Barton Turf Moorings

[Mouldy]

Just seen on a FB Broads group page that as of 1st June 2022, the moorings at Barton Turf will cease to be.  The post states that after lengthy negotiations with the BA, no settlement could be reached.

Shame on the BA, if that’s the case.  There are insufficient moorings across the network, so the loss of the ‘quiet’ moorings at Potter and and now these doesn’t help the boater at all.

[ChrisB]

I assume that is The Staithe not Paddy's Lane

[Mouldy]

8 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

I assume that is The Staithe not Paddy's Lane

Yes, Barton Turf Staithe.

[rightsaidfred]

6 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

I assume that is The Staithe not Paddy's Lane

Yes, there are planning and length of lease complications involved so not quite as simple as it seems, I can only assume the FB posters main reasoning was to stir up trouble.

Fred

[Mouldy]

It would be good if the BA would comment.

[SwanR]

Very interesting. 

[Tempest]

Awful

I hate all the BA bashing, but things such as this actually add fuel to the fire.

Whoever makes these decisions, really needs to find a new job and the BA needs to employ someone who has the finger on the pulse of the broads boating community

[Bytheriver]

The last I can see in the  BA website was a report to the Navigation Ctte back in April https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/427561/Barton_Turf_Staithe.pdf The minutes are not available yet

[YnysMon]

There’s always two sides…(to an argument).

[marshman]

Indeed - I wonder why the Council were insisting on a 7 year lease? Not sure I would want to take on a maintenance lease with that period in mind. The BA have been caught out before on the maintenance issue only for the Lessor to bring a a lease to a premature end.

As has been said two sides to every story...!!!!

[ChrisB]

6 hours ago, marshman said:

Indeed - I wonder why the Council were insisting on a 7 year lease? Not sure I would want to take on a maintenance lease with that period in mind. The BA have been caught out before on the maintenance issue only for the Lessor to bring a a lease to a premature end.

As has been said two sides to every story...!!!!

I believe that I am correct in saying that land/ property leases of 7 years or longer are registrable with the Land Agency, and as such their terms are more secure under contract law.

I would imagine that the BA are bound by Gov. Procurement guidelines  with regards to signing and taking on the liability of any lease.

[grendel]

Having just read that report, I see the quoted figures don't take into account the costs of recapping the piling and the legal fees, so another £5000 on top of the figures quoted, for a mooring for just 1 boat while the rest goes to private, it's a tricky call for the ba, get bashed for losing a mooring or get bashed for spending too much on securing it.

[RumPunch]

I LIVE IN BARTON TURF. AND I AM FURIOUS. and yes I am shouting. This is one of the most iconic and beautiful moorings on the Broads, and to lose it is so very sad

Oh - and don't forget where the water point is ......

[Mouldy]

I’m not a regular BA basher either, but I do feel that too much effort (and money) is ploughed into promoting the area as a National Park, with fanciful designs for visitor centres and signage and not enough attention paid to the needs of the boater, whose tolls contribute a significant amount of their funding.

Bearing in mind that the toll increase is based upon the rate of inflation, next years toll increase promises to be a very expensive one.  Part of their brief is to promote tourism and a large part of the tourism in the area is comprised of those hiring and owning boats, who need to be able to moor.  It would be good to realise that our interests are being considered when making decisions on how to best utilise their funding.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, RumPunch said:

I LIVE IN BARTON TURF. AND I AM FURIOUS. and yes I am shouting. This is one of the most iconic and beautiful moorings on the Broads, and to lose it is so very sad

Oh - and don't forget where the water point is ......

Maybe as a resident you could ask your council why they expect toll payers to pay for the refurbishment of moorings on a 7 year lease while they appear to be taking a larger part of the staithe for their own purposes leaving us with a reduced facility as per described in the Nav Comm report above.

If the council are serious about the BA maintaining  the moorings for public use perhaps they should offer more in length of lease and available moorings not less, I just hope they don`t see this as a stick to close the parish moorings at Irstead.

Fred

 

[rightsaidfred]

39 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

I’m not a regular BA basher either, but I do feel that too much effort (and money) is ploughed into promoting the area as a National Park, with fanciful designs for visitor centres and signage and not enough attention paid to the needs of the boater, whose tolls contribute a significant amount of their funding.

Bearing in mind that the toll increase is based upon the rate of inflation, next years toll increase promises to be a very expensive one.  Part of their brief is to promote tourism and a large part of the tourism in the area is comprised of those hiring and owning boats, who need to be able to moor.  It would be good to realise that our interests are being considered when making decisions on how to best utilise their funding.

As above maybe in this instance the BA are when you consider what is on offer and who will benefit most from the expenditure.

Fred

[Andrewcook]

Hi, I think there should be an Arbitration council to sort out this problem with the Broads Authority and the Parish Council. As to this time, things are going to be very costly this year god knows what's gonna be like in 2023  I do hope this beautiful  spot will be sorted out?

[Vaughan]

Photo from "The Broads" by Robert Malster.

 

To allow the effective privatisation of one of the best known public staithes on the Broads, and by the very parish council that owns it and used to depend on it, is not only a disgraceful disregard of history and tradition but also perilous for the future of Broads navigation as a whole.

If Barton turf is no longer a public staithe then the waterway leading to it is no longer a "navigation".  So there is no longer a need to dredge or maintain it.  The waterways that we love to cruise on depend on these ancient rights and laws.

We are already using only about a third of the navigations and waterways which used to exist in Norfolk and Suffolk around the time this photo was taken. We must not lose any more of them.

[Mouldy]

37 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

As above maybe in this instance the BA are when you consider what is on offer and who will benefit most from the expenditure.

Fred

So what are we saying?  Should the BA only be interested in looking after longer stretches of moorings that can accommodate significantly more craft, like How Hill to St Benets (which also were under threat of being lost quite recently, if I recall correctly)?  There’s only room for two or three craft at Irstead.  Are we worried about losing them?  There are no businesses there that are supported by tourism, so why waste money on them?  Horning moorings are (I believe) leased from the parish and due for renegotiation and renewal in the not too distant future.  Are we interested in keeping them?  Where do we draw the line between being of value to the boating community or not?

In my opinion, for what it’s worth, all of these moorings are worth keeping.  Irstead and Barton Turf are peaceful, pretty places that are loved by many and their loss would be very sad.  The agenda at the BA seems to forget the toll payers and their needs in favour of chasing media attention grabbing headline stories, to justify their existence.

[rightsaidfred]

10 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

So what are we saying?  Should the BA only be interested in looking after longer stretches of moorings that can accommodate significantly more craft, like How Hill to St Benets (which also were under threat of being lost quite recently, if I recall correctly)?  There’s only room for two or three craft at Irstead.  Are we worried about losing them?  There are no businesses there that are supported by tourism, so why waste money on them?  Horning moorings are (I believe) leased from the parish and due for renegotiation and renewal in the not too distant future.  Are we interested in keeping them?  Where do we draw the line between being of value to the boating community or not?

In my opinion, for what it’s worth, all of these moorings are worth keeping.  Irstead and Barton Turf are peaceful, pretty places that are loved by many and their loss would be very sad.  The agenda at the BA seems to forget the toll payers and their needs in favour of chasing media attention grabbing headline stories, to justify their existence.

That is not what I implied, all moorings are valuable and these ones are among my favourites, the point is that any renegotiated lease  has to make practical and financial sense for all parties not just benefit the landowner.

Fred

[Vaughan]

So, there will be 18 metres of public mooring?  That is two medium size boats or one big one.  That is not enough.

Good Lord, I hope no-one is going to use the hackneyed excuse that they have "fallen into dis-use"?

That there is "no longer a call for them"?

[SteveO]

For what it is worth, I would rather see toll-payers money spent on keeping moorings open than on re-branding, signage,visitor centres and some of the other indulgences that the BA has been involved in recently. The two sides in this dispute need to re-engage and turn a lose/lose into a win/win before another lovely place to moor is lost.

[rightsaidfred]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

For what it is worth, I would rather see toll-payers money spent on keeping moorings open than on re-branding, signage,visitor centres and some of the other indulgences that the BA has been involved in recently. The two sides in this dispute need to re-engage and turn a lose/lose into a win/win before another lovely place to moor is lost.

While I dont disagree it takes two to tango not one give and one take, in this instance if you read the nav comm report we will not only be paying to improve and extend the parishs own moorings but ending up with less public mooring for ourselves on a very short lease, now if that makes sense I am on the wrong planet.

Fred

[JawsOrca]

It seems a bit of a rock and a hard place. Parish Council trying to save costs but still try and improve things for their parishioners and the BA who do seem incompetent with everything really trying to save money so they can spend on their own egos and who have no doubt asserted their egos on the parish councillors a number of times.

Surely at the end of the day it's a mooring for the general public and these government organisations should just leave their egos at the door and do their job and sort it out with the less cost to the general public. 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Is that an example of how much BA pays a landowner? If so then little wonder there are so many no mooring signs.