Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)

[floydraser]

12 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Makes you wonder if we are being played, what the bigger game is? Will the BA find out that they cannot legally charge for mooring in those two locations and lo and behold, it's an excuse to push for more than a 13% increase on the toll.

Beat me to it by 2 minutes!

Yes I think it's probably an attempt to tee us up for a substantial increase so there'll be less of a revolt. I also think a lot of these price rises are ways of recovering losses made through the pandemic although I don't think that applies to the BA.

[rightsaidfred]

7 minutes ago, marshman said:

I am not sure but I have a feeling that Ranworth Staithe is owned by the parish.

I think you might be right it is just the moorings and information centre that were bequeathed to the BA

[Meantime]

17 hours ago, NeilB said:

Otherwise I can see the dinghy getting more use for pub / shop visits as mudweighting is free - for now anyway.....

Strange you should mention that!!! I believe the BA got given the lease for Ranworth moorings by Blakes, who in turn had taken out a lease on the moorings, and Matlhouse Broad and Ranworth Dam, in order to keep the navigation open. If the whole lease was passed to the BA, then presumably they could charge for mud weighting!!!

[rightsaidfred]

55 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Strange you should mention that!!! I believe the BA got given the lease for Ranworth moorings by Blakes, who in turn had taken out a lease on the moorings, and Matlhouse Broad and Ranworth Dam, in order to keep the navigation open. If the whole lease was passed to the BA, then presumably they could charge for mud weighting!!!

I think you will find that the Cators still own the Broad and all the private moorings as well as the Island and that the broad has the benefit of a historical right of navigation to the staithe.

Fred

 

[Bytheriver]

20 hours ago, Smoggy said:

They tried to introduce a charge at reedham before and got told to Go Away by the parish council I seem to recall, I don't believe they have the authority to do so.

Reedham Quay excluding the Lord Nelson section (£10 overnight) is owned by Broadland District Council  who carry out any repairs & provide the bins )It is leased by BA March till end of October & staffed currently (9am till 6pm less a lunch break) Charging for even overnight will bring its own problems. 

Many users do need help especially in difficult  weather & tide conditions & I do wonder if one person could cope especially in the last hour whilst trying to catch up with crews with a card reader + pocket full of change & check ropes for the night - any that were away to pubs or shops could easily slip out early next morning as many do anyway to catch the tide at GY

Discuss -

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

recovering losses made through the pandemic although I don't think that applies to the BA.

Neither do I.

We should remember that during all the lockdown and pandemic saga, we continued paying our river tolls in full and the BA continued to maintain the Broads. That is why when all the restrictions were lifted, we could come back to a system that was still open and still in good working order.

Well done @BroadsAuthority for that!

[grendel]

yes, I seem to recall it tool the Canal and River Trust etc many months after the system reopened to catch up with the work not done during lockdown.

[Vaughan]

59 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I think you will find that the Cators still own the Broad and all the private moorings as well as the Island and that the broad has the benefit of a historical right of navigation to the staithe.

Perhaps this is academic now, as we must look to the future. All the same :

 

After the War, the Broads had, in the space of 5 years, grown over and "gone back to nature".  My parents hired a boat for 2 weeks in 1946 in order to have a look around for a boatyard business to invest in.  My mother remembered how they had to literally cut their way into places such as Womack dyke, the Chet and Rockland dyke (there was only one dyke then) as they had grown over and become inaccessible in just those few years of the War.  The local landowners soon got used to the situation and were happy to keep their land inaccessible and closed off to navigation and the ghastly "general public".

Yes, it was snobbish in those days.  Very snobbish.  Thou shalt not interfere with the rights of the landed gentry to their duck shooting and fishing.  I actually have cine film of my father and Mr Blofeld pike fishing on Gt Hoveton Broad, in 1955.  Nowadays the Blofeld family want to clear all the fish out, so as to maintain the quality of their "private garden pond" which is - by tradition and law -  tidal water and therefore should be open to navigation.

This is the traditional and hierarchical attitude that we are still up against.  This is also how farming landowners managed to persuade Government to close off and protect their land from the river, in order to grow arable crops.  So we now have far more flooding than we ever used to in my memory.

Do I digress? Perhaps not!

Ever since the late 40s the tourism industry has fought against this proprietorial attitude and succeeded (long before the BA) in forcing traditional waterways to be re-opened.  This is why Blakes took out a lease on the whole of Malthouse Broad, The Dam and the Maltsters' Quay, in order to prevent them being closed off, as they surely would have remained otherwise.  Ranworth Inner Broad is also tidal and should also, legally, be open to navigation.

I am afraid I don't know what happened to Blakes' lease in the 80s as I had moved to France by then but I know there is a difference between the Maltsters' Quay, now leased by BA, and the Parish staithe, which is off to one side.

The land known as the Island moorings was owned by Peter Mills, who also owned the big white house down from the church, where there is now a marina mooring.  Before his retirement, he had been the Chief of Police in Kenya.

Frankly, I don't care whether the BA have the "right" to charge for moorings at Ranworth : I just don't think that approach would be good for the future of Broads boating.

[Meantime]

The attached document, which I believe was commissioned by the BA makes interesting reading. Particularly page 31 and 32. 

This is a quote from page 31.

"On November 19 2002 the ownership of the staithe and visitor centre were transferred from the NSBYO to the Broads Authority in order ‘to ensure that it is maintained and managed for public use as it has been in the past’."

Were there ever charges made for mooring at Ranworth in the past? There is also a covenant contained within the transfer to reserve the right to free mooring for parishioners which tends to conform the origin of the staithe as a public staithe.

 

staithes-report-final-final-draft.pdf

[CambridgeCabby]

Surely , if the BA are intending reducing the quantity of free 24hr moorings then they should actually  reduce the river tolls which we are regularly informed by the BA a portion of which provide these afore mentioned moorings ?

[Mouldy]

21 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Surely , if the BA are intending reducing the quantity of free 24hr moorings then they should actually  reduce the river tolls which we are regularly informed by the BA a portion of which provide these afore mentioned moorings ?

There’s logic and logic as defined by the BA.  As Mark pointed out, they are an unelected kwango, accountable to no one.

[CambridgeCabby]

As an aside , the only reason there are rangers (voluntary) ones at Ranworth seems to me to be due to the fact that they have a visitors center there , the “current crop” that were there last season did on occasion assist in boats mooring but not IMHO in a manner that was especially efficient or tbh beneficial .

One of these rangers rushes out with their boat hook in hand ready to spear any incoming vessel and is one of those individuals that has a talent to look exceedingly busy whilst achieving diddly squat , often waving a day boat into the side dyke (taxi rank side) or on the front when there are spaces in the dedicated dingy dyke readily available .

They are often seen untying a boat without consulting with the owners or crew so as to squeeze another boat in , and tying the boat lines above an already moored vessels ropes , not good etiquette at the very least , and as far as moving another’s vessels I’m not certain as to the legality either.

In all the years we have been boating , when a boat arrived and is in obvious difficulty making a safe mooring there has been an abundance of willing individuals only to happy to assist.

A BA Ranger is not needed at Ranworth at all and to a majority of those I converse with is not wanted either .

Ergo , if the BA wish to save funds then dispense with the Ranger at Ranworth all together .

 

[ranworthbreeze]

5 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

As an aside , the only reason there are rangers (voluntary) ones at Ranworth seems to me to be due to the fact that they have a visitors center there , the “current crop” that were there last season did on occasion assist in boats mooring but not IMHO in a manner that was especially efficient or tbh beneficial .

One of these rangers rushes out with their boat hook in hand ready to spear any incoming vessel and is one of those individuals that has a talent to look exceedingly busy whilst achieving diddly squat , often waving a day boat into the side dyke (taxi rank side) or on the front when there are spaces in the dedicated dingy dyke readily available .

They are often seen untying a boat without consulting with the owners or crew so as to squeeze another boat in , and tying the boat lines above an already moored vessels ropes , not good etiquette at the very least , and as far as moving another’s vessels I’m not certain as to the legality either.

In all the years we have been boating , when a boat arrived and is in obvious difficulty making a safe mooring there has been an abundance of willing individuals only to happy to assist.

A BA Ranger is not needed at Ranworth at all and to a majority of those I converse with is not wanted either .

Ergo , if the BA wish to save funds then dispense with the Ranger at Ranworth all together .

 

It is not one ranger because they operate shifts.

[Broads01]

40 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

A BA Ranger is not needed at Ranworth at all and to a majority of those I converse with is not wanted either .

Ergo , if the BA wish to save funds then dispense with the Ranger at Ranworth all together .

Spot on.

[jeffbroadslover]

Looks like anyone who has a "flappy thing" should be very careful what they are doing as the way things are going they may finish up getting an extra charge to use the waterways if it is at all windy !!!!

Jeff

[grendel]

Please note, we have had to take some action to remove the initial post from this thread due to a communication from an outside party, this was because the post had been copied verbatim from a private facebook page (where only members of that page could view it, so while it is being considered we have brought the thread to this new thread to continue the discussion (as its an important topic.)

we would like to remind members that posting content from another platform where it is private is not allowed (especially when we are then approached by the third party involved ) as this content in the form presented was not otherwise in the public domain.

thanks.

[Meantime]

Fair dues, at the very least it is normal to quote where it has been copied from, however private communications should always be private and respected in my opinion.

[Matt]

We are fortunate enough to have two weeks onboard Thunder every year. As everything becomes more expensive out discretionary spend just gets squeezed that little bit more.

A few years ago we would have ate out at least 3 times a week. Last summer it was once.

 

We can’t be the only family taking such measures and I just can’t see how this is  beneficial for the Broads or indeed the economy in general.

 

if it was, say £10 to moor at Ranworth on top of a meal in the Malsters then we just won’t go.

[floydraser]

On the subject of employed rangers I remember a discussion long ago (crikey, I have been a long time...) where I made the comparison with the C&RT who rely on an army of volunteers. I think the member or members who climbed up to the moral high ground may have left the building now but I was soundly shot down for suggesting that we deny someone a living wage.

So if we want to support someone with a normal 2.4 children family in a decent house with a mortgage, it's going to cost us all but we should feel very pleased with ourselves as we reach for the bottom of our pockets. Oh, and don't forget if we want to claim compensation when one of these professionals is negligent and our boats get scratched, there'll be a corporate insurance policy to pay for too. I know which I would prefer.

I guess there's a balance between numbers of full timers and volunteers.

[CambridgeCabby]

Professional , and qualified Rangers are essential at GYYS and Reedham (IMO) for the safety of hirers and owners alike due to the tides at these moorings .

[BroadAmbition]

Really? Experienced skippers / crews can and do manage just fine at both those locations with or without assistance both private and hirers alike just as they do the world over if no attendants are in evidence 

Griff

[Wussername]

42 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Really? Experienced skippers / crews can and do manage just fine at both those locations with or without assistance both private and hirers alike just as they do the world over if no attendants are in evidence 

Griff

Yes, absolutely correct.

However, some do not and require assistance.

[MauriceMynah]

It has been noted that collecting mooring fees could cause problems, and I might suggest most existing 24hr spots would cost more than they would receive.

No, I agree that this is a negotiation tactic. It would however, be interesting to see how such a charge would affect the regular users of moorings such as Sutton Staithe !

We know (history tells us) that above inflation toll increases are the norm, so there is little point in jumping about, increasing our collective blood pressures about it each year.  As always, we just have to bite that bullet and pay up.

Still, look on the bright side. Those people who refuse to pay their tolls will make real savings.😄

[Bytheriver]

12 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

As an aside , the only reason there are rangers (voluntary) ones at Ranworth seems to me to be due to the fact that they have a visitors center there , the “current crop” that were there last season did on occasion assist in boats mooring but not IMHO in a manner that was especially efficient or tbh beneficial .

One of these rangers rushes out with their boat hook in hand ready to spear any incoming vessel and is one of those individuals that has a talent to look exceedingly busy whilst achieving diddly squat , often waving a day boat into the side dyke (taxi rank side) or on the front when there are spaces in the dedicated dingy dyke readily available .

They are often seen untying a boat without consulting with the owners or crew so as to squeeze another boat in , and tying the boat lines above an already moored vessels ropes , not good etiquette at the very least , and as far as moving another’s vessels I’m not certain as to the legality either.

In all the years we have been boating , when a boat arrived and is in obvious difficulty making a safe mooring there has been an abundance of willing individuals only to happy to assist.

A BA Ranger is not needed at Ranworth at all and to a majority of those I converse with is not wanted either .

Ergo , if the BA wish to save funds then dispense with the Ranger at Ranworth all together .

 

If there is only a Volunteer Ranger at Ranworth the cost is negligible? 

[MauriceMynah]

I'm sure Chelsea Ian will correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect there's a considerable cost involved in using "volunteers ", probably not much cheaper than employees. 

As far as Ranworth is concerned, if the information centre costs the BA money close it. If it makes money, keep it going.  Simples.