Fishing At St Benet's Abbey.

[Smoggy]

8 hours ago, webntweb said:

Its was unusual to spend you evening in pubs where the main accent you heard was American.

Sounds like stokes ferry, the head of the tributaries are the best bit of the Ely end of the gt.ouse, upstream of Earith is much prettier.

Cardington lock can be a catcher as it tapers as it goes upstream and has an overhang on the walls, I went through with an ocean 30 once that had been bought from upstream of the lock, as the water rose the rubbing strake was peel out of the aluminium trim, we had to drop the water and change places so he could be at the back of the lock.

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all, thanks for the comments and questions raised.

I should have an update for you shortly on this matter at St Benet's.

All the best,

Tom

[webntweb]

8 hours ago, Smoggy said:

Sounds like stokes ferry, the head of the tributaries are the best bit of the Ely end of the gt.ouse, upstream of Earith is much prettier.

We were there in 97 and the pub at Stoke Ferry (the Bull?) had been closed for a few years.

Heard there was a chippy in the village. When we got there a note on the door said "Albert has now had his operation and we will be reopening next weekend, in the meantime you can use the factory canteen"

The local (sugar processing I think) factory had a menu on its entrance gate with two prices - one for workers and another for villagers while the chippy was closed - Brilliant, could only happen in Britain.

The pub I was thinking about was the Jude's Ferry at the end of navigation on the river Lark - which is narrow enough for the boat to almost touch the reeds on each side.

We also went in the Ram at Brandon at the head of the Little Ouse. All three pubs are not too far from Mildenhall and I recollect American accents in all of them.

Grazing meadows make up quite a lot of the routes of all three tributaries and in places stakes about 30 foot apart are placed along the banks so you know where the river channel is if its in flood.

[BroadsAuthority]

Sorry for the double post but here's the update as promised. Best, Tom

Progress update on St Benet’s Abbey 24 hour moorings (23 March)

As reported last week, the Authority took the decision to barrier off approximately half of the length of our St Benet’s 24 hour moorings due to safety concerns.

We understand boaters’ frustrations with this news and have an update to issue on this matter to provide further context and re-assurance.

As reported to Broads Authority Members on Friday 19 March, the Broads Authority has a lease agreement to use the piling and a small strip of land as a free 24-hour mooring. This lease runs until 2027.

The potential piling removal at St Benet’s has been known to the Authority since 2019. Three exempt (pink) papers have been before the Authority’s Navigation Committee in June 2019, July 2019 and January 2020, outlining this risk and suggesting a course of action that could resolve the matter. This remedy contained financial information, hence the confidentiality of the reports. The proposed solution within the pink papers was endorsed by the Navigation Committee and we have been working towards that outcome.

In 2020, the Authority successfully negotiated with the Landowner and had a verbal agreement on the details of a new 25-year lease. This lease agreed a suitable rent, and saw the Authority take full maintenance responsibilities for the piling, site maintenance, site safety and on-going safety checks.

Using the assurances in place that a lease was forthcoming, the Authority started a tender process which would see the capping and waling (the mooring timber work) replaced. The value of this contract was £48,000.

The contract was programmed to begin in March 2021 and last for approximately 6 weeks, with the mooring being fully available by mid-April, to coincide with the Government’s roadmap of easing lockdown.

During February 2021, we were made aware of an issue whereby the Landowner had not signed the agreement with the Environment Agency (EA) for the piling responsibilities. The Landlord’s Solicitors had raised a concern on a particular indemnity clause within the EA contract. This matter was referred to the EA’s solicitors, so the two legal firms could discuss and find a solution.

Whilst the Landlord’s solicitors and the EA’s solicitors discussed the legal issue, the Broads Authority was left without a legally binding lease, the need for a substantial investment in timber work, and no guarantees that the piling would remain. Therefore, we delayed the maintenance work until the situation was resolved. We took the view that the Authority should not invest £48,000 of toll payers money on a location that was under threat of being removed.

We have now spoken to all parties and have given our assurances and commitment that the Broads Authority will cover the Landlord’s indemnity clause and that the Broads Authority will be responsible for the piles going forward. This is in line with our original plan, however the landlord of the site had required independent legal advice and also had every right to seek assurances.

Our chosen contractor is still ready to commence works and they are planning a methodology that will see small section of the timber worked on at a time, allowing the mooring site to operate with only short sections unavailable.

We are therefore hopeful for an agreement between all parties by early next week, enabling us to have a two week window to begin the work at this iconic mooring site before lockdown is eased further on 12 April. Please be assured that we are busy working to secure this vital location’s future as a Broads Authority free 24-hour mooring.

[rightsaidfred]

Thanks Tom

As someone who spent a large part of my working life engaged in negotions sometimes sensative that now makes perfect sense.

Fred

[PaulN]

Thank you Tom, that sounds very encouraging.

[NeilB]

Thank you Tom

[vanessan]

Thank you Tom. 

[BroadAmbition]

Cheers for informing us Tom

This could have been communicated before now as in weeks ago that would have cut down on the speculation

Griff

[rightsaidfred]

43 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Cheers for informing us Tom

This could have been communicated before now as in weeks ago that would have cut down on the speculation

Griff

You wouldn't make negotiations public if they are at a sensitive stage especially if there are financial implications, 

Fred

[marshman]

The answer is of course Griff, to not speculate when the full facts are not known!!!!

Time and time again, people think that they should know what is going on at every stage, but negotiations are generally confidential for a reason and should be kept as such until agreement is reached.

[BroadAmbition]

Agree with the two above points.  However a simple communication to the boat community a couple of days before the fences were put up along the lines of:-

The situation developing at St Benets abbey is well in hand and we will enlighten all concerned in the near future when we are in a position to do so

Would have been appreciated, rather than finding out as a result of media speculation / pressure

Griff

[Paladin]

According to James Knight, even the Authority members weren’t being kept up to date.

[grendel]

and why should they be, we only hear from our legal team when the legals are completed or when there is something that needs amending, and I would imagine thats the case in most companies, while things are 'in progress' - a process that can take some time while deeds are transmitted to the land registry etc, if things are just at a stage of passing information between legal teams there can be quite lengthy periods where nothing apparently happens, where there is no information to update other than 'in progress'.

[grendel]

I would imagine that someone setting up the meeting may have contacted the legal team for an update, found things were still in progress, so no need to add it to the numerous topics for discussion when there was nothing to report, after all these meetings do have other matters of import to discuss, so why waste everyones time with nothing to report, and the possibility of getting sidetracked into a discussion on the topic.

I cant see a problem there.

[rightsaidfred]

43 minutes ago, Paladin said:

According to James Knight, even the Authority members weren’t being kept up to date.

"The potential piling removal at St Benet’s has been known to the Authority since 2019. Three exempt (pink) papers have been before the Authority’s Navigation Committee in June 2019, July 2019 and January 2020, outlining this risk and suggesting a course of action that could resolve the matter. This remedy contained financial information, hence the confidentiality of the reports. The proposed solution within the pink papers was endorsed by the Navigation Committee and we have been working towards that outcome."

I think that segment from the update should clarify that.

Fred

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I would imagine that someone setting up the meeting may have contacted the legal team for an update, found things were still in progress, so no need to add it to the numerous topics for discussion when there was nothing to report, after all these meetings do have other matters of import to discuss, so why waste everyones time with nothing to report, and the possibility of getting sidetracked into a discussion on the topic.

I cant see a problem there.

  

59 minutes ago, grendel said:

I would imagine that someone setting up the meeting may have contacted the legal team for an update, found things were still in progress, so no need to add it to the numerous topics for discussion when there was nothing to report, after all these meetings do have other matters of import to discuss, so why waste everyones time with nothing to report, and the possibility of getting sidetracked into a discussion on the topic.

I cant see a problem there.

Do you have any inside knowledge of what went on, on which to base that assumption?

It is the usual practice for a notice to be issued when any work which closes, fully or in part, any moorings. This was not done? Why not? Why was I initially informed that the partial closure of the mooring would be in place for the rest of the season?

I'm pleased that you don't see a problem. Fortunately, many people did see the problem, despite the lack of transparency and communication.

28 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

"The potential piling removal at St Benet’s has been known to the Authority since 2019. Three exempt (pink) papers have been before the Authority’s Navigation Committee in June 2019, July 2019 and January 2020, outlining this risk and suggesting a course of action that could resolve the matter. This remedy contained financial information, hence the confidentiality of the reports. The proposed solution within the pink papers was endorsed by the Navigation Committee and we have been working towards that outcome."

I think that segment from the update should clarify that.

Fred

That only highlights the discrepancy with what the meeting last Friday was told, that negotiations had been going on during the past year. Clearly, it was longer than that. So, no, there is no clarification. And, obviously, no update to any committee in the last 16 months.

[grendel]

for an update you need new information, if no new information was available there is no need for an update, I am sure you realise that legal land transactions can take some time, I have know several that spanned over several years

11 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Do you have any inside knowledge of what went on, on which to base that assumption?

none other than good working practices. do you have any proof that due diligence was not carried out?

 

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It is the usual practice for a notice to be issued when any work which closes, fully or in part, any moorings.

from what I saw the closure was an emergency measure and notice was sent out the same day.

as I say I dont see a problem here, many saw a problem, that was not in fact a problem, a lot of hot air was expelled over the fact the Authority should have been doing something about this perceived problem, when the reality as we see is that they had been quietly working away on the problem for several years.

it appears to me that the two issues although related are in fact separate issues, the closure of the moorings was a safety issue, the negotiations were ongoing and only later did the two issues become coincident when the condition of the quay heading became unsafe.

[ExSurveyor]

I have a lease alteration involving three sets of solicitors that has been going on since August 2019, solicitors have been slower than normal due to changed working and the Land Registery is log jammed for the same reason. Anything that requires discussion is dragged out. I don't expect a conclusion for at least 6 months. I only update when I have something new to impart.

[Paladin]

37 minutes ago, grendel said:

 

none other than good working practices. 1. do you have any proof that due diligence was not carried out?

 

2. from what I saw the closure was an emergency measure and notice was sent out the same day.

as I say I dont see a problem here, 3. many saw a problem, that was not in fact a problem, a lot of hot air was expelled over the fact the Authority should have been doing something about this perceived problem, when the reality as we see is that they had been quietly working away on the problem for several years.

it appears to me that the two issues although related are in fact separate issues, the closure of the moorings was a safety issue, the negotiations were ongoing and only later did the two issues become coincident 4. when the condition of the quay heading became unsafe.

1. Straw man argument - I have never made that allegation;

2. The 'emergency' notice was rushed out after the cat was let out of the bag on social media;

3. It is a fact that there was a problem, more than one, actually, which you choose not to recognise;

4. The unsafe condition of the quay heading was known about months ago, which is why a tender went out last year.

We will have to agree to disagree. You cannot see any problems, I can. Maybe it because I'm a bit closer to things, as it happens virtually in my back yard.

[marshman]

Perhaps what those still going on about it are overlooking i that apparently the Nav Comm were aware of it in papers 6/19,7/19,and 1/20 - or so the statement says.

It must be something to do with Covid - if its all sorted out, and that has yet to be confirmed, then really this discussion has turned into not a lot! 

For what its worth I agree with Grendel and Mark - what would there have been to say other than "negotiations are ongoing" - despite Pally's undoubted wisdom, and for which I am often very grateful indeed, details cannot and will not be published until its all agreed.

[floydraser]

54 minutes ago, Paladin said:

2. The 'emergency' notice was rushed out after the cat was let out of the bag on social media;

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this your spin applied to the timing?

[rightsaidfred]

This whole thread has become somewhat convoluted.

We started off with the concern that the NDAA had taken over the moorings, we now know the BA has a current lease till 2027 or circumstances change, that would seem to resolve that worry,

Then part of the moorings were closed as the planned repairs had to be put on hold through circumstances beyond anyones control, nothing there that is underhand and as very few boats should have been in use with the existing covid regulations no great urgency to publicise the closure.

We then moved on to the renegotiation of the lease, in my experience this would take place in confidential discussions between representatives of the interested parties only being put forward to board members for approval once negotiations are completed, just good business practise, I am sure we would all be concerned if the negotiations collapsed due to someone leaking sensitive information before the negotiations were completed.

I will readily take the BA or any authority to task when warranted but I prefer using a rifle on a set target than a scatter gun hoping to hit anything that moves.

Fred

 

[grendel]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

1. Straw man argument - I have never made that allegation;

 

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

Do you have any inside knowledge of what went on, on which to base that assumption?

Since we are talking straw men, I never made any claim that I knew what was going on, I just said I imagine that, i made no claim to be aware that it might have happened. this makes your initial argument a straw man too. as my imagining what may have happened was not an allegation either.

 

 

[floydraser]

If you can still bring yourself to watch the BBC news on TV you can see the pain they endure whenever they have to report that the government made a correct decision. 

Is it just me or.........

Come on, they're not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it's looking like the may have got it right here.