Jump to content

Brundall Church Fen


D46

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

I wonder why BA have not taken over these two additional moorings, given the relative lack of moorings on this stretch of river, making them 24 hour would deter people from taking up residence and provide additional space for everyone.

The reason is very likely that to make them a BA mooring would mean a considerable expense to BA in signage / safety ladder and chain's , to say nothing of the fact in wet weather the top surface is extremely slippery hence my warning to others in my original post , there's also the matter of the fact they were created under DP16 so highly unlikely can be adopted .

I don't think in all honesty these moorings suffer any more than other moorings infact some BA moorings suffer far more .

The important thing is here that the confusion as to responsibility for the moorings has been established as confusion was quite obvious in recent weeks .

Regarding moorings on that stretch the only loss of mooring has been river green which incidentally is still available but now under council control , infact the situation has improved with the addition of BAs Short Dyke mooring at Rockland .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, D46 said:

The reason is very likely that to make them a BA mooring would mean a considerable expense to BA in signage / safety ladder and chain's , to say nothing of the fact in wet weather the top surface is extremely slippery hence my warning to others in my original post , there's also the matter of the fact they were created under DP16 so highly unlikely can be adopted .

You would think that BA would insist that any mooring created under planning requirements would have to be up to the standard that they provide themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smoggy said:

It's worth pointing out that the boat in the piccie looking like an overstayer is normally moored just upstream of the moorings where the broad is blocked off and not on the church fen moorings themselves before anyone judges them too harshly.

At least I now know what these so called overstayers are presumed to look like ! 

To be fair it's anyone's position to judge others regardless of what they are sailing in , the judgement of overstaying fall to the authority not members here as it's the authority that have the rights to impose penltys , I have always felt if you feel you need to report any thing then make that report to the relivent authority rather than possibly jumping to conclusions on socal media .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

You would think that BA would insist that any mooring created under planning requirements would have to be up to the standard that they provide themselves.

And yet it isn't as surely you must know , that top surface is really very bad news in the wet and it totally amazes me how anti slip is on the boardwalk and not on the quay heading.

The fact is BA moorings are public and that's very likely why there's a difference between the 2 , I would very much doubt that any other moorings under DP16 have exactly the same safety aspects as BA moorings as they too are considered a private concern , that doesn't mean however that these moorings are in anyway private as no doubt that would go against the original DP16 consent , it only means they are managed privately .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smoggy said:

It's worth pointing out that the boat in the piccie looking like an overstayer is normally moored just upstream of the moorings where the broad is blocked off and not on the church fen moorings themselves before anyone judges them too harshly.

When we moored at Brundall the boat in the pic turned up at Brooms service point after the staff had finished at 6 pm to fill up with free water.

Well it was free to them; the rest of us paid for it in our mooring fees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

surely this isnt about the boat in the picture, that was just incidental to the topic of the moorings as it happened to be moored at that point when the picture was taken, it could have been any boat. so lets not stray into the realms of the tos by naming and shaming, and concentrate on the topic of the moorings.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, webntweb said:

When we moored at Brundall the boat in the pic turned up at Brooms service point after the staff had finished at 6 pm to fill up with free water.

Well it was free to them; the rest of us paid for it in our mooring fees.

Hold on up and till recently water was free at brooms only of late have they made a charge , now explain how you know the reason for arriving a 6 pm ? Or is that pure guess work , those that moor at brooms do not in anyway subsidise others infact you get subsidises as in discounted fuel , so does that mean those that fill up there and don't moor there subsidise those that do moor there ????? .

This is exactly the type of thing I ment in making judgments onless you are 100% sure you know something untoward has accured then it's better not to judge .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, D46 said:

The fact is BA moorings are public and that's very likely why there's a difference between the 2 , I would very much doubt that any other moorings under DP16 have exactly the same safety aspects as BA moorings as they too are considered a private concern , that doesn't mean however that these moorings are in anyway private as no doubt that would go against the original DP16 consent , it only means they are managed privately .

We have estblished that the moorings are not public moorings.

We know they are private moorings built by the marina.

No signs exist that say you can moor there.

A fee is not charged to moor and no contact details are shown as to who you should contact to gain permission to moor as is common with Barnes and others.

If someone moors there, they obviously do so at their own liability as no contract exists and no permission is given.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would presume if you needed to ask, then there would be a sign to that effect, and if mooring wasnt allowed, then likewise a sign would say so.

Plus the OP has taken the time to contact the relevant authorities to ascertain these moorings status to post here along with the permission to relay this data to the rest of us, so I would think that the data as relayed to us is correct.

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

Having passed these moorings yesterday lunchtime I can confirm the boats in the picture are on the upstream section that belong to Brundall Gardens Marina.

The moorings at Thorpe River Green will be restricted to about a quarter as the rest is to be let as private moorings for boats ( the western end ) and commercial day hire boats ( the eastern end ). The 24 hour  with no return within 48 hours will be the section near the war memorial and the willow. Overstaying and mooring in the wrong area will incur serious financial penalties. So please be careful should you intend mooring there.

I would like to reiterate just how slippery the moorings are having been on both Bramerton and Commissoners Cut in the last couple of days. Be extra careful if your playing boats at the moment.

Colin :default_beerchug:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of signage either way would not confer liability on the marina any more than mooring in front of the new house would, ( yes people do try to)

The moorings are provided but clearly not managed.

The OP raised concerns about the surface being slippery, therefore caution should be exercised.

The lack of signage may be as a result of not implying liability and the owners are not fools.

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

But that doesn't give an automatic right to use them, the same as Barnes, you have to ask first,

The way I see it is this , these moorings came about under DP16 and we're built by the local quay head builder cost payed by the marina , I'm fairly sure that under DP16 mooring cannot be disallowed but you can guarantee I'm now going to go more legwork to check with BA as I can't find the relevant documents on BAs website (but I know someone who could no doubt ) .

Incidentally the only people I've ever seen doing anything to maintain that upstream stretch were there on behalf of brundall parish council so clearly they have a hand in this too .

I'd love to know exactly how you ask the marina given there's no phone no given or any clue as to who maintans these moorings but they are definitely not managed by BA that you can be sure of .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago the bit of footpath at the railway end of the boardwalk was almost impassible. I e-mailed the parish council, and got a very pleasant reply, to say thanks for letting us know, it's our responsibility, and we'll deal with it. Which they certainly did. I don't know whether the actual boardwalk is managed by them, but I can't see them getting involved with the moorings, especially as they are on private land, and constructed by the landowner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

The lack of signage either way would not confer liability on the marina any more than mooring in front of the new house would, ( yes people do try to)

The moorings are provided but clearly not managed.

The OP raised concerns about the surface being slippery, therefore caution should be exercised.

The lack of signage may be as a result of not implying liability and the owners are not fools.

 

Seriously ??? Implying that anyone who has a fall there is a fool is not on , its incredibly easy .

No as I said I'm definitely up for getting to the bottom of this once and for all and to be perfectly honest my original information post for the benefit of members has turn it to both shaming people with no knowledge and now guessing as to the legality of mooring there and liability , to say nothing of calling those caught out by a very slippery surface ( in the wet ) as total fools .

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, D46 said:

I'd love to know exactly how you ask the marina given there's no phone no given or any clue as to who maintans these moorings but they are definitely not managed by BA that you can be sure of .

And that is one way of not giving formal permission and therefore not assuming liability if they are not maintained.

The marina quay headings are maintained, jet washed frequently and have non slip surfaces. They know they are liable for these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Regulo said:

A couple of years ago the bit of footpath at the railway end of the boardwalk was almost impassible. I e-mailed the parish council, and got a very pleasant reply, to say thanks for letting us know, it's our responsibility, and we'll deal with it. Which they certainly did. I don't know whether the actual boardwalk is managed by them, but I can't see them getting involved with the moorings, especially as they are on private land, and constructed by the landowner.

But they do but only in as far as trimming back the trees etc .

With regards to the council I have always found them to be extremely quick in sorting problems usually within 2 weeks .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

And that is one way of not giving formal permission and therefore not assuming liability if they are not maintained.

The marina quay headings are maintained, jet washed frequently and have non slip surfaces. They know they are liable for these.

Well I'll wait go see what BA say regarding that as they definitely were gifted under a planning regulation .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he does have a point there d46, he said the owners were not fools (by not admitting ownership / responsibility), not implied that anyone who slipped was a fool, I suggest you see if you can find what the owners are responsible for under the d16 agreement and report back to us, so can we all calm down now and get that useful information that will benefit anyone wanting to moor there.

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

2 hours ago, D46 said:

Hold on up and till recently water was free at brooms only of late have they made a charge , now explain how you know the reason for arriving a 6 pm ? Or is that pure guess work , those that moor at brooms do not in anyway subsidise others infact you get subsidises as in discounted fuel , so does that mean those that fill up there and don't moor there subsidise those that do moor there ????? .

This is exactly the type of thing I ment in making judgments onless you are 100% sure you know something untoward has accured then it's better not to judge .

Not pure guess work. Our mooring was on the fuel quay and I was there when the boat turned up at 6.15 pm, and as it is only moored a 10 minute cruise away it doesn't take much to work out that the timing was intentional.

I didn't say that Brooms charged for water. What I said was that as moorers at Brooms the cost of water would be built into everybody's mooring fees.

With regard to you statement re fuel discount - that is totally irrelevant to what I was posting about.

As for your last paragraph I was there so I am 100% sure of what happened. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, webntweb said:

Not pure guess work. Our mooring was on the fuel quay and I was there when the boat turned up at 6.15 pm, and as it is only moored a 10 minute cruise away it doesn't take much to work out that the timing was intentional.

I didn't say that Brooms charged for water. What I said was that as moorers at Brooms the cost of water would be built into everybody's mooring fees.

With regard to you statement re fuel discount - that is totally irrelevant to what I was posting about.

As for your last paragraph I was there so I am 100% sure of what happened. 

But it is guess work you didn't see it leave that mooring it could have traveled from anywhere to get to broom and you simply don't know if it did or not .

Regarding fuels discount for berth holders it's entirely relivent as you accused others of being subsidise by berth holders regarding water all it is is a different liquid nothing else .

If brooms didn't change got water at that point please enlighten me as to how it's any of your business as to who can fill up and who can't , after all it make no difference if it's out side of hrs or not it wasn't charged for at that time .

Maybe you if it was such a big issue should have complained to brooms and not afterwards on here , without as I'm sure you know any evidence at all as to if that boat traveled the distance you claim .

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.