Fishing At St Benet's Abbey.

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, vanessan said:

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

and even more curious! 

Effectively a number of agencies and interests are involved, probably all with their own agenda and non taking the final responsibility.

[PaulN]

Well someone took responsibility for fencing it off, so maybe they should rectify whatever it is that they are not happy about. There are few enough free 24 hour moorings for the number of boats, as it is. We pay enough on our tolls to be able to use our boats, so it's us that should have the primary consideration, I would have thought. My toll due at the end of the month is £581.60 and the same bot, if it were a hire craft such as Swan Radiance or Romance, it would be £1,310.00, so fisherman hardly finance the facilities, my current rod license is £20 albeit those using this stretch have to pay an extra £20.

Come on BA, stop hiding and get our moorings open!

[BroadAmbition]

Two points concern me most about this debate.

Firstly - If the land was crown owned and it was sold off, should that potential sale not have been made public for any interested parties to bid on, thereby getting the best price for the tax payer? Or was the sale kept 'In House' - if so is that not wrong?

Secondly - Surely the Ba should have seen this situation coming.  We have had a year on on/off lockdown when the rivers have been quieter than normal, now we are potentially entering into a season that could well break all records.  Hire craft fully booked, privateers - well they can hardly go abroad (If they are sensible) so I can see loads of private boats out on the rivers too all during the same season, June through to October.

Could not / should not the powers that be have got this situation sorted out with the moorings shut off during the past year when it was quiet? 

But no - the moorings are closed off just when demand is about to become higher than ever.

You couldn't make it up 

Griff

[Cheesey69]

Just how far is our concerns up the BA's agenda?

[rightsaidfred]

The sale of the land and all that goes with it is out of the control of the BA and something they had no input to, what is relevant is are the moorings and adjoining footpath safe, if so they should be available to all in particular to toll payers who pay for there upkeep, if not they should  be closed to all, ownership of the land and leases are a separate issue.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

35 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

ownership of the land and leases are a separate issue.

As I understand it, if the EA pulls out the quay heading, as apparently they wish to do, then the lease ends there and then. The BA has made that clear. That suggests to me that it is the mooring that is leased, not the land as such. It also appears that initially the issue of the quay heading is between the new owner of the land and the EA rather than the BA. I do wonder at the strength and validity of the BA's lease, not that I have had a sight of it. 

[rightsaidfred]

8 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

As I understand it, if the EA pulls out the quay heading, as apparently they wish to do, then the lease ends there and then. The BA has made that clear. That suggests to me that it is the mooring that is leased, not the land as such. It also appears that initially the issue of the quay heading is between the new owner of the land and the EA rather than the BA. I do wonder at the strength and validity of the BA's lease, not that I have had a sight of it. 

Agreed but as it stands at the moment the BA hold an ongoing lease for a 24hr mooring and as such boats have presedence over angling, I say this with a foot in both camps, at the moment the NDAA responsabilty is downstream of the moorings.

Fred

 

[JennyMorgan]

27 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Agreed but as it stands at the moment the BA hold an ongoing lease for a 24hr mooring . . . . . . 

That's true, but only whilst the quay heading is retained. I can only assume that EA drew up the lease with their best interests at heart, that as far as the BA is concerned it is a weak document otherwise they would insist on the quay remaining, at least for the duration of the lease. 

So where does this leave the toll payer? I know the area but certainly not like the back of my hand. Are there alternatives or other options for the Authority to explore or are we likely to be losing as many as fifty irreplaceable moorings? 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

Firstly - If the land was crown owned and it was sold off, should that potential sale not have been made public for any interested parties to bid on, thereby getting the best price for the tax payer? Or was the sale kept 'In House' - if so is that not wrong?

My thought exactly. Perhaps tenders were requested but only advertised in the Hebrides News. 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

My thought exactly. Perhaps tenders were requested but only advertised in the Hebrides News. 

Perhaps the covid emergency laws were used.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

That's true, but only whilst the quay heading is retained. I can only assume that EA drew up the lease with their best interests at heart, that as far as the BA is concerned it is a weak document otherwise they would insist on the quay remaining, at least for the duration of the lease. 

So where does this leave the toll payer? I know the area but certainly not like the back of my hand. Are there alternatives or other options for the Authority to explore or are we likely to be losing as many as fifty irreplaceable moorings? 

I could be wrong but I thought the lease was with the landowner and the EAs involvement was responsibility for the piling as a  flood bank which is no longer required as the flood bank has been moved back.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

7 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I could be wrong

You could be, Fred, you might be right too. The whole darned affair is a tad wooly, or so it seems.

[rightsaidfred]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

You could be, Fred, you might be right too. The whole darned affair is a tad wooly, or so it seems.

In the meeting it was stated that the BA were in negotiation regarding the lease with the landowner not the EA, the EA are in discussion with the landowner regarding responsibility for the piling.

Fred 

[JennyMorgan]

Agreed, Fred, but apparently it all hinges on whether the EA decide to remove the piling or not, or at least that is my understanding of the situation.

[rightsaidfred]

Yes that is the sticking point and depends on their attitude I guess.

Fred

[vanessan]

From the BA website:-

**Repairs cannot proceed until agreement is reached between the Environment Agency and the owner of the site regarding the future responsibilities for the piling. It is also not possible to start work until the Authority’s lease of the site is renewed.

The St Benet’s site is leased to the Broads Authority by the landowner and is managed by the Authority as an free 24 hour mooring location.

Previous works carried out by Broadland Environment Services Limited (BESL) saw the new flood bank redeveloped behind the piled edge, meaning the piles no longer form the official flood defences in this location. Under such plans the Environment Agency (responsible for flood protection measures) is no longer required to maintain the piles and the responsibility for maintaining, replacing or removing them has been offered to the landowner.

The Broads Authority has been in discussion with the landowner for some time, attempting to renew their lease for this iconic mooring location. In anticipation of the lease renewal a major refurbishment of the timbering was planned by the Authority (via a tender advertised on our website) to make the site ready for the 2021/22 season.

Unfortunately the refurbishment has had to be put on hold as the landowner and the Environment Agency have thus far been unable to reach an agreement on the future of the piles, meaning they may be removed and the Broads Authority has not been able to progress its lease for the site.**

Stalemate then, unless the BA can purchase the moorings which I believe they have also tried to do. 

[JennyMorgan]

Despite the above the BA has confirmed that the present lease runs until 2027. Surely there is some leverage there?

[grendel]

in the interests of accuracy, i have looked at the land registry.

(for anyone who wants to know the current owners name (since 2016 according to the register), you can pay your own search fee (Title NK132901)).

I do note of interest that the whole of the area under hundred dyke from the ant to the thurne falls in this title (except for the abbey site) plus a smaller area above hundred dyke up to Hall road is included (this would include the thurne mouth moorings I surmise).

I also note that the last 20m of the mooring at the abbey end is not on the lease of the Broads Authority (from the footpath to the abbey to the end of the mooring) and is in the title of the Abbey grounds.

the broads Authority lease runs from 2008 to september 2027

 the information is out there, for those willing to pay to do their own research

[grendel]

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I do wonder at the strength and validity of the BA's lease, not that I have had a sight of it. 

I have looked at it and it is quite valid, as would any lease made with the queen and crown estate commissioners be, unfortunately for us no mention is made of maintaining the mooring structure.. 

[vanessan]

To be honest I don’t think finding out who owns what has really any bearing on this issue, the fact remains that a prime mooring location looks as if it is perilously close to being lost. With the season only 3 weeks away from kicking off, this could be pretty disastrous. It’s clearly going to be a very busy season and, even if the lease etc is sorted out, repairs are going to take some while. 
Back in December the BA put out an invitation for tenders relating to the refurbishment of the St Benet’s moorings so they knew then that works were needed - but obviously not urgent at that point. I can’t believe the piling has deteriorated to such a degree that they need closing off immediately. Something just doesn’t ring true here. 
 

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I have looked at it and it is quite valid, as would any lease made with the queen and crown estate commissioners be, unfortunately for us no mention is made of maintaining the mooring structure.. 

And there lies the crux of the matter. Since that structure is surely the very reason for leasing that stretch of river bank I would have thought it critical to have been included, an amazing oversight, in my opinion.

16 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I can’t believe the piling has deteriorated to such a degree that they need closing off immediately. Something just doesn’t ring true here. 

If I understand things correctly it is the tie-rods that have been found to have failed. I don't believe that that is an everyday event and I can quite understand how that this has gone undetected until now. The tie rods are what keep the quay heading upright. The weight of pedestrians can further compact the soil behind the untied quay heading and force the structure out of true or even to collapse. I don't question the closure as such, that was a prudent decision. However, I do question the timing and more especially the management handling of the situation. There is a further six years of lease remaining, that for me is the 'Something just doesn’t ring true'.

[grendel]

This is a good point, at that time though the structure was the flood defence, so the responsibility of the EA, not the Authority, so would not have required being in the lease, The EA have replaced the structure with a bank behind as the flood defence, thus the responsibility has been transferred to the land owner to maintain the moorings, thus the discussions regarding responsibilities.

the Broads Authority is no doubt in discussion with the EA and Landowner with regards to taking over the responsibility for the upkeep of the mooring, but needs a bit more security over the lease renewal to be able to justify to their members and critics the expenditure.

I would imagine that on a mooring where they held a responsibility to maintain the mooring that arrangements would be put in place and costed for replacement during that 20 year period, but as we see here the EA have decided a bank as a flood barrier is a easier solution, thus negating their responsibility to maintain the structure.

[vanessan]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

If I understand things correctly it is the tie-rods that have been found to have failed. I don't believe that that is an everyday event and I can quite understand how that this has gone undetected until now.

I assumed that, when the BA went out to tender in December, they were aware of the works that were needed. The moorings haven’t been in use since December to any great extent so I am surprised this has ‘suddenly’ become apparent. However, I know absolutely nothing about such matters so have to rely on those that do have an understanding to explain things. 
I think the BA urgently need some sort of contingency plan for St Benet’s although heaven only knows what that could be. Many hirers head for those moorings having picked up their boats for their trip, it’s a nice first cruise from Wroxham or Potter for a first night. It’s one of the iconic spots for photographing the Broads during a holiday and is in constant use during the season. I foresee many boats trundling round that area at dusk looking for somewhere to moor. Still, there should be extra rangers around this season available to give ‘guidance’. 

[JennyMorgan]

Peter, I can't argue with any of that but considering the flood prevention scheme has now been running for twenty or so years,  and that includes the soft rather than hard bank policy, the BA should surely have been aware of the likelihood that the St Benet's quay heading, and others, are at risk.

A couple of years ago I contributed to a 'moorings consultation' with the BA at Acle. I don't recollect any suggestion that any 24hr moorings were at risk in this manner. I would have assumed that they were protected by the terms of any lease.

[RS2021]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

in the interests of accuracy, i have looked at the land registry.

(for anyone who wants to know the current owners name (since 2016 according to the register), you can pay your own search fee (Title NK132901)).

I do note of interest that the whole of the area under hundred dyke from the ant to the thurne falls in this title (except for the abbey site) plus a smaller area above hundred dyke up to Hall road is included (this would include the thurne mouth moorings I surmise).

I also note that the last 20m of the mooring at the abbey end is not on the lease of the Broads Authority (from the footpath to the abbey to the end of the mooring) and is in the title of the Abbey grounds.

the broads Authority lease runs from 2008 to september 2027

 the information is out there, for those willing to pay to do their own research

For my interest, who normally owns the rivers and dykes of the Broads? Are they usually privately owned? I always thought that in general tidal rivers were owned by the Crown and non tidal rivers could be privately owned. I would assume a dyke dug for drainage would be privately owned and one dug for navigation, owned by the navigation authority. This stretch of river looks a man made diversion so I'm guessing it would have been originally owned by the person who dug it. So was it dug for navigation or drainage? Who originally owned it and how did it end up with the Crown Estate (does the title give any earlier ownership info?)