes as was done last time.

Why is it though, I cannot help but feel I am about to be told otherwise and in reality its all conservation driven - to me its a perfect partnership and the guys driving this should be congratulated!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, marshman said:

Thank you Pally for pointing that out - hardly surprising though that I read all of that when it came out originally!

BUT all of that cannot be achieved without the help of the dredged material, all of which is obtained, from the marked channels. Surely as Andrea Kelly acknowledges, "improved waterway depths" helps both the boatyard, the Pleasure Boat, and the sailing club and the spoil is then used in the creation of the new reedbeds. The latter I accept is conservation, but surely the dredging of the channel is improving the navigation, so why cannot the Navigation budget be used for this?

Hickling is a unique environment but dredging in that area is difficult and you should not just dump a great heap on the marshes as was done last time.

Why is it though, I cannot help but feel I am about to be told otherwise and in reality its all conservation driven - to me its a perfect partnership and the guys driving this should be congratulated!!!

To be fair the works do help both navigation and conservation so surely the fair way would be to split the cost to both budget's , I'll stick my neck out here and surgest a 50/50 split simply because it's perfectly possible to work an exact amount but that would require hrs of work , and likely end up with more or less the same percentage .

However this depends on what if anything  BA wish to do regarding apportioned costs , and that sadly is something members have no control over .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the dredging was done in the marked channels and was needed I would say the fact that the spoil was used for conservation is irrelevent, in fact using the spoil close to where it's dredged from cuts the cost of the dredging, that cost being from navigations budget, it also helps to grease the wheels with other agencies who may oppose dredging when getting conservation in the mix.

I'm not very pro BA but that makes sense to me.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Surely as Andrea Kelly acknowledges, "improved waterway depths" helps both the boatyard, the Pleasure Boat, and the sailing club and the spoil is then used in the creation of the new reedbeds. The latter I accept is conservation, but surely the dredging of the channel is improving the navigation, so why cannot the Navigation budget be used for this?

I have no criticism of the work done at Hickling, but the purchase of the dredging operation from May Gurney has been put 100% to the navigation budget. You have just accepted that, in the Hickling  case, there was a benefit, I would say a substantial benefit, to conservation. Such benefit sharing can be seen in other areas, the recreation of Salhouse Spit, the creation of wildlife habitat at the SWT centre at Carlton Marshes. I'm just saying that dredging is widely acknowledged to benefit conservation, so why isn't that reflected in the apportioning of the purchase cost?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

On the other hand if a conservation project, one that's been charged to conservation, also benefits navigation then perhaps navigation should dig its hand in its pocket, or would nobody agree with that?

Short answer is yes as long as it works both ways .

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been posted recently only I can't find where but I think it worth rereading and reminding ourselves where it all started to go wrong. If nothing else it might help folks understand where we are coming from:

http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/archive_speeches/broads_bill.htm?fbclid=IwAR223T2D7JshVj4lCjFax5X39G9EG31gya4oL7OgnRZsVYwfcbYidkaQ3OU

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 this post typifies what is wrong with speakers corner

,QUOTE  worth rereading and reminding ourselves where it all started to go wrong. If nothing else it might help folks understand where we are coming from:

exactly, nothing new we have read it all before, all you and others are doing is rehashing old information , yes it needs watching and i applaud you for your vigilance ,but to keep dredging up old stories just to keep yourselves and the cause in the limelight  is becoming tedious and counterproductive as well as using up bandwidth the forum pays for.at the moment it is like watching a game of ping pong,By all means discuss new information but please can we stop going round in ever decreasing circles it does nobody any favours.

have you posted the link in the  documents library thread?

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chameleon said:

 this post typifies what is wrong with speakers corner

,QUOTE  worth rereading and reminding ourselves where it all started to go wrong. If nothing else it might help folks understand where we are coming from:

exactly, nothing new we have read it all before, all you and others are doing is rehashing old information , yes it needs watching and i applaud you for your vigilance ,but to keep dredging up old stories just to keep yourselves and the cause in the limelight  is becoming tedious and counterproductive as well as using up bandwidth the forum pays for.at the moment it is like watching a game of ping pong,By all means discuss new information but please can we stop going round in ever decreasing circles it does nobody any favours.

Have you actually read it all before? As far as I can see, that link has never been posted on here. I think JennyMorgan saw it on Facebook.

“All you and others…”? That’s a very broad brush being used there. I try not to be repetitive, but sometimes facts have to be reiterated to rebut the erroneous statements that keep cropping up.

 These “old stories” are, most often, related to the history of the Broads and the historical conduct of the Broads Authority. If we don’t know, and learn from, that history, the same mistakes will be made again.

There is always a continual influx of newcomers, who haven't heard those "old stories" before, rather infamously, the new North Norfolk MP being one. After his recent excursion on the Broads with the BA CEO, he made reference to the Broads National Park. He has made an apology and said it was "an innocent mistake". But where did he get that idea from?

What should be acknowledged is that those most involved (on here and behind the scenes) in these debates tend to live in, or adjacent to, the Broads Authority’s executive area. It is therefore not just about boating. The BA has the ability to affect their everyday, non-boating, lives, but is totally unaccountable to those people, or, by all accounts, to anyone else.

Those living elsewhere in the country, and who visit the area solely for leisure, don’t run the same risks of that interference. The BNP signs going up outside the BA's executive area is just one example, but that is the subject of a different thread. But I am aware that some of those living elsewhere are also very passionate about holding the BA to account.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Have you actually read it all before? As far as I can see, that link has never been posted on here. I think JennyMorgan saw it on Facebook.

From up here on the fence: I have seen that article before. I can't remember exactly where the link came from but it was from this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, floydraser said:

From up here on the fence: I have seen that article before. I can't remember exactly where the link came from but it was from this forum.

It may well have been, but my searches didn't come up with anything. It was on FB in the past few days.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It may well have been, but my searches didn't come up with anything. It was on FB in the past few days.

Page 18 of the "other" thread, JP posted it there first. I don't do FB.

So what was the point of your last post?

That's exactly what Chameleon was on about: pointless "I'm never wrong" posts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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