Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)

[FlyingFortress]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

That's fine, coming from someone whose post above effectively killed it.

So let's all just sit here like sheep and take what is coming to us.  At least I tried.

Sadly, those of us who are not prepared to sit here and watch what our parents' generation created being frittered away , will fairly soon vote with our feet.

Vaughan Please.

I am not trying to stifle debate.

I am trying to encourage, cajole, provoke some form of action.

IMHO the best form of action is for us Stakeholders ( see I can use current buzzwords) to get together and have some sort of representation within the corridors of power at Yare House. Some representation that reflects the true feelings on The Rhond and not the Poodles that are supposedly representing us now and have been for years. Not fit for purpose.

By all means please write to The BA and express your concerns I am just afraid that it will be filed away with all the other like-minded correspondence.

[FlyingFortress]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

This is the other thing that gives me great concern, as a Broads boat owner.  The BA, as a typical Quango, are surfing the wave of a green agenda, by announcing all sorts of percentages of carbon neutrality by certain dates.  The next thing will be to put us under pressure to do likewise, but without doing anything to make it possible.

I also notice we have not heard of any hire boatyards building electric boats, except day launches.  The impression I get from talking to friends is that they think that one day, it may be possible technically, to provide the power to run a cabin cruiser "for a couple of days", but certainly not yet and not for several years to come.

Do we know if BA are actually re-fitting their launches this year?  If so, do they not think that the technology they are using might be also of interest to us?  Or might encourage us to research the possibilities?  If they are going to charge for moorings, does that mean they are going to use the income to install proper boat charging points?  Dream on!!!

I think we should all be able to realise that the BA's next "green incentive" will not be anything to do with infrastructure - too difficult, too expensive, planning constraints, National Grid, etc., etc. -  oh no!  The next political move will be be to introduce an increased toll on diesel boats as a pollution charge.

So bang goes your investment in the boat that you worked so hard to pay for.  You don't believe me?

Watch this space.

 

I also fully agree with this.

[rightsaidfred]

50 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

By all means please write to The BA and express your concerns I am just afraid that it will be filed away with all the other like-minded correspondence.

Back in 2012 the BA attempt to enforce compulsory double mooring was thwarted largely by us minions expressing ourselves individually in writing so it is not a meaningless gesture.

Fred 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

I would be happy for anyone with a better legal understanding than myself to confirm or contradict me but I believe that as the BA have no powers to issue fines or fixed penalty notices and in this instance there is no relevant byelaw to breach unlike with tolls and overstaying the 24hr rule non payment of a potentially illegal double charge and given the covenant in the original transfer of ownership would be a civil not criminal matter which I think the BA would have considerable difficulty justifying and recovering in a small claims court from several thousand private toll payers.

Well said Fred and I particularly congratulate you for writing the whole of this paragraph as one sentence.

Perhaps you should have been a lawyer?   

[grendel]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

and given the covenant in the original transfer of ownership

does anyone have a copy of the wording of that covenant

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, FlyingFortress said:

Vaughan Please.

I am not trying to stifle debate.

I am trying to encourage, cajole, provoke some form of action.

IMHO the best form of action is for us Stakeholders ( see I can use current buzzwords) to get together and have some sort of representation within the corridors of power at Yare House. Some representation that reflects the true feelings on The Rhond and not the Poodles that are supposedly representing us now and have been for years. Not fit for purpose.

By all means please write to The BA and express your concerns I am just afraid that it will be filed away with all the other like-minded correspondence.

Yes, I feel that we are mis-understanding each other.

My trouble is perhaps that I can go back 60 years in my memory, to the days of the River Commissioners, when the Broads was run differently, by very different people.  I mentioned that my father and Jim Brooker (the MD of Blakes) would be turning in their graves.  I should have included Desmond Truman, boatbuilder and hirer of Oulton Broad, who was chairman of the Commissioners in those days.

Nowadays I fear that most of the BA are officially appointed by central government or local councils.  I don't know who Alan Thomson is : I have never met him but as a member of the Navigation Committee, charged with our interests, he should be ashamed to have had such ill-advised remarks quoted in the press.

You talk of representation from those who know the feelings "on the rhond" . An interesting reference to Jenny Morgan, one of our best - known forum members over the years, who was himself a member of the BA Nav. Committee.  I can count at least six old friends of mine, including him, who are ex BA members and who have all left, over the years,  for the same reason :

There is one good thing about banging your head up against a brick wall.  It's lovely when it stops!

[marshman]

Jean - I appreciate your views on Warners,  but what you cannot do with a Warners hotel is take it out into the middle of Barton of an evening, nudge up to the reeds and drop a mudweight and spend a blissful night to be woken by just the  dawn chorus!!!!

[FlyingFortress]

49 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Back in 2012 the BA attempt to enforce compulsory double mooring was thwarted largely by us minions expressing ourselves individually in writing so it is not a meaningless gesture.

Fred 

Point taken Fred.

Maybe it was just the cynic in me revealing itself.

[floydraser]

Just a thought and without political prejudice: Before long there'll be a General Election and by all accounts there'll be a scramble for votes. Wouldn't now be a good time make representations to local MPs who may well be looking for something to champion? I guess it depends on how much influence they have over who runs the BA.

[FlyingFortress]

Yes Vaughan I was deliberately using a JM term as he was one who was involved in my failed attempt to set up our Toll Payers group.

I still believe that there is a requirement for such a group.

[rightsaidfred]

54 minutes ago, grendel said:

does anyone have a copy of the wording of that covenant

Best Guess is the Cator family and Land Registry, could always try a freedom of information request to the BA 🤔

[SwanR]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

Jean - I appreciate your views on Warners,  but what you cannot do with a Warners hotel is take it out into the middle of Barton of an evening, nudge up to the reeds and drop a mudweight and spend a blissful night to be woken by just the  dawn chorus!!!!

Completely agree. It’s not really a like for like comparison beyond the price factor. We love the solitude of boating but it will be nice to get my dinner cooked for me. 

[MargeandParge]

6 minutes ago, SwanR said:

Completely agree. It’s not really a like for like comparison beyond the price factor. We love the solitude of boating but it will be nice to get my dinner cooked for me. 

Hope the chef is up to your standards .

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

 

[NeilB]

Here you go, couldn't see anything of much use though...

2023-01-14_title_plan_NK293218_GOV.UK.pdf 2023-01-14_summary_of_title_NK293218_GOV.UK.pdf

[rightsaidfred]

Just had a thought (I dont get many), as these charges are purely for accounting shortfall and only imposed on manned moorings that are already fully funded is there not a case of the BA obtaining money by misrepresentation, it appears the majority dont understand the true purpose of the proposed charge and as I doubt it will be published at point of payment there would appear to be a case of potential fraud by implication.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

Thanks Neil the second download would appear to confirm the right to moor for free for pleasure under the covenant.

Fred

[grendel]

yes I was about to post that-

Quote

"This conveyance is subject to the right of the Grantor and of the Parishioners of Ranworth aforesaid to use the said Staith free of charge (a) for pleasure (b) for loading or unloading of goods brought by water but not for stacking or storing goods

states that the grantor and parishoners of Ranworth can use the staithe free of charge, now how do they determine if a boat that moors up belongs to a parishoner, thats going to be the sticking point when it comes to charging, they will need to be able to determine their right to charge in every separate case.

but also note that on the plan they only lease up to the quay heading on the front mooring, thus if you were to mudweight just off the quay with no ropes ashore (or tie up to the adjacent craft), then you are not on their leasehold, so if you dont tie to the quay heading there might be a loophole for not paying any mooring charges either.

really we need a legal expert to explain the full implications, but there may be a legal case against them making charges for mooring.

[Wussername]

The parish meeting agenda and minutes for Ranworth and Woodbastwick are posted on the notice board of the post office at Ranworth. A few years past, four or five, a parishioner raised the very question as to if he had the right to moor his boat on the parish staithe free of charge. If I remember correctly, begrudgingly the answer was yes. In reality nobody wanted too. Would you moor your boat there, all year? Month in, month out? I think not.

Oh! I nearly forgot. On tidal waters, you are allowed to anchor, on the bank, for one full turn of the tide, not moor in the true sense of the word but anchor, one rope to the shore. You would not be entitled to enter the land other than to tend to your anchor.
Thus when the tide turned, the wind changed, in your favor, your wherry, of which was an integral part of Broadland life or your modest rowing barge carrying local haulage was able to carry on its modest way.

William Bramwell Jenner, me dear granddad told me this when I was a young boy.
He was a fisherman, a trawler skipper, deep sea, and a true Broadsman. A boatyard owner. Long since past. 
I honestly believe that there is an element of truth, of common sense in his belief, if such a belief existed has it ever been rescinded. Why would it. 
If I have to moor at Reedham or Great Yarmouth for social reasons I will happily pay, that is my choice. However, if adverse weather conditions, fog, high wind over tide, high wind, difficult tides, I will as the skipper, for the safety of my boat, my crew, myself and family I will  not conform to the wishes of an autocratic quango and have to pay for my historical right for a safe and protected mooring. 
 

[Vaughan]

10 hours ago, Wussername said:

Oh! I nearly forgot. On tidal waters, you are allowed to anchor, on the bank, for one full turn of the tide, not moor in the true sense of the word but anchor, one rope to the shore. You would not be entitled to enter the land other than to tend to your anchor.
Thus when the tide turned, the wind changed, in your favor, your wherry, of which was an integral part of Broadland life or your modest rowing barge carrying local haulage was able to carry on its modest way.

That is absolutely true, although I don't believe it was enshrined in law as such : more of a long accepted practice. Two problems here : It would apply to a river, not a broad and to get away with it, you would have to be a pure sailing yacht with no engine.

I had a look at Neil's downloads and I am still confused as to which bit is which.  It seems to mention the parishioners having access to the staithe across the parcels of land being leased.

I have always understood that the staithe is a separate area, to one side of what is known as the Maltsters Quay and was the part leased by Blakes.  I seem to remember a year or two ago there was a move by the parish to rent out private moorings on the staithe, which was resisted by the locals.

One way or another, we all know that if the BA want to do it, they will find a way round it! 

[Meantime]

16 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Thanks Neil the second download would appear to confirm the right to moor for free for pleasure under the covenant.

Fred

I'm not so sure, since the word moor isn't used and the rights are for parishioners of Ranworth. However if you are a parishioner of Ranworth and you wanted to fish from the staithe I think there is little the BA could do about it!!!!

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

I'm not so sure, since the word moor isn't used and the rights are for parishioners of Ranworth. However if you are a parishioner of Ranworth and you wanted to fish from the staithe I think there is little the BA could do about it!!!!

Yes guilty of trying to do things on the run and not digesting properly.

Fred

[Meantime]

I suspect the land was transferred in good faith from Blakes to The BA for the intention of keeping free moorings for all. However the document doesn't specifically say that. You would imagine that when the transfer was made that Blakes thought the BA were trust worthy and ethical enough for it not to be necessary. 

The yacht stations have value add in terms of facilities, such as showers and toilets and for an additional fee pump out. They are also leased from respective councils so you could expect those costs need to be recovered, but Ranworth is owned out right and the mooring is maintained out of the toll account, so what's the value add that warrants charging for Ranworth? The ranger is totally unnecessary and given the choice between paying to moor, or not having a ranger there I know which I'd chose.

There are moorings that the BA lease and pay to maintain out of the toll account that are free, but there is no "excuse" to have a ranger there so they cannot collect a mooring fee, at present.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

I suspect the land was transferred in good faith from Blakes to The BA for the intention of keeping free moorings for all. However the document doesn't specifically say that. You would imagine that when the transfer was made that Blakes thought the BA were trust worthy and ethical enough for it not to be necessary. 

The yacht stations have value add in terms of facilities, such as showers and toilets and for an additional fee pump out. They are also leased from respective councils so you could expect those costs need to be recovered, but Ranworth is owned out right and the mooring is maintained out of the toll account, so what's the value add that warrants charging for Ranworth? The ranger is totally unnecessary and given the choice between paying to moor, or not having a ranger there I know which I'd chose.

There are moorings that the BA lease and pay to maintain out of the toll account that are free, but there is no "excuse" to have a ranger there so they cannot collect a mooring fee, at present.

As far as I understand it  all Navigation expenses are funded totally from tolls including all moorings therefore there is no justification for this charge, as this charge appears to be to compensate a shortfall in the Defra Grant any such charge seems to me to be outside of the BA remit and is potentially unlawfull, added to which as stated elsewhere a change of use from free public to commercial (fee paying) would require planning permission subject to public objection.

Fred

[BroadAmbition]

To recap in a nutshell - Have I got this lot correct?

The Ba have voted in the following:-

1)  A a 13% increase in tolls for private motor craft

2)  A 23% increase in mooring charges at Gt Yarmouth and Norwich yacht stations

3)  Introducing a £10 mooring fee for Ranworth and Reedham

Notes:-

1) Surely they must realise just how much in reality these rises are in cold hard cash terms, every time they stipulate an above inflation rise, it is exaggerated by the following years above inflation rate rise.  Here's an example.  In 2007 our 'B.A's river toll was £275,  2023 it is to be £680.  In real terms over the past sixteen years it has therefore risen by just under 148%  That's impressive, they have no shame or morals

2)  Twenty three percent? really?  What other government funded public organisation can introduce a twenty three percent increase?  Only an unelected, unaccountable  quango of course.   No doubt next years rise will be above the annual inflation rate too

3)  This is really worrying. These particular two venues have been 'Free' moorings (Maintained out of river tolls) since as long as I and our grandparents etc can remember.   I wouldn't be at all surprised if in coming years further Ba 24 x Hr moorings are added to the list, St Benets Abbey, Horning, Wroxham, Coltishall, southern river locations etc etc.  Of course if established the Ba in their true to form historical attitude will no doubt levy annual increases at each set of moorings way above the annual inflation rate

Where will it all end?

With hirers and owners voting with their feet and wallets.

Maybe that's what the Ba secretly want and hand the whole shebang over to the RSPB and become a genuine national park that no once can access or see

Griff

[Ray]

3 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Maybe that's what the Ba secretly want and hand the whole shebang over to the RSPB and become a genuine national park that no once can access or see

That's my feeling/impression about them!