BA Controversy

[BroadAmbition]

The next actions will have been decided upon way before any 'Discussions' are put in front of the committee at the next Lodge meeting 

Griff

[Meantime]

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/403316/BA_2021_0305_CU_How_Hill_River_Bank_.pdf

So the decision is a recommendation to allow the change of use at How Hill thus resulting in the loss of one more public mooring for 99 years, despite the fact that the application goes against the local plan. The real test is, if the owner of that land had been a private individual and not the BA, would the BA then have upheld the local plan and refused the change of use?

[floydraser]

3 hours ago, Meantime said:

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/403316/BA_2021_0305_CU_How_Hill_River_Bank_.pdf

So the decision is a recommendation to allow the change of use at How Hill thus resulting in the loss of one more public mooring for 99 years, despite the fact that the application goes against the local plan. The real test is, if the owner of that land had been a private individual and not the BA, would the BA then have upheld the local plan and refused the change of use?

I may be missing something but it says the change of use is for 99 years and not transferable. But before that it explains that the owners have a right to the mooring which goes with the property. Surely then, if they sell up, the new owner also has the right and off we go again?

[FairTmiddlin]

2 hours ago, floydraser said:

I may be missing something but it says the change of use is for 99 years and not transferable.

Which means the current owners have use for 99 years. But is not transferable if the property changes hands either, through purchase or by inheritance.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

2 minutes ago, FairTmiddlin said:

Which means the current owners have use for 99 years. But is not transferable if the property changes hands either, through purchase or by inheritance.

Perhaps the current owners lease that came with the house was for less than 99 years.

[Meantime]

3 hours ago, floydraser said:

I may be missing something but it says the change of use is for 99 years and not transferable. But before that it explains that the owners have a right to the mooring which goes with the property. Surely then, if they sell up, the new owner also has the right and off we go again?

You have fair and squarely hit the nail upon the head. The current owners think they have a right to a permanent mooring based upon a non transferrable right to use a mooring, not to permanently moor a boat mind you, that was given back in the mid 60's. So if the BA concede and honour the non transferrable right this time around, isn't that setting a precedant for the next time the property is sold with non transferrable tights?

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:

Perhaps the current owners lease that came with the house was for less than 99 years.

The current lease for 99 years is a new one issued by the BA because the current owners think they have a right to "use" a mooring where the BA have a boat house that is used to house the Electric Eel. A right to use a mooring is different from a permanent right to moor a boat. Whichever, it is a problem for the BA to solve in the current location of the problem, without giving away a section of public mooring paid for out of the toll payers account over 300 metres away from the problem. It is far to easy to give away public money.

[annv]

If Ba fenced the land for 12 years with out being challenged i would have thought legal right has been lost by previous owner.? John

[Meantime]

6 minutes ago, annv said:

If Ba fenced the land for 12 years with out being challenged i would have thought legal right has been lost by previous owner.? John

I don't think the land was fenced off, in fact the BA didn't even realise there may be another legal owner. The land wasn't registered with the land registry, but that doesn't mean that rights didn't exist, however all that is to do with a parcel of land 300+ metres away from the piece of land the BA has decided to give away as a 99 lease in lieu of any possible rights over the land where their boat shed is. Far easier to give away a much used piece of public mooring, "sorry occasional" mooring rather than thoroughly check whether they really need to. Off course if me or you had managed to purchase a lease legally for that piece of land from the BA, what do you think our chances are of being able to apply for planning to turn it into a private mooring? There are many cases of one law for us and one law for you, but it is never good to be so blatant about it, especially when it goes against their own local planning policies!

[annv]

Surly building a wet shed is fencing/enclosing just a thought. John

[PaulN]

Sounds like another big bill for the Toll Payer if they take the police I.e. The Crown to court. 

Listening to BBC Norfolk this morning they interviewed the BA's newly appointed Carbon Reduction Manager , whose brief is to carry out a study to get all boats on the broads electrically powered for propulsion, heating, hot water and the charging infrastructure to go with it. He said NBD were the representatives from the hire boats, to assist with this. 

Good luck to him. I suspect the only feasible way to achieve this will be to have small nuclear reactors in each boat. The boat safety scheme test should be interesting!!

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, annv said:

Surly building a wet shed is fencing/enclosing just a thought. John

But the wet shed is not a part of the planning permission. It is at the opposite end of the mooring. Simply put, someone comes along and claims they have a right to a mooring, that mooring is where the BA built their boatshed in the 80's. BA decide the quickest and easiest way is to give a 99 year lease to the person for a single mooring at the opposite end of the mooring. This is a public mooring paid for out of the toll account and much used and favoured by many because it is tucked away of the river slightly. Someone then points out that it is a change of use and to turn even a small section of public mooring into a private mooring would need planning permission. BA then apply for retrospective planning permission to rectify their cock up even though turning part of a public mooring into a private one flies in the face of their own local plan, on which planning decisions should based.

There are two issues at stake here,

1. The legal agreement entered into by the BA to swap a disputed piece of land with "maybe" a right to moor, for a piece of well used public mooring, which they sneakily claim has occasional mooring use. Did they need to roll over so easily? Did they need to concede the request so quickly? Should they have fought the claimed historical right to moor where the boat shed was? Those that know the Authority will question why they rolled over quite so quickly and easily on this one. Why didn't the authority claim the right to moor had lapsed when plainly they built a boat shed there in the 80's and had been using it since. I seem to remember the BA were quite vocal about rights to moor lapsing through lack of use when fighting at great expense The Jenners Basin case.

2. The other issue is the manner in which the planning application is being carried out for the piece of land that has been given on a 99 year lease in lieu of the disputed area.

One thing that should worry us all is that the property that recently changed hands that purportedly has a mooring where the boat house is, supposedly the right to moor was not transferable to new owners, yet the BA are honouring that right by giving a 99 year lease which is also not transferrable if the property is sold. So one presumes when the property gets sold again the mooring should return to public use, that is until the new owners paly the same game again with the BA because they have already set a precedent and rolled over once before. Perhaps even more important is how many others are going to come out of the woodwork and claim they have a right to moor and would like the BA to give them a mooring. Many villagers have a right to use the village staithe. It is argued elsewhere that the owner of the property at How Hill may have had a right to use, not a right to moor permanently however they now have a right to moor on what was a much favoured piece of public mooring which we all paid towards the upkeep off.

[Meantime]

How much is this one going to end up costing the BA?

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/local-council/prosecution-against-beauchamp-arms-withdrawn-8381290?fbclid=IwAR0nC_cMew3V83h_OmBoxQmvmwpNjvkH8cwzimzpS0ku9xnMI7SZFUAfBK0

 

[BroadAmbition]

BA's newly appointed Carbon Reduction Manager,

WHAT?

Ye Gods, yet another pen pushing, shiny ar5ed trouser employee occupying Dragonfly House

Another made up 'None job' at the toll payers / tax payers expense.  Just how much is this position costing the toll and tax payer then? Does the position have a secretary, car allowance, private health care, pension etc etc

The Broads authority - The one thing they have achieved in bucket and spade success - Nay - in Barges and shovel success is power base building.  The Port commissionaires at Gt Yarmouth - There were just six of em and they managed quite well for decades with the majority of the workforce out on and around the rivers.

Griff

[Keebz]

Years ago richard sabberton (dick) was still alive and running summer craft all ways moaned about ba when Richardsonsons dug out at stalham there was no opposition however he wanted to put another shed and slip way and dig out for it and it was rejected I don’t no the final outcome but I no he never held them in high regard 

[Vaughan]

I see a post from Broadambition has been removed since yesterday evening, despite attracting several likes including myself.

Are we allowed to know why this bang on target comment has dis-appeared? I very much hope this forum is not going to go woke on us? Or do we all now have to meekly worship at the altar of the Broads Authority?

[BroadAmbition]

Vaughan - I very much hope this forum is not going to go woke on us? Or do we all now have to meekly worship at the altar of the Broads Authority?

This forum has been slowly but surely going in that direction for some time now.

That post of mine that got removed did not break the TOS as far as I can see, it was an opinion (Mine) asking a question and stating a historical fact.  I got no notice from any of the team that it was to be removed, nor have I had any sort of communication as to explaining why either 

The sad fact is that if one dares to comment on the Ba in a factual way that doesn't show them in the best light on this public forum then it gets removed, it's happened to me more than once.  Hiding the truth in here happens, outside of the NBN however - well the truth is out there and cannot be masked

Griff

[addicted]

It would be a pity if this forum did descend into wokism. That would simply see the disappearance of everybody with a valid opinion - in effect kill it off.

 

 

Carole

[Vaughan]

8 minutes ago, addicted said:

That would simply see the disappearance of everybody with a valid opinion

Some of whom have already left for that very reason.

It is also pretty clear to me that this is what happened to the Broads Society.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Vaughan
line added

[addicted]

25 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Some of whom have already left for that very reason.

It is also pretty clear to me that this is what happened to the Broads Society.

One recently departed contributor  I can think of who I believe is missed on a  daily basis, would have been  particularly valuable in this thread having immense first hand knowledge on the subject. It should be remembered that any forum is the sum of it's members without whom there is no forum.

 

Carole

 

[Maxwellian]

It is simple really. Keep it factual without childish insults and all will be fine. We are not pro BA or Anti BA. 

[Meantime]

Damn that's got me thinking. I'm trying to think back to Griff's post and work out which bit of it wasn't factual? 

[RS2021]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I would be very interested if you could post that for us

I'll see what I can do. Its a link in an e.mail and I think its probably linked to me, so I don't want to publish that link on here. I may be able to do some screen prints, but it may take a while for me to figure out how to do it.

[BroadAmbition]

Damn that's got me thinking. I'm trying to think back to Griff's post and work out which bit of it wasn't factual?

You and me both!

Griff

[RS2021]

59 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

It is simple really. Keep it factual without childish insults and all will be fine. We are not pro BA or Anti BA. 

If all I want is facts then I can visit official websites. I joined a forum because I want opinions and debate from people who's views I respect - whether I agree with them or not. Yes keep it adult and avoid childish insults - that would certainly make me leave. I accept that the site is neither pro BA or anti BA, but individuals do have views. Its like saying that the BBC is impartial, but if I watch Match of the Day I know Gary Lineker is pro Leicester and Alan Shearer is pro Newcastle, but it doesn't stop them giving balanced and insightful comments on games including those teams.

I know the administrators have a challenging job to steer the forum on a narrow path between it degenerating on the one hand and becoming bland on the other and a little debate from time to time on where that balance falls is good .