Jump to content

Fishing At St Benet's Abbey.


Recommended Posts

There are still some aspects of this story which don't ring true. Specifically the part about the land being sold 12 months ago without anyone's knowledge. If it was two private people I could believe it, but the seller was the Crown Estate. I always thought that any government body disposing of assets (in this case land) would have to do so in a very public way, publishing details is appropriate journals etc. The fact that the BA had no knowledge of it seems odd. The fact that a local business man (James Knight) who I'm sure would have his 'ear to the ground' did not know about it seems even odder.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Pete, I do think we got it wrong!

OK the BA did not keep everyone in the loop in perhaps giving out all the info they knew, but realistically there was not a lot they could have altered to what is going on - that is once again for the EA and the new landowner to sort out. Neither you or I would be any further on than we are today had we known all about this from Day One - what would have changed.

The BA have said they would have bought if they could, they have said they will assume responsibility for the piling - what else was it you wanted? People have this view that somehow they should be involved in every asset negotiation but you know thats unrealistic.

Despite what you say, I am not sure what the BA can do whilst there are negotiations going on in which the BA as Lessee cannot really influence.

Perhaps we could add some other Authority to the your firing line for a change ? What, if anything is GYBC doing about the Haven Bridge? Is it fully operational yet?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the much applauded NSBA could become a little more pro-active with regards to general provision of facilities.

It is not just moorings! What about the loss of toilet facilities on The Broads in recent years? OK for those that can "go below" but what about Day-Sailers and paddlers, standing up or sitting down?

Screenshot_20210320-102409_Gallery.thumb.jpg.85f8b46eecfa70683467ec73bf687354.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Perhaps the much applauded NSBA could become a little more pro-active with regards to general provision of facilities.

It is not just moorings! What about the loss of toilet facilities on The Broads in recent years? OK for those that can "go below" but what about Day-Sailers and paddlers, standing up or sitting down?

 

Yes, the NSBA could & should be much more proactive on a number of issues, not least rubbish disposal issues.

Re day sailors etc, many appear to wear wet-suits, problem solved, at least for Number Ones.

It's all very well promoting access to the Broads but without addressing the subsequent growth in footfall, e.g. providing reliable toilet facilities, then that promotion becomes questionable. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Perhaps the much applauded NSBA could become a little more pro-active with regards to general provision of facilities.

It is not just moorings! What about the loss of toilet facilities on The Broads in recent years? OK for those that can "go below" but what about Day-Sailers and paddlers, standing up or sitting down?

Screenshot_20210320-102409_Gallery.thumb.jpg.85f8b46eecfa70683467ec73bf687354.jpg

 

That is more a local authority issue and applies country wide even here in London, nothing the BA or NSBA or anyone else can influence.

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, both bodies can raise their voices. The BA is a member of the National Parks family, the NSBA a member of the Royal Yachting Association, both being nationally recognised consultative bodies. 

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Sorry Pete, I do think we got it wrong!

I respect your opinion, not least because you have a point. Nevertheless and for starters, surely there can be no argument regarding the importance of the moorings at St Bennet's. If no one else, surely, the Nav Com should have been kept in the loop. You and I, i'm sure, are both aware of the mix of members of both the Authority and the Nav Com. Perhaps, amongst all that wisdom and local knowledge there are those who could have provided relevant advice or at least good leads. I do know that at least three members of the Authority are deeply concerned at the withholding of information.  The executive is not above the Authority.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept all of that Pete, but the trouble is we, and seemingly the BA, have little or no influence with the EA who seem to do what they like and worst of all at their speed! Look back over many threads and you will see its not only the fact that I do agree the BA has shortcomings, but they do pale into insignificance compared to the EA who seem both totally disinterested and intent on hindering everything that needs doing!

You have only to look at the debacle at the situation around the Ludham Bridge moorings to see that thats been ongoing for at least 15 years and whilst all seems quiet now, you can guarantee its not finally settled, or is it? And that was all the EA, or so I believe. Not too hard to find many other issues involving the EA either!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Fred, both bodies can raise their voices. The BA is a member of the National Parks family, the NSBA a member of the Royal Yachting Association, both being nationally recognised consultative bodies. 

I respect your opinion, not least because you have a point. Nevertheless and for starters, surely there can be no argument regarding the importance of the moorings at St Bennet's. If no one else, surely, the Nav Com should have been kept in the loop. You and I, i'm sure, are both aware of the mix of members of both the Authority and the Nav Com. Perhaps, amongst all that wisdom and local knowledge there are those who could have provided relevant advice or at least good leads. I do know that at least three members of the Authority are deeply concerned at the withholding of information.  The executive is not above the Authority.

The next Nav Com is on the 15th April as it meets only every 3 months with papers available on 9th April with a link to watch on the day .

I suspect land sales are dealt with far away by people with lack of local knowledge but wonder if the purchaser had motives in not doing due diligence enquiries with their prospective tenant?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my small standpoint and my experiences within outposts of government bodies, you have got to dig for the underlaying tendencies of those that lead the executive.

Human nature makes people lean toward one opinion or another.

Or to the path of least resistance.

I have the feeling that the BA seems out of touch with the landowners or with the EA or whomever.

We need more wins, mooring and facility solutions because a Broads without free moorings is in a death spiral.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

I suspect land sales are dealt with far away by people with lack of local knowledge but wonder if the purchaser had motives in not doing due diligence enquiries with their prospective tenant?

If it were to turn out that the new owner was to bang in a planning application to create a private mooring then I would not be surprised. Twenty five permanent moorings at £2,000.00 p.a. sounds tempting. 

Why else would someone want to invest in a seemingly valueless, soggy bit of river bank? A due diligence enquiry might have alerted unhelpful people. 

Just a theory but nothing would surprise me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who indeed?

Perhaps you would like to ask the Cators that about, who closed the Woodbastwick moorings and who have gone to a lot of trouble to keep people away from the footpath between Cockshoot Broad and the Woodbastwick Staithe at Horning!

Oh I know what it is - to suit the fishermen yet again!! The fishermen are seemingly involved everywhere these days in controversy - perhaps thats their chief aim!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen lots of references here to 'The Landowner' but who is that? The only reference I can find is Wikipedia which says the Crown Estate sold it to the Norfolk Archaeological Trust, is that the case, I'm sure some of you knowledgeable guys know. If it is the case, then surely the N.A.T. have no interest in moorings, and so can't some of our tolls be used by the BA to maintain them by doing a direct deal with them. I'm no doubt being very naive, but if the Environment Agency prefers a 'soft bank' option and the landowner has no interest in maintaining piling, then shouldn't some more lateral thought be applied to the problem and money spent for the benefit the 'Cash Cow' that provides it?  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PaulN said:

I've seen lots of references here to 'The Landowner' but who is that? The only reference I can find is Wikipedia which says the Crown Estate sold it to the Norfolk Archaeological Trust, is that the case, I'm sure some of you knowledgeable guys know. If it is the case, then surely the N.A.T. have no interest in moorings, and so can't some of our tolls be used by the BA to maintain them by doing a direct deal with them. I'm no doubt being very naive, but if the Environment Agency prefers a 'soft bank' option and the landowner has no interest in maintaining piling, then shouldn't some more lateral thought be applied to the problem and money spent for the benefit the 'Cash Cow' that provides it?  

Thank you, that is extremely interesting and entirely logical.

My thought is that even the NAT would appreciate an income stream such as moorings could supply. Not only that it would also provide access and customers to the Abbey. If the NAT is the owner then, in the long term, that is very satisfactory, in my humble opinion.  I doubt that they would welcome any form of destructive development. Mind you, I'd rather not lose the 24hr mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks JM. If the N.A.T. are the landowner, then the future for this section of mooring is probably bright, I hope so, as we enjoy mooring there and watching the world go by.

I must say, that NBN site during lockdown has been a godsend. Being retired and unable to get to the boat, it's been an enjoyable part of every day and gives me my 'Fix' of the Norfolk Broads.

I note elsewhere on the Forum that one can become a full member at the Moderator's discretion after 100 posts. Well this is number 100, I wonder how many were deemed sensible. Ha Ha 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulN said:

I've seen lots of references here to 'The Landowner' but who is that? The only reference I can find is Wikipedia which says the Crown Estate sold it to the Norfolk Archaeological Trust, is that the case, I'm sure some of you knowledgeable guys know. If it is the case, then surely the N.A.T. have no interest in moorings, and so can't some of our tolls be used by the BA to maintain them by doing a direct deal with them. I'm no doubt being very naive, but if the Environment Agency prefers a 'soft bank' option and the landowner has no interest in maintaining piling, then shouldn't some more lateral thought be applied to the problem and money spent for the benefit the 'Cash Cow' that provides it?  

As read the Wiki entry, it's the Abbey site that was sold to NAT, not the mooring. I have been given the name of a private individual as the new owner, but as I cannot verify that independently, I won't say what the name is, but it wasn't NAT.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, marshman said:

Perhaps you would like to ask the Cators that about, who closed the Woodbastwick moorings and who have gone to a lot of trouble to keep people away from the footpath between Cockshoot Broad and the Woodbastwick Staithe at Horning!

When they next invite me to a tête à tête and tea with dainty cucumber sandwiches I shall remember to ask them. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PaulN said:

Thanks JM. If the N.A.T. are the landowner, then the future for this section of mooring is probably bright, I hope so, as we enjoy mooring there and watching the world go by.

I must say, that NBN site during lockdown has been a godsend. Being retired and unable to get to the boat, it's been an enjoyable part of every day and gives me my 'Fix' of the Norfolk Broads.

I note elsewhere on the Forum that one can become a full member at the Moderator's discretion after 100 posts. Well this is number 100, I wonder how many were deemed sensible. Ha Ha 

Wow that was quick. I see I'm a full member today. Thank you Mr Moderator!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic, fishing at St Benet's. As an angler I have been in contact with the NDAA and have alerted them to the barrier that has been erected along the waterfront because, quite simply, it would prevent angling from that location. They, in turn, have been in contact with Authority and have been assured that the barrier will be down by June 16th, the start of the fishing season. This does rather beg the question as to why it was erected in the first place. At another mooring location access has simply been denied by tapes tied to the tops of the mooring posts. Having now read the various postings on this topic across the joyous world of the internet I have come to the sadly obvious conclusion that there is much contradiction and confusion, starting at the very top and quickly working its way down to us uninformed little people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

have been in contact with Authority and have been assured that the barrier will be down by June 16th, the start of the fishing season.

So does that mean the moorings can be used by boaters from 16 June as well I wonder? Curiouser and curiouser. 

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.