Survey No1

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Hi all,

I`ve long been an advocate of Potter Heigham bridge being made passable by all those designs of boats over the decades that were originally designed and built to do so, by raising the original structure by around 10"-12".  I`m not talking about "replacement" of the bridge, but to keep its original appearance, but just raise it by a small amount.

What are your views, should the bridge be raised to allow passage of ALL those designed to do so, or left to get even lower thus disallowing an even greater number of boats to pass?.

[Maxwellian]

Left as is.

[ExSurveyor]

Left as it is, even though I have only managed to go through once in the last ten years.

[grendel]

left  as it is, even though its not getting lower, no matter what the water levels are doing

[vanessan]

12 minutes ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Left as it is, even though I have only managed to go through once in the last ten years.

Ditto - it is what it is. 

[rightsaidfred]

It wont happen so no even though it greatly affects me, there is the real world we live in and an idealistic one something we need to get used to.

Fred

[YnysMon]

I cant see that raising the bridge would be allowed due to its protected status, and even if it was allowed I can’t see where the funds would come from.

[JennyMorgan]

My thought has long been that a lock incorporated into the bridge would be a reasonable way forward.

[Lulu]

No, leave well alone providing its safe. 

[Guest]

No, leave it alone.

[Ray]

A bit reluctantly I agree it's better to leave the bridge itself alone, as I would love to go upstream of it.

 

[grendel]

if i am on the rivers and headed that side of the bridge Ray (or anyone) you are welcome to come along for a look-see i will be spending probably the monday after the may meet cruising around up there, you could moor up one side of the bridge and i could pick you up the other side?

[D46]

Leave it alone , not that it could be made higher anyway it's listed .

[Polly]

Leave it alone. 

[YnysMon]

So, what would raising it achieve? Just to make that area no different to every other area of the Broads. You do have the option to visit the place, as we all have. Do what we did a couple of years ago and hire a day boat, or as Grendel has shown, hiring above the bridge is still possible.

It’s special, why destroy that?

By the way, when we had almost completed our day boat outing and were returning to Whispering Reeds boatyard, we passed Broad Ambition as she was reversing out of the pub dyke on Hickling.

(Dare I whisper...Wroxham Bridge?)

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, D46 said:

Leave it alone , not that it could be made higher anyway it's listed .

Yeah, judging by the side arches listed to one side 

[floydraser]

Leave it alone because we would all have to pay for it one way or another.

If it were commercially viable, someone would design a modern boat to go through as it is: Inflatable roof as per modern tent and caravan awning technology?

[Smoggy]

7 hours ago, floydraser said:

Inflatable roof as per modern tent and caravan awning technology?

Or a de-flatable hull would have similar effect.

[grendel]

how about a semi submersible hull (of course water depth would limit you too then

[Broads01]

My view is also leave it alone. It's one of the Broads' iconic landmarks so it should be preserved as is and not altered in any way. The only action I would favour would be dredging or similar that improved the air draft without touching the bridge. However if I recall previous discussions I gathered there's no certainty dredging would have any impact. 

[rightsaidfred]

9 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

My view is also leave it alone. It's one of the Broads' iconic landmarks so it should be preserved as is and not altered in any way. The only action I would favour would be dredging or similar that improved the air draft without touching the bridge. However if I recall previous discussions I gathered there's no certainty dredging would have any impact. 

Agreed, while I am also in favour of dredging for its various purposes the more I look around the more variables I see and I am becoming more and more convinced that there are a number of factors involved none of which in themselves would make a major differences but combined make all the difference.

While we can discuss this to our hearts content, no harm in that, at the end of the day we are going to have to accept things are what they are.

Fred

[Meantime]

Leave it alone. Maybe we could have a survey to see if any one has conclusive proof that the bridge has actually sunk in the last few decades!

[MauriceMynah]

It all rather depends on the reason or reasons the clearance has reduced as Fred so rightly says. As part of BA's job is to look after the navigation, I feel they are the ones who should investigate it.

If the bridge is sinking (and I have to admit to doubting this) then various options would have to be considered, but raising the bridge is not one I would favour. It is an ancient monument and should be treated as such.

So, basically I would say that working on the bridge itself should only be done if it is in danger, otherwise, no. Other solutions need to be found 

[TheQ]

it would probably be easier to build a by pass round the back of the chalets opposite HW., or to be really radical, Join Barton Broad to Catfield Dyke..

[rightsaidfred]

5 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

So, basically I would say that working on the bridge itself should only be done if it is in danger, otherwise, no. Other solutions need to be found 

Other solutions, not sure what, so who is going to finance them as there are no cheap easy alternatives, given the boats they are now building I doubt the hire industry would be interested, not the BA without a large increase in tolls not the EA or Highways Departments they have no vested interest added to which there would probably be a large protest campaign by the conservation groups, sorry but I think this is something we have to learn to live with.

Fred