Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

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

They could also spend another fortune of our money on architects' designs for a new one, even if the design is contrary to their own planning rules.

Oh no, I forget . . . .  that was at Acle Bridge of course.  All gone a bit quiet on that idea.  Maybe all that money was spent for absolutely nothing?

[grendel]

We have reinstated the original Post after receiving permission to post it from the Author.

May I remind members that if they wish to copy something from a private facebook page or other source that they should contact the author and request permission before doing so, and note in the post that this permission has been obtained. Thanks

[Vaughan]

Well I am so glad we got that cleared up.

Perish the thought that we should invade anyone's precious "privacy" on a Facebook page!

[ExSurveyor]

That is one of the reasons for private and public groups.

[TheQ]

On 09/01/2023 at 12:18, Vaughan said:

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.

Vaughan you are incorrect in suggesting all tidal waters are required be open by law.. 

That only applies to Natural waters, it does not apply to manmade waters,. If you build a drive way to your house it does not mean it becomes a public road. If you dig a dyke to your boat yard it does not become public waters. Equally because the majority of broads are manmade peat diggings, it does not mean they are public waterways, unless established unchallenged for many years by custom and use.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, TheQ said:

Vaughan you are incorrect in suggesting all tidal waters are required be open by law.. 

For "incorrect" read "interpretation".

This is something that has been discussed at length here over the years and I know that you, as a member of Horning Sailing Club, are especially attached to Black Horse Broad, which is perhaps, the classic example.

On the Broads, we first have to consider a "navigation" which is not necessarily a man-made water. It is a waterway which leads to a public staithe.

Secondly, we consider tidal water, which is defined by the tide-line on Ordnance Survey maps.  Up until a few years ago, the tide-line on the Bure was at the downstream entrance to Hoveton Gt Broad.  So legally, anything upstream of that line meant that the landowner owned the bottom and sides of the broad as well as the water in it. Downstream of the line, he owned the bottom, but not the water in it, as in theory, this water changed when the tide went in and out!

Going back to my post above, Black Horse Broad was one of those which had been, by what you call "custom and use", closed off to navigation by the landowner since before the War.  Herbert Woods, in conjunction with others including my father, negotiated for a long time with the landowner by letter but was eventually moved to forcibly open the barrier across the entrance to allow navigation, on the basis that :

1/. The water was tidal.

2/. It was a navigation, leading to an existing public staithe - which is clearly marked on old maps.

Efforts to re-open Hoveton Gt Broad (for which I still have some of Blakes correspondence) failed because of the O.S. tide-line, which meant it was not tidal water.  This is also why Wroxham Broad has always been a "private" broad although access is allowed by the NBYC, who lease it from the Trafford Estate.

At the same time, in the late 40s, Blakes took out the lease of Malthouse Broad and the Maltsters' Quay, to stop it from being kept closed by the owner.  They were able to do this because of the two reasons above. 

This is why I say Ranworth Inner Broad should not be closed officially, since it is also tidal.   In this case, no-one has ever wanted to take the trouble (or spend the money) to prove the case in court.   Which is also interesting, since the O.S. tide-line has since moved to a bit upstream of Wroxham Broad, which means Hoveton Gt Broad is now tidal water!  It is also a very ancient navigation.

 

[TheQ]

It was only in the 1960s that Dr Lambert's theory that the broads were mostly medieval peat cuttings was accepted. Prior to that they were officially thought to be natural, therefore back then the " tidal " aspect applied. Today it doesn't, however retrospective changes to various changes in broads status as public or private would be very difficult to make happen.

 

[Vaughan]

36 minutes ago, TheQ said:

It was only in the 1960s that Dr Lambert's theory that the broads were mostly medieval peat cuttings was accepted. Prior to that they were officially thought to be natural, therefore back then the " tidal " aspect applied.

I am sure you are not suggesting that Black Horse Broad should now be closed to navigation, since it is not "natural"?  If you follow that theory, the whole Broads area is not natural (which it isn't in fact) and so should not be navigable.

40 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Today it doesn't, however retrospective changes to various changes in broads status as public or private would be very difficult to make happen.

Unless you are the Broads Authority, which had the "clout" to spend an almost 6 - figure sum of our money on legal fees, just to eventually succeed in evicting a few harmless boat owners out of Jenners Basin in Thorpe.

The only reason that certain old navigations and staithes remain closed these days is because no - one is politically or financially able to oppose the "Powers that Be".

The main point here (and back to the thread) is that places such as the public moorings at Ranworth are only there today because the interests of navigation and pleasure boating - in other words Blakes - fought for them to continue.

We must now continue to fight for them against the "status quo"   -   or lose them.

[LizG]

I note the NSBA has made some very strong objections and points I am pretty sure that they are keen to have their press release shared but it is available to read on at least one FB group. I'm not sharing in view of the original issues on this thread.

Liz

[BroadAmbition]

Is there a link?

Griff

[FlyingFortress]

2 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Is there a link?

Griff

Wouldn't hold your breath M8.

You know my views on NSBA

[LizG]

7 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Is there a link?

Griff

Not that I've found to the NSBA but it's on the Norfolk Broads News FB group 

[marshman]

It says a lot about the organisation that they have a section on Latest News on their own website yet don't consider their comments to be "News" - they may be surprised to know that not everyone in the world has a Facebook account!

I would have thought it important enough to post it on their own website but perhaps they think people who don't use Facebook are just "little people" and not important!

[grendel]

1 hour ago, LizG said:

Not that I've found to the NSBA but it's on the Norfolk Broads News FB group 

unfortunately that is a private group with content only visible to members, so permission to repost would need to be sought and given before you could post it over here.

[LizG]

I don't think the NSBA have a FB presence - I think the document being shared is a press release which is being happily shared between the various boating related FB groups - I've seen it also on River Cruiser FB page - its a shame they haven't added it to the actual NSBA website!  Maybe they will............

[marshman]

They just seem so determined to keep a low, or even almost non existent profile!!!!

[FlyingFortress]

3 minutes ago, marshman said:

They just seem so determined to keep a low, or even almost non existent profile!!!!

I'm afraid the words chocolate and fireguard spring to mind.😞

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, FlyingFortress said:

I'm afraid the words chocolate and fireguard spring to mind.😞

About as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike springs to mind!!!

[Vaughan]

Are you all talking about the NSBA or the Broads Society?

There's another once very influential body in Broads matters, that has since become a damp squib.

[LizG]

16 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Are you all talking about the NSBA or the Broads Society?

There's another once very influential body in Broads matters, that has since become a damp squib.

NSBA in this case!

[PaulN]

On 09/01/2023 at 16:35, 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 .

 

I agree. If the BA want to save money, then do away with the information centre and Rangers at Ranworth, the centre is little used and I doubt that selling publications produces any significant profit, if at all. I'm sure that the majority of day visitors to the broads do not rely on these so called information centre, but rather research online prior to arrival. If publications on the broads are required then go to the nearby Norfolk Broadland Trust building.

I agree that the ranger we see running around with a boathook, provides no significant service and had better not come near my boat with it. The other rangers just seem to walk around recording registration numbers to check for 24 hour transgressors and this is a recent thing. Other 24 hour moorings don't have this so why are these jobsworth's necessary.

Whilst I can see the value of someone assisting at GY and Reedham, to tell people to come in and leave the moorings against the tide, this does not apply at Ranworth where the tide is minimal and the main influence is the wind which applies to all the unattended moorings as well.. The moorings at Ranworth are stern on and so when reversing between two other boats, with plenty of boaters to help as a rule, then by the time mooring ropes are within reach of the bank' it's job done!

Next do away with that 'Edwardian' Launch 'Liana' that takes up a 24 hour mooring albeit permanently. I must have moored at Ranwoth about 20 times last year and never saw it move. What a waste of our money. The open launch moored on the other side of the green also with a reserved 24 hour mooring, I assume is owned by the NBT and not the BA.

Are we also likely to see charges at Hoveton, where there is again an unnecessary  (IMHO) B.A. information centre, albeit for reasons best known to the B.A. overlooks Roy's car park rather that the River.

[LizG]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23246809.broads-authority-13-toll-charge-increase-approved/

 

[grendel]

well then that makes it worth mooring on the Lord nelsons moorings in that case, at least then the pub gets the revenue

 

[Meantime]

So I believe that double mooring is allowed at Reedham, but only with permission from the boat owner. Do you have to pay £20 if you refuse to allow another paying boat to moor alongside you?

[Vaughan]

37 minutes ago, LizG said:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23246809.broads-authority-13-toll-charge-increase-approved/

 

I see that Alan Thomson, "a committee member" says:

It's cutting down on a pint of beer every 6 weeks, effectively.

Where on God's Earth did he work that out from?  Are these the sort of "statistics" upon which the BA base their calculations??????

He goes on to encourage us, in his perceived wisdom,  that :

I don't think this will affect anybody in terms of their boating whatsoever.

Who is this person???  Does he actually own a boat?

Let me tell you something, Mister! : I am very worried for the future of the Broads at this time, and I have more than 60 years of my own experience behind me.  This spring, when I come back to Norfolk,  I shall be making a very objective decision as to whether I should sell my boat now, before the various new policies of the BA render it worthless in a short while to come.

This latest news will "affect" my decision in a big way.