Survey No 2

[rightsaidfred]

4 hours ago, ChrisB said:

Since 1900 the sea level has risen about 6.5 ins but it is the rapid rate of rise recently that is of most concern. About 3 ins of that 6.5 has occured between 1993 and 2016. There are very many factors that effect sea level, it is not simple but I trully believe that the trend is up. 

As I said elsewhere you cannot compare Potter and Beccles. The first is inch critical with a tiny tidal range Beccles can easily have a couple of feet and more.

I am not sure how relevant this is but does anyone now if and by how much the normal level has changed at Hickling over the years, if the change at PH is down to sea levels then the water table at Hickling should have changed as well.

Fred

[Polly]

No.

 

[JanetAnne]

6 hours ago, grendel said:

Griff in the 70's and 80's the water levels were unusually low to be fair, if you look at the water levels graph, there was a big dip in those decades, this may be where your memories stem from. i am sure i had a chart showing this from the last time we had this discussion

There may have been a dip in the 70's and 80's but those Supreme Commander 's along with my Chloe Jane et al were all built and fitted week after week long before the 70's dip happened.

Check any period Blakes or Hoseasons  catalogue and you will see which boats normally fitted.. most of the fleet IIRC!

[JennyMorgan]

Fred, please understand that this is not the definitive answer but I do think that it has a glimmer of truth behind it. Somewhere in the general locality of the Broad, as I understand it, salt water does have an effect on the water-table, indeed the pressure of the salt water apparently forces red-ocher out into the water that feeds the Broad. The weight of the salt water in the North Sea must then surely  affect the level of the Broad. Dr Martin George's epic epistle should make my muddled thinking more clear!

 

[JanetAnne]

Oops... can someone delete the repeats.... 

 

done

[Polly]

Is there an echo in your shed JA ? 

[JennyMorgan]

9 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

Oops... can someone delete the repeats.... 

Perhaps someone could ask that of the BBC?

[JanetAnne]

8 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

If the BA were NOT to allow Potter Heigham bridge to be raised back to a proper usable height, do you think it fair that ALL boats that were originally designed and built, and regularly used to, but no longer can transit the bridge, pay a lower toll than those that can, who in turn should pay a higher toll to redress the possible loss in the revinue the BA will stand to lose?.

I was forced to pay three years toll on a Lady class broads yacht we had moored in Catfield dyke. Due to lack of dredging we couldn't get her out over the bar that had formed in the entrance.  Tried a few times but nope. So three years toll for a boat we couldn't use and three years inactivity which caused damage we couldn't get her out of the water and maintain because she was stuck there.  

We felt held to ransom by the BA.

Anyway, on a flood one day we managed to get her out the dyke and then out the water. Sadly there is now more work than I can commit to and so she either needs a new home or it will be another one lost.

In answer to ST's question though, if we all pay the same rates we have the same rites to moorings facilities etc. There has been noise about the wooden boats having a concession but I don't think that's a good idea. There would always be someone out there saying move off that mooring coz I have paid for it and you haven't! 

[Smoggy]

No leave the bridge well alone, it was there before any boat that is still on the broads and while the smug gits on smaller cramped boats are that side of the blockage they are not in my way on the proper southern rivers....

[rightsaidfred]

10 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Fred, please understand that this is not the definitive answer but I do think that it has a glimmer of truth behind it. Somewhere in the general locality of the Broad, as I understand it, salt water does have an effect on the water-table, indeed the pressure of the salt water apparently forces red-ocher out into the water that feeds the Broad. The weight of the salt water in the North Sea must then surely  affect the level of the Broad. Dr Martin George's epic epistle should make my muddled thinking more clear!

 

Thanks JM seeing a brief extract somewhat confirms my thoughts although I still don't know if the levels have changed appreciably.

Looking around I have also found this https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/411867/Thurne_Research.pdf 

the following extract may or may not give additional clues.

The movement of water and salt within the rivers and broads.

Water and salt being discharged from the land drainage pumps form the main source of water and salt entering the River Thurne from its catchment;  Constrictions within the river system, principally at Potter Heigham old bridge, where the narrow openings within the bridge impede both the downstream and upstream movement of water (depending upon tidal conditions);  The role of the land drainage pumps changes with the tides – reducing salinities during extreme tides but increasing background salinity during normal tides.

Fred

 

[Poppy]

18 hours ago, SwanR said:

Plus it’s not just this one bridge that many boats can’t get under. The introduction of the pilot at Wroxham means that access to Coltishall is often restricted when you’re on a hire boat. And out of bounds when you hire out of season. 

Then there’s Wayford Bridge. Do less boats get under there now too?

No. Fewer.....

[Meantime]

The short answer is no. There are so many ways in which the toll could be altered to make it fairer to some groups, but them others would be upset. We could have a North or South only toll, or a combined. Perhaps a toll by days or miles usage would be fairer. All systems would have winners and losers. When you buy your boat you know the limits of where that boat can go. Why do wider beam boats pay more than narrow beam boats? Surely it is the length at moorings that counts? What about a reduction in toll for those boats too wide to use the Chet, offset by an increase for those able to navigate the Chet? Altering the tolls to suit one group is a minefield best avoided.

However if would be fairer to remove the differential in toll for those flappy things.

[MauriceMynah]

19 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

If the BA were NOT to allow Potter Heigham bridge to be raised back to a proper usable height, do you think it fair that ALL boats that were originally designed and built, and regularly used to, but no longer can transit the bridge, pay a lower toll than those that can, who in turn should pay a higher toll to redress the possible loss in the revinue the BA will stand to lose?.

No, I don't see that as a reasonable proposition. I am a bachelor and have no offspring, yet my tax was higher than it would have been had I both wed and bred. What is my tax spent on? Educating other peoples kids (amongst other things) So I am well used to paying for resources that others can use.

I used to own a boat on the canal system but it was over 6' 10" so couldn't use all the canals. Was my toll reduced? The hell it was!

[webntweb]

12 hours ago, JanetAnne said:

There may have been a dip in the 70's and 80's but those Supreme Commander 's along with my Chloe Jane et al were all built and fitted week after week long before the 70's dip happened.

Check any period Blakes or Hoseasons  catalogue and you will see which boats normally fitted.. most of the fleet IIRC!

I couldn't get under on Crusader 1 in 1963, Constellation 2 in 1964 & 1966, Admiral 7 in 1982 (all wooden centre cockpits) or Meadow Saffron (Alpha 42 centre) in 1986 . . .

. . . maybe I was just unlucky with my timing!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

59 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

No, I don't see that as a reasonable proposition. I am a bachelor and have no offspring, yet my tax was higher than it would have been had I both wed and bred. What is my tax spent on? Educating other peoples kids (amongst other things) So I am well used to paying for resources that others can use.

I used to own a boat on the canal system but it was over 6' 10" so couldn't use all the canals. Was my toll reduced? The hell it was!

Some interesting points there John, and although I disagree in a certain way, I respect your (and everybody elses) opinion. But your post just increases my belief that if "the person" DOES'NT use something, they shouldn't be expected to pay for it. Like you, Karen and I have no children, and it really bugs me to have to pay into the education system. And before people claim that's what my tax is paying for, my parents worked hard and payed their taxes for my education. 

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Some interesting points there John, and although I disagree in a certain way, I respect your (and everybody elses) opinion. But your post just increases my belief that if "the person" DOES'NT use something, they shouldn't be expected to pay for it. Like you, Karen and I have no children, and it really bugs me to have to pay into the education system. And before people claim that's what my tax is paying for, my parents worked hard and payed their taxes for my education. 

So if hypothetically someone has four children should they pay more in tax than someone who has none, or maybe only one or two? Remember it's those children who will be paying taxes in a generation of so that will be paying your and mine state pension. Maybe they should get greater tax relief the more children they have, and then we could all have bigger pensions? All swings and roundabouts. I don't have children, but someone paid for my education and I'm more than happy to pay into the education system. The same goes for the toll system. Leave it alone it suits the majority. Although as someone who rarely uses BA moorings maybe I should get a reduction for that? or as someone with a Broads boat that really shouldn't venture salt side of Mutford Lock perhaps a reduction in toll for never using the lock. I could go on and on with examples that would suit me personally, but the toll system has to suit the majority and rightly so.

[Smoggy]

You get a reduction for not using mutford lock already, about £13 reduction each time you don't use it.

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

You get a reduction for not using mutford lock already, about £13 reduction each time you don't use it.

I think you'll find the fee for using the lock doesn't come anywhere near to it's maintenance and running costs. The rest comes out of the navigation budget!

[JennyMorgan]

'JP' refers to the DEFRA grant as the national park grant. On a previous occasion DEFRA increased their grant by £1.5 million over three years in order to help towards the backlog of maintenance, inevitably JP hived much of it off for other projects, like staff car parking, but that is another story. In other words there is a precedent for using the so called NP grant towards the costs of Mutford Lock.  As with a number of projects on the Broads their purpose is not just for navigation. Dredging at Hickling, for example, is as much about conservation as it is navigation thus the cost should be shared. If Mutford Lock were to be closed then the effect on the Waveney and Oulton Broad would be immense. There are heritage as well as conservation issues involved, once again a fair justification for cost sharing.

[charlesa]

no

[BroadsAuthority]

*Moved*

[MauriceMynah]

If by "*Moved*" you mean what I think you mean by "*Moved*" Then I shall get to sleep tonight very easily by trying to count how many cats you have set amongst how many pigeons.  

[grendel]

Tom reposted his response  in the correct survey thread, and edited the original post in the wrong place to say moved, if thats what you mean MM, quite simple really

[BroadsAuthority]

4 minutes ago, grendel said:

Tom reposted his response  in the correct survey thread, and edited the original post in the wrong place to say moved, if thats what you mean MM, quite simple really

Correct @grendel, that'll teach me for having two tabs open 

[grendel]

only two, lucky you, I have 3 screens on my work machine and still run out of places to open things. I can have 3 or 4 tabs of the forum open when I am doing work in the background.