Fishing At St Benet's Abbey.

[NeilB]

The issue appears to involve the Enviroment Agency who own the pilings but will no longer maintain them due to the new flood defences.  I'm wondering if there are any other moorings that could have the same issue when leases become due for renewal?

Does the land belong to the Church?

[JennyMorgan]

It is a situation that could and should have been acknowledged and allowed for years ago, indeed when details and plans for the Broads Flood Alleviation were drawn up. Funds could also have been ring fenced for the predictable situation that we now find ourselves. 

[marshman]

OK I agree - but would you have been very happy for a special levy on tolls for an unknown amount at some stage in the future?? Methinks not!!

Its ok Pete, I will leave you to your usual demolition job without full knowledge of all the facts and details!!!!

[BroadAmbition]

but would you have been very happy for a special levy on tolls for an unknown amount at some stage in the future?? 

And why not? every year it seems the Ba increase tolls above the rate of inflation for a 'Special one off' so another one would just be added to all the previous 'Special one offs', the excuses have become the norm and expected nowadays.

Then of course the above inflation rise is exacerbated as the next one coming above inflation rise is on top of previous above inflation rises 

I'm not sure I have written the above kinda correctly in proper Yorkshire speak, but I'm sure you will get my drift

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

16 minutes ago, marshman said:

OK I agree - but would you have been very happy for a special levy on tolls for an unknown amount at some stage in the future?? Methinks not!!

The Authority has long built up reserves, thankfully, witness Covid 19 for example. What I suggested is that this present situation was inevitable, wholly predictable. Yes, an avaricious landlord is involved but it does seem as if negotiations were left to what is seemingly the last moment. Money was ringfenced for the Acle Debacle, the end of this lease was at least predictable.  

[vanessan]

This sounds horribly like it could go the same way as the Thurne Mouth moorings. We can but hope things will be sorted out satisfactorily. 

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, vanessan said:

This sounds horribly like it could go the same way as the Thurne Mouth moorings. We can but hope things will be sorted out satisfactorily. 

I rather fear that you are right. I also fear that this won't be the last such potential mooring loss.  I do wonder if the Authority engages suitably qualified agents to deal with such matters or whether they deal with it in-house. If I understand matters correctly Thurne Mouth was also down to other, rather unfortunate factors.

We mustn't forget that the Environment Agency and the landowner also both share a great deal of responsibility for this particular, unhappy situation. 

[RS2021]

It sounds like the BA and landowners can easily come to an arrangement when someone else (e.g. the EA) is responsible for the capital cost of the mooring facility (steel piles). But for a 'free' mooring neither the landowner, nor the BA can afford to take it on as a mooring. Are alternative solutions for it either to become a paid mooring (run either by the landowner or the BA), or for the hire yards to club together and lease it? Otherwise the landowner has a better option to lease it for fishing, after all it gives them an income with little outgoings?

Having said all that, having done most of my boating on the canals I'm puzzled that the EA would take away the piling. On the canals piling is seen as a very cost effective means of bank protection. Not wildlife friendly, but very cost effective. Why is it seen differently on the Broads?

[vanessan]

3 minutes ago, RS2021 said:

I'm puzzled that the EA would take away the piling.

I believe that’s exactly what happened at Thurne Mouth when the issue couldn’t be resolved. 

[Bayleaf]

12 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

It is a situation that could and should have been acknowledged and allowed for years ago, indeed when details and plans for the Broads Flood Alleviation were drawn up. Funds could also have been ring fenced for the predictable situation that we now find ourselves. 

The EA had obviously planned ahead for the reshaping of the banks as they quickly erected platforms for their stakeholders ( anglers ) to gain easy access to the water!

[Mouldy]

Good to see that after more than three months of lockdown and minimal river traffic, this issue becomes apparent just before what could be the busiest season on The Broads for years.  The shortage of moorings is already an issue on both Northern and Southern rivers and the potential loss of spaces for circa 25 craft along the Bure isn’t going to help.

So much for the carefree holiday that is advertised when fighting for moorings becomes as difficult as looking for town centre car parking spaces on a busy Saturday!!

[RS2021]

24 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Good to see that after more than three months of lockdown and minimal river traffic, this issue becomes apparent just before what could be the busiest season on The Broads for years.  The shortage of moorings is already an issue on both Northern and Southern rivers and the potential loss of spaces for circa 25 craft along the Bure isn’t going to help.

So much for the carefree holiday that is advertised when fighting for moorings becomes as difficult as looking for town centre car parking spaces on a busy Saturday!!

Given the iconic nature of this location and its position at the heart of the Northern rivers, I can see this generating serious adverse publicity for the BA well beyond the usual Broads forums if they haven't got at least a temporary fix to open all these moorings for when lockdown lifts on 12 April. I don't think the 'double mooring is permitted' will wash in these Covid times. 

[vanessan]

21 minutes ago, RS2021 said:

don't think the 'double mooring is permitted' will wash in these Covid times. 

Funny how double mooring wasn’t allowed last season but we are now reminded by the BA that it is allowed at St Benet’s. Covid hasn’t gone away and we will still need to act cautiously for a while yet. This is a really poor situation and one that needs sorting asap.

[JennyMorgan]

So what is the solution? It's been known for several years that the EA favour a 'soft bank' solution to bank protection on the Broads. The Authority has, in several places, recognised this and has installed pontoon moorings, as it could have at Thurne and potentially do so at St Bennets.

As for rent, especially as the land in question, wet and muddy, has little value in a commercial sense. It's excellent for anglers and bird watchers, that's about it. For the boating community it only has value where mooring facilities are provided, and the EA proposes removing them unless the BA is prepared to take on the responsibility. I don't state that as a fact but it is a probability.

Meanwhile, the landowner's asset is devalued if the EA removes the piling. So how should it be valued? If I were the landlord I would wish to see the rent increase on an annual basis relative to inflation, inflation being based on the BA's perception of inflation, e.g. the annual increase on the tolls. The BA is presumably basing its idea of a fair rent on the cost of taking on the responsibility of the piling. Perhaps the issue should go to arbitration.

So, if the BA takes on the responsibility of the mooring facilities, who should pay for it? The boating industry is dependent on the provision of moorings for its clients, either hirers or purchasers of ex hire craft. Perhaps it is time to increase the hireboat multiplier? Perhaps it is time to introduce a visitor tax? Perhaps a surcharge to use the 24hr moorings, if that surcharge is not paid then the boat wishing to moor will have to go elsewhere. Maybe a predatory car-parking management company could take over the 24hr moorings, heaven forbid? Any other or better ideas?

I don't think it is simply a case of hiking up the tolls. After all a great many of us rarely, and sometimes never, use the 24hr moorings, just as we never use those blessed power plug in things. My view is that those who use these facilities should take on a greater financial responsibility for their use. Unless a business provides 'free car parking' we have to pay to park our cars, why should it be any different for boaters? 

Is there an easy answer? Probably not. 

Has this issue been well handled? You decide! 

[Cheesey69]

As always it’s the boater who suffers. As has been said before, the BA has got to beef its self awareness up and start striding for those it’s supposed to be supporting. 
moorings are getting critical but hey we have a great visitor center. 
These things don’t just happen 

[JennyMorgan]

17 minutes ago, Cheesey69 said:

 . . . . . moorings are getting critical but hey we have a great visitor center . . . . . 

The Authority comes over as keen to do what it wants to do but sometimes regretfully rather less keen to do what it has to do.

[Londonlad1985]

11 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Maybe a predatory car-parking management company could take over the 24hr moorings, heaven forbid?"

"Unless a business provides 'free car parking' we have to pay to park our cars, why should it be any different for boaters?"

A great idea, it's incredibly effective at raising money for local authorities, it's the 3rd biggest income generator next to business rates and council tax for most London boroughs. It's also pretty effective at keeping designated spaces free of those not supposed to be there. There'll always be those few rule breakers that chance their arm to nip to the shops and get caught, and they effectively pay for the schemes. The new mooring attendants could get a smart navy blue uniform with a yellow banded, peaked hat! 😉 

Of course the money generated must be ring fenced for navigation purposes and the least polluting vessels should pay the least to moor. 😃 

 

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, Londonlad1985 said:

A great idea, it's incredibly effective at raising money for local authorities, it's the 3rd biggest income generator next to business rates and council tax for most London boroughs. It's also pretty effective at keeping designated spaces free of those not supposed to be there. There'll always be those few rule breakers that chance their arm to nip to the shops and get caught, and they effectively pay for the schemes. The new mooring attendants could get a smart navy blue uniform with a yellow banded, peaked hat! 😉 

Of course the money generated must be ring fenced for navigation purposes and the least polluting vessels should pay the least to moor. 😃 

 

Treating car parking as a cash cow is one of the factors that has done for many of our high streets.  Extend this to boating and you will likely have an exodus of customers. People nowadays want to know what their holiday is going to cost them when they book and many favour "all inclusive" packages and not be faced with hidden and significant charges to moor where there are, frankly, no amenities other than a stretch of river bank. 

More worryingly, what does the widespread creation of all the "flood relief" channels mean for all the other miles of riverbank that have EA quay heading and where one can moor today? Will the EA walk away from these and will this crisis be repeated time and again?

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, Londonlad1985 said:

The new mooring attendants could get a smart navy blue uniform with a yellow banded, peaked hat! 😉 

Naaa, surely it would have to be a regulation NP style, wide brimmed blue floppy hat, even a macho cowboy hat, complete with yellow band and maybe even a blue flashing light on top. 

[JennyMorgan]

3 minutes ago, SteveO said:

More worryingly, what does the widespread creation of all the "flood relief" channels mean for all the other miles of riverbank that have EA quay heading and where one can moor today? Will the EA walk away from these and will this crisis be repeated time and again?

Potentially the answer is a big, fat YES hence leaving it to the last minute to find an answer is hardly wise. Okay, so negotiations at St Benet's  have been going on for a couple of years but nevertheless an answer doesn't appear to have been found and here we are at the last minute.

[grendel]

I see an awful lot of supposition based on very few facts, so I will add , what if the moon crashed down on the broads and sank all the boats, what would the BA possible do, and would it be their fault. in some quarters I am sure the view would be they should have anticipated it would happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-)

[vanessan]

48 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Treating car parking as a cash cow is one of the factors that has done for many of our high streets.  Extend this to boating and you will likely have an exodus of customers.

Maybe ultimately that’s the plan..................🤔

[marshman]

Just to cheer you all up negotiations to reopen the footpath from Ludham Bridge to St Benets along the "new" river bank took rather longer than a couple of years!!! Not sure if it was the same landowner or not, but that issue took 6/7 or perhaps more, years to resolve!!

If as Peter says they have been talking for a couple of years ( have they?) then clearly they did anticipate this? Hoveton Viaduct took a long time, but as Grendel says, we just don't know the details, fact or fiction. As to value again PW is right its not of great value to the landowner and in addition I am sure the District Valuer will be involved somewhere  to add another complexity! Do we even know when the Lease comes to an end - perhaps they may only be making temporary repairs.

Incidentally I understand that the land between the new bank and the piling at Stalham Staithe has collapsed and a portion is taped off - that will be either the Town Council or Norfolk County Council. Another one for the legal beavers to work out but knowing NCC that will take forever but I guess the BA will take the blame!!!!

Just when you thought that had been sorted......!!!!!

 

[Bytheriver]

Looks like the St Benets problem has arisen due to a change of ownership - clearly not a public sale & BA were not aware of it & have subsequently offered to purchase but its going to be a case of watch this space. There was a lengthy discussion this morning & the lease for the moorings has some years to run but not currently long enough to warrant commitment to a repair at this stage. Approx half of the moorings are not available  due to safety concerns 

[grendel]

thanks for relaying the facts from the meeting BytheRiver, that at least blows some of the above theories out of the water (particularly my moon crashing down one) so we see there are some years left to run on the lease, so no leaving it to the last minute there then, the problem is that some of the moorings require repair, but, understandably the BA dont want to waste money bringing the moorings up to scratch just for the landowner to decide not to renew the lease.(sounds sensible to me, and the Authority being careful with our toll money).