Barton Turf Moorings

[rightsaidfred]

52 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

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. 

I don't think egos come into it, I wonder how many have actually read what is being proposed.

I don`t pay to repair my neighbours fence and then give him half my garden as well which is roughly what the council is the suggesting.

Fred

[Mouldy]

The problem is, as moorings come to the end of their lease, unless the BA are willing to revisit their expectations terms of what the mooring is worth, more and more landowners will end their arrangements with the organisation that is supposed to be there to protect our interests.  This is all down to supply and demand and as the demand for moorings increases and the number of moorings decreases, the problem will become worse.

We are obviously not fully aware of the discussions that have caused this stalemate, but as the parish appear to have paid for waste facilities and grass cutting for the duration of the existing lease, it does seem to me that their efforts have exceeded what was expected.  Is it possible that the BA have undervalued the mooring?

[SteveO]

So presumable as pressure is on local councils to save and even make money, we will see more small, currently BA, moorings revert to "private use".  Things move on and the "going rate" changes, so perhaps the BA need to adapt to the new reality or we will end up in the risible situation of boats doing nothing more than chug round the system all day looking for somewhere to moor up for the evening.   

[Bytheriver]

It has been reported in another place that the Staithe is owned by a Charity of which the Parish Council are trustees which ties them to Charity Commission Regulation which controls the length of lease they may offer?

[Cheesey69]

Argh but the smaller staithe can host a lot of paddle boarders, kayaks and canoes without the pesky boaters needs being met. 

[Vaughan]

There is a headline article on the EDP website about it this morning.

It seems the staithe will now close altogether for public moorings except for dinghies, as the BA have refused to pay a rent on the staithe, as well as maintain the quay.

I don't quite understand this.  I pay a boatyard to moor in their basin.  For this fee, I expect them to maintain the quay.  Does this mean I have to now do it myself?  Why do the BA need to pay for the maintenance, and pay commercial rent?

The council say they could get at least £1000  rent from a landowner, and other places on the Broads are doing it.

This sounds rather like greed to me.  It is a public staithe, looked after by the BA, while the council mow the lawn and (sometimes) empty the bins.  I see nothing wrong in that.

[BroadAmbition]

I’m obviously missing sommat here

As it’s a public staithe. How can the council close it off to the public then?

Griff

[ChrisB]

Is the Adventure Centre, Ex Hertfordshire Schools still active? They had their own slipway. It could have been a good revenue stream for them launching canoes and SUPBs

[RumPunch]

1 minute ago, ChrisB said:

Is the Adventure Centre, Ex Hertfordshire Schools still active? They had their own slipway. It could have been a good revenue stream for them launching canoes and SUPBs

Yes - in Private hands ( look up BTAC / Barton Turf Activity Centre )

[Cheesey69]

Question is, what do the locals get out of it?

As it stands nothing but expense. 
Bet the space gets converted into parish moorings. 

[rightsaidfred]

28 minutes ago, Cheesey69 said:

Question is, what do the locals get out of it?

As it stands nothing but expense. 
Bet the space gets converted into parish moorings. 

I think it became clear during a recent FB discussion started by the councillor that the council were withdrawing most of the moorings for Parish use leaving a very short stretch available on the front and then tried to put the blame on the BA.

Fred 

[marshman]

And don't forget they are only offering a 7 yr lease and they want maintenance as well. Methinks they have made it all a bit too much to stomach - don't forget the BA have been caught out before on this maintenance issue with the landowner then changing his mind and giving notice after renewal!

Methinks the PCC have done it so they can get a higher return from other source - shame really that the PCC may have got it wrong and have driven the public away from a pretty spot - despite the earlier comments from the PCC Chair earlier!

[Cheesey69]

I’ve been told a similar thing happened in Cornwall way back when. 
A parish beach in a cove that had no shops but was very popular in summer. 
A small patch of land becomes available that suits a small car park. 
The parish council proposed buying it but the locals are against it. 
After all, what do they get out of it? They can walk to the beach, no shops depend on the summer trade and they have off street parking. 
Most really don’t want people walking around spoiling the area. Being noisy. 

[grendel]

yes, the parish council apportioning the blame on the Broads Authority, when in reality they wanted a change of use for all but a single space on the end to parish moorings (for which they needed planning permission that went contrary to the broads development plan (which they then also wanted the broads authority to pay the legal fee on)) plus for that they wanted the BA to maintain the quay heading.

apparently there are legal covenants governing the use of the staithe too, its all there in the reports on the BA website and the pdf linked at the beginning of this thread. certainly the facebook post stating the BA wouldnt spend a mere £675 was a misrepresentation of the facts of the matter, and maybe could even be seen as sour grapes on the behest of the council, that hadnt got their way of converting the majority of the moorings to parish ones. (for which a change of use was required)

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all,

We were approached by the EDP to respond to this story last week and subsequently provided them with a statement.

However, the original article published this morning omitted most of what was sent over to them and instead placed a significant emphasis onto the quote that this is down to the Broads Authority 'not being able to afford £675 worth of rent'.

The reason behind the offer from BTIPC being unanimously rejected by the Navigation Committee lies with the short lease duration (with no guarantees given after 7 years), plus the commercial rent and liability for the maintenance/associated costs for the piling having to be taken on by the Authority.

I've reproduced the statement below just to show what was sent over (although it looks like it has been added now as of 13:40pm)

Managing our network of 60 free 24-hour moorings represents a considerable liability and risk for the Broads Authority. Typically, where there is a piled edge, we take on the responsibility from the landowner to manage and replace this (at a cost of approx. £1000 per m) in return for a long-term lease at a nominal rent.

The Authority inherited the lease for this mooring at Barton Turf, without liability for the piling, from the Port and Haven Commissioners. Despite this, we have managed and maintained the mooring over a fifty-year period.

Barton Turf and Irstead Parish Council’s (BTIPC) offer of a short 7-year lease, with a commercial rent and liability for the piling resting with the Authority, was unanimously rejected as untenable by the Authority’s Navigation Committee.

BTIPC will now be responsible for this short length of mooring. While the outcome of the negotiations is disappointing, a longer length of free 24-hour mooring is available at nearby Paddy’s Lane.

The Nav Com report on the matter can be found here too in case you missed it: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/427561/Barton_Turf_Staithe.pdf

I hope this is helpful,

Best

Tom

[marshman]

The Parish Council methinks may have been hoist by their own petard - but perhaps that is what they wanted! My guess it is going the way the Parish Council intended!

Presumably they will now probably need to apply for planning permission to change it back to private moorings. 

Or perhaps not?

[Mouldy]

What Tom has failed to address with his response is the fact that we’ve lost more moorings and could potentially lose more if the moorings at Irstead go the same way.  I’m guessing that most riverside moorings are privately owned and leased from the landowners, so if more landowners decide they want more rent for the land they provide, is the BA going to refuse any increases?

There are already insufficient moorings, especially through the peak holiday periods and as toll payers, should we accept the loss of more?  Is the BA looking at providing additional moorings elsewhere on the network?  Losing the quiet moorings at Potter wasn’t ideal and restricts us to those opposite the entrance to Woods yard, making it almost as difficult to moor there as it is, particularly for the private boat owner, at Wroxham and Horning.

Dont get me wrong, I understand criteria for not renewing the lease on the Barton moorings, but as folk try to capitalise on their property to maximise their potential income, I hope that the BA strive to find suitable alternatives.

[marshman]

Easy answer then was for the Parish to grant a longer lease - my guess is that they saw it as an opportunity to make a public mooring actually pay as if it were a private one.

Not sure if agreeing to every demand, is the best way forward, even in this modern day world. I can see a lot of take, and not a lot of give here - its not as though it is the BA's job to pay for rubbish collection, or grass cutting of land they do not use, let alone own, or lease. After all, once you start that, tolls will not go far!!!

[CambridgeCabby]

Thank you Tom for your posting , whilst Barton Turf is (or sadly was) one of my favourite mooring spots I can only agree with the stance taken by the BA over this , as a representative body the BA cannot be seen to effectively fritter thousands of toll payers monies away without the guarantee of a secure long lease.

However , I hope the BA will also object to any planning application that seeks to change a historic public staithe to that of a private permanent mooring .

[Bluebell]

33 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

“whilst Barton Turf is (or sadly was) one of my favourite mooring spots”

Sssh! The side on at Malthouse might hear…😎

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Mouldy said:

What Tom has failed to address with his response is the fact that we’ve lost more moorings and could potentially lose more if the moorings at Irstead go the same way.  I’m guessing that most riverside moorings are privately owned and leased from the landowners, so if more landowners decide they want more rent for the land they provide, is the BA going to refuse any increases?

There are already insufficient moorings, especially through the peak holiday periods and as toll payers, should we accept the loss of more?  Is the BA looking at providing additional moorings elsewhere on the network?  Losing the quiet moorings at Potter wasn’t ideal and restricts us to those opposite the entrance to Woods yard, making it almost as difficult to moor there as it is, particularly for the private boat owner, at Wroxham and Horning.

Dont get me wrong, I understand criteria for not renewing the lease on the Barton moorings, but as folk try to capitalise on their property to maximise their potential income, I hope that the BA strive to find suitable alternatives.

As a toll payer myself I am as concerned as anyone but we need to keep a balance, tolls go towards the overall maintainance of the system not just moorings although I accept some is syphoned of for other reasons, landowners are a law unto themselves as can be seen with the Blofelds and the Cators amongst others, if any members can identify potential moorings I am sure the BA would be delighted to hear of them.

Fref

[Wonderwall]

Did these moorings not have a “ character” who would at times come out and shout at those who moored there?   I may have my ropes crossed here 😃.

Its really sad, it was a fantastic place to spend a summers evening. I may even go and spend a night on the mudweight VERY close by, when I am down in a few weeks 🤪.

 

Is that it , officially closed in a few days time? No way back ?

[CambridgeCabby]

2 minutes ago, Wonderwall said:

Did these moorings not have a “ character” who would at times come out and shout at those who moored there?   I may have my ropes crossed here 😃.

I believe the “gentleman” to whom you refer is at Irstead parish moorings 

[CambridgeCabby]

4 minutes ago, Wonderwall said:

 

Is that it , officially closed in a few days time? No way back ?

One would hope that if they are unable to gain permission to turn the staithe into a private permanent mooring then an approach may be made to the BA in the future where a longer lease may be more amenable to the parish .

But until then as of from tomorrow they are no longer 24hr BA moorings   

[rightsaidfred]

10 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

One would hope that if they are unable to gain permission to turn the staithe into a private permanent mooring then an approach may be made to the BA in the future where a longer lease may be more amenable to the parish .

But until then as of from tomorrow they are no longer 24hr BA moorings   

I understood it that for managment purposes of various sites the council had created some form of charitable trust that restricts them to offering a maximum 7 year lease, sadly it appears that like many local authorities they put their own agenda before the public good.

Fred