May Broads Briefing Inc Good News On Commissioners Cut

[Bytheriver]

https://mailchi.mp/c547dd0bb23c/broads-briefing-may-2022?e=94594921f8'

[Broads01]

Good news about the Burgh Castle moorings also, glad they're open finally.

[Smoggy]

Does anyone know if dredging was part of the work? It was getting pretty well silted and shallow along there.

[Mouldy]

9 hours ago, Broads01 said:

Good news about the Burgh Castle moorings also, glad they're open finally.

Maybe or maybe not!  I read on a FB Broads group that someone had moored there and been threatened by the farmer, who claimed that the BA had taken more land than was agreed and would cut the moor lines of boats that moored there.  The boater affected called the BA for support, but I haven’t heard what transpired.

Sounds about right frankly.  The farmer has been watching the works for over a year and questioned the resulting moorings when completed.  As long as it’s not found that the BA haven’t cocked up and spent a pot of money on moorings that we can’t use! 🤨

[grendel]

I believe that issue only related to a short section of the mooring at the upstream end, hopefully the BA will get things clarified with the farmer, and all will be well.

[Mouldy]

3 hours ago, grendel said:

I believe that issue only related to a short section of the mooring at the upstream end, hopefully the BA will get things clarified with the farmer, and all will be well.

It’s interesting that the farmer allowed all the work to be completed before raising the issue with a member of the public in such an aggressive, threatening manner.  If he had concerns, surely the correct course of action would have been to discuss it with the BA whilst the works were underway?

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

It’s interesting that the farmer allowed all the work to be completed before raising the issue with a member of the public in such an aggressive, threatening manner.  If he had concerns, surely the correct course of action would have been to discuss it with the BA whilst the works were underway?

The work was actually carried out by the EA, not the BA. So no charge to the toll payer, other than re-instating the usual BA paraphernalia that you find at 24hr moorings.

Before the work was carried out the original EA piling continued on beyond the BA stretch of mooring. I assume the EA have replaced all the piling, which is why part of the farmers land has been repiled and defended. 

Their used to be a fence and signage that made it plain where the BA mooring ended and private land began. I would assume it is a simple enough task to replace the missing fence and signage. I would add however that even when the signage and fence where there, you often used to see boats mooring where they shouldn't, even the farmers signs warning of adders didn't deter people. I'm glad the adders could read though as otherwise there would have been nothing to stop them invading the BA section of the mooring 

The farmers bit of the mooring starts roughly where the Angles Way footpath turns back inland again. If you knew where the old electric post was, then not far upstream of that was the farmers bit. I believe the BA are planning on re-instating the post again.

[grendel]

14 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

It’s interesting that the farmer allowed all the work to be completed before raising the issue with a member of the public in such an aggressive, threatening manner.  If he had concerns, surely the correct course of action would have been to discuss it with the BA whilst the works were underway?

a point i believe raised by myself over on the facebook discussion.

[Meantime]

The BA mooring used to end roughly where my Red line is and there is a pump outfall that breaks up the BA mooring from the farmers mooring. As you follow the Angles Way just past the outfall it turns inland and there used to be a fence stopping you from accessing the farmers land.

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

a point i believe raised by myself over on the facebook discussion.

Does anyone know that the farmer hasn't been extensively in talks with the EA to try and get his fences and signage re-instated. I would imagine trying to get action from the EA could be every bit as frustrating as getting action from the BA at times.

[grendel]

from memory that was about where the fence was shown on the video posted on facebook, the boat was in line with the dyke shown inland and stated he was downstream of the pump outfall.

[grendel]

no, I have no idea whether the farmer was involved in any discussions, but descending into the realms of supposition here, surely if he had been, the EA would have at least halted work on the disputed section.

but the facebook post did mention that the moorings ended downstream of the pumping outfall, so any disputed land would surely not amount to a whole boat length.

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

from memory that was about where the fence was shown on the video posted on facebook, the boat was in line with the dyke shown inland and stated he was downstream of the pump outfall.

I didn't see the post on Facebook and the wonder that is Facebook makes it virtually impossible to find anything that happened more than 24 hrs ago. One reason I don't post on it.

The recent history of that mooring may go some way to explaining why the boundaries could have become a little blurred.

A few years ago it was obvious which bit was BA and which bit was the farmers. The BA only leased their bit and gave up the lease when they deemed the mooring to be unsafe. The Fishermans Inn landlord then rented the mooring and made it a free mooring for pub patrons.

It is the EA's responsibility to defend that section of land and have now completed the repiling along the whole section including the farmers bit. It now all looks like the same mooring, but with different owners. 

The BA have obviously taken on the mooring again, however it is also entirely possible that they have taken on a shorter stretch than they had previously on the basis they consider it an under used mooring. 

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

no, I have no idea whether the farmer was involved in any discussions, but descending into the realms of supposition here, surely if he had been, the EA would have at least halted work on the disputed section.

but the facebook post did mention that the moorings ended downstream of the pumping outfall, so any disputed land would surely not amount to a whole boat length.

Continuing the supposition, I would imagine the EA would have been in discussion with the farmer and were unlikely to stop flood defence work when they have a remit to protect that bank.

I don't think the argument is about whether the bank should have been re-piled and protected, including the farmers bit. The farmers beef is more likely that it has not been made clear again which bit is his and which bit isn't. If you look at the Berney Arms mooring the BA signs make it very clear by the use of arrows which bit is theirs. The same occurs at Bramerton Common where arrows indicate where the BA mooring ends and the private moorings start.

I'm sure it is no more than the mooring being opened with unclear signage and a rather frustrated farmer trying to reinstate his rights over his bit of mooring and being frustrated that either the EA haven't re-instated his fence and signs, or the BA signage being a little ambiguous in that area.

[grendel]

for clarity i will add some snapshots from the video

this shows the fence at the end of the mooring- apparently built at the edge of the pumping outfall (from the fence behind)

this i presume is the pumping station built on the bank of the dyke inland (shown alongside and slightly to the rear of the moored boat

and this last shows the land boundaries from the land registry, so if the land registry boundary is anything to go by, and the fence for the moorings is by the pump outfall, then there may well be a cause for the farmers complaint, if however the original moorings ended at the pump outfall, then the BA have not extended the moorings.

but the footpath (a public right of way at this point) does not turn inland until after the pump outfall (where it says angles way on the above picture)

a right case for confusion indeed. and the land between the two boundaries shown above shows as unregistered land on the land registry (no transfers over the past 30 years- or possibly crown land).

still it has been reported to a ranger now, so no doubt it will all get sorted in due course. (since when has any legal boundary dispute been resolved quickly)

[Meantime]

Having now found the video on Facebook, I have captured the following picture. The Green box is the electrical supply to the pump and the BA electric post used to be just to the left downstream. The stairs are roughly in the same position and used to be the end of the mooring. That being the case, I would say the BA have stuck their sign in the wrong position, assuming they have leased exactly the same stretch of mooring as they used to have.

Wouldn't be the first time the BA has put up incorrect signs, or in the wrong place, or with misspellings on them!

I'm sure given time it will be moved, that stretch of mooring is long enough even if the sign is moved 40 foot further downstream.

The interesting thing is that the original poster on Facebook even conceded that it does appear the mooring have been extended onto the farmers land.

Back in the realms of supposition, this is probably no more than a clerical error and the BA workman going out and sticking their signs where they have been told to, or using their best judgement to space them out along the mooring without studying the drawing too closely.

As I said previously the change of quay heading used to make it plain where the BA bit stopped and the fence also helped. The fence has probably to be re-instated by the EA or farmer and now the quay heading all looks the same along there. If you were sent to install signs it might be reasonable to assume that the BA stretch extended all the way to the pump inlet.

[Tempest]

To be fair, where I reside the farmers would have just put up some post and wire fencing for their land with the appropriate signage irrespective of what any "outsider" may have deemed to be their property.

But it doesnt excuse threats to cause criminal damage to innocent boaters who are using the facilities unbeknown to any dispute 

All a bit pathetic in my view and the farmer should be extremely ashamed 

[Meantime]

I always think there might be two sides to every story, so why assume the farmer is in the wrong?

I have taken the liberty of copying part of the original post with a couple of highlights made by me.

"Shortly after mooring a very annoyed farmer came over the fence and told me I was moored on private property and had to move, I pointed out the big sign that said free 24 hour mooring. He told me the mooring had encroached onto his land and unless I moved he would cut the mooring lines. Being me i declined to move and called the Broads Control. I have to say the Ranger was there in no time at all and did his best to sort things. I does appear however that the moorings have been extended onto the farmers lane."

Now if someone has taken over part of my land for their moorings I might be annoyed as well. The "being me I declined" suggests the confrontation wasn't all one sided. The poster then goes on to concede that the farmer might be in the right as far as who's land it is. He probably has a very strong case for feeling aggrieved, but we still only have one side of just how aggressive he really was.

At the end of the day the mooring is long enough so just move along a bit. Looking at some of the other replies it is shameful that people feel they would like to go and moor there now just to be confrontational. 

It always amazes me that people are so prepared to believe the words of a stranger they haven't met and condemn the actions of another they haven't met, who hasn't even had their chance to put their side of the story.  How much of the story has been embellished to stir up sympathy we'll never know.

Based upon my previous experiences of that site and mooring there I will give the farmer the benefit of the doubt and not attempt to moor in that section until the BA have sorted it properly once and for all.