Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

I guess a couple of nights at ten quid is not much on top of a couple grands worth of holiday.

But it is!

I have stood so often, behind the reception desk when customers arrive for their holiday, to see their faces when they realise how much they have to "wad out" in extras before they get on board their boat.  And it's not a couple of Grand these days on the Broads - it is the thick end of three Grand.

The "all inclusive" package is arguable, but it only covers fuel, insurance, car parking and the like.

So those who have paid three thousand Quid "all inclusive" are those who have had to earn their "dosh" over the years. They are not going to like being fleeced for a tenner (or much more) every time they want to moor their gin palace to the bank. Even when they moor up for the night outside a pub where they will happily spend several hundred pounds, they have to "wad it out up front" before they can step off the boat.

Those customers will only come here once, at this rate.

 

 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

however let's not forget those same hire yards via Blakes took out the original lease on Ranworth and then gifted it to the BA. That must stick in the craw a bit!

indeed it does, right now.

[Vaughan]

29 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

They have published names of folk who have joined so far and it’s interested to note that several are owners or have connections with Broads hire yards.

yes, and I hear it has only been going for 48 hours so far.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Mouldy said:

I understand that and as a toll payer, just like every other toll payer, I’m not impressed with the dictatorial actions of the BA, but they would surely find justification of imposing mooring fees at unattended moorings far more difficult than at Ranworth and Reedham.  Both locations have a ranger during the day, therefore collecting mooring fees is much easier that somewhere where there is no ranger present.

There is now a FB group called Reform the Broads Authority.  It is public, so the content is visible to everyone who has access to FB.  They have published names of folk who have joined so far and it’s interested to note that several are owners or have connections with Broads hire yards.

 

Thanks, I don't  really get involved in FB but I would remind everyone that while local MPs can only represent the constiuents everyones MP can forward concerns to DEFRA or raise questions in the house and a volume of individuals has more weight than one collective of many.

Fred

[MargeandParge]

This old thread is starting to confuse me and I think the Ba could use it as evidence. 

Can someone tell me and  Ole Marge,will we have to pay at Ranworth or not? I won't go if they charge us. Don't use the pub now Roy has gone but will really miss the shop and walks.....        (to the beer festival  sorry there is always small print)

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

 

[FlyingFortress]

Simple answer

Yes

[Bytheriver]

10 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Thank you Fred - it took me a long time surfing their website before I found the right place, but I have now sent a letter to the Chairman, detailing my objections to the charges, which are for two reasons:

1/. As a private toll payer.

2/. As someone in the business who fears how much such a move will affect the tourism upon which the whole area depends.

I have not mentioned this forum, so that admin need have no fear that their stated wish to be un-involved should be compromised.

I was amazed to see that four members of the navigation committee are boat hire operators and I have copied my letter to them. This means that even if two of them voted against or abstained, the other two must have voted in favour.

So it seem the turkeys really are voting for Christmas!

The three Yard Directors on the Full Board were excluded from the tolls discussion & left the room so did not get a vote (There were also 3-4 absentees) 

[Vaughan]

Thank you. The EDP reported simply a vote of 9 to 1 with one abstention. 

I am glad and relieved to hear that my colleagues in the business had nothing to do with it.  But then again, should they have done?  It's their customers, who are going to have pay for the moorings.

 

[MargeandParge]

Just glad they only wasted the money on drawings at Acle,  because if they had built their monster the way things are we would have paid to cruise past it

Regards Marge and Parge 

[Bytheriver]

7 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Thank you. The EDP reported simply a vote of 9 to 1 with one abstention. 

I am glad and relieved to hear that my colleagues in the business had nothing to do with it.  But then again, should they have done?  It's their customers, who are going to have pay for the moorings.

 

That vote was the Navigation Ctte when everyone was allowed to to take part EDP seems quiet on Fridays meeting so far?

On Friday it was Unanimous of those present.

[annv]

If you dont want to pay moor until they come for the money probably sixish then cast of and mud weight then if desperate for pub come back when staff have gone home. ditto at Reedham there's the Ferry or free moorings at corner of Chet and Berny arms stretch. John

[MauriceMynah]

My dear grandmother used to say, "there should be a law against that.) Sadly, if it involved my grandfather, there usually was. But I digress.

I am becoming ever more troubled by people, or groups of people trying to do "what's best " for places, other people or things. Frequently being unaware of other unforseen possibilities (please forgive the tortology)

I hear of stakeholders, but not who ALL those stakeholders are. I read of "broads users" yet no definition of those either.

Twitchers may call themselves "broadland users" and there can be no doubt that the RSPB will support them if at all possible.  Is this what we want?

If things were to end up going head to head do we really want to form alliances with other, equally justified broads users only to find their agenda differing from ours?

I think not, but even I recognise the perils of standing alone.

Take Mr Joe Average, and ask him to describe a typical boat owner. I have no doubt he will start thinking of champagne drinking Henry's at the Henley regatta. This does not describe the vast majority of boat owners, but it would, very likely, be the way we would be described by those we were arguing against.

"Be careful who you chose as a bedfellow," again as my grandmother would say as she held a rolling pin, standing behind my grandfather.

 

 

[rightsaidfred]

30 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

My dear grandmother used to say, "there should be a law against that.) Sadly, if it involved my grandfather, there usually was. But I digress.

I am becoming ever more troubled by people, or groups of people trying to do "what's best " for places, other people or things. Frequently being unaware of other unforseen possibilities (please forgive the tortology)

I hear of stakeholders, but not who ALL those stakeholders are. I read of "broads users" yet no definition of those either.

Twitchers may call themselves "broadland users" and there can be no doubt that the RSPB will support them if at all possible.  Is this what we want?

If things were to end up going head to head do we really want to form alliances with other, equally justified broads users only to find their agenda differing from ours?

I think not, but even I recognise the perils of standing alone.

Take Mr Joe Average, and ask him to describe a typical boat owner. I have no doubt he will start thinking of champagne drinking Henry's at the Henley regatta. This does not describe the vast majority of boat owners, but it would, very likely, be the way we would be described by those we were arguing against.

"Be careful who you chose as a bedfellow," again as my grandmother would say as she held a rolling pin, standing behind my grandfather.

 

 

Wise words, sadly the majority will bemoan issues on social media fora but cant be bothered to write a personal letter of complaint to whomever.

Fred

[Bytheriver]

23 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

My dear grandmother used to say, "there should be a law against that.) Sadly, if it involved my grandfather, there usually was. But I digress.

I am becoming ever more troubled by people, or groups of people trying to do "what's best " for places, other people or things. Frequently being unaware of other unforseen possibilities (please forgive the tortology)

I hear of stakeholders, but not who ALL those stakeholders are. I read of "broads users" yet no definition of those either.

Twitchers may call themselves "broadland users" and there can be no doubt that the RSPB will support them if at all possible.  Is this what we want?

If things were to end up going head to head do we really want to form alliances with other, equally justified broads users only to find their agenda differing from ours?

I think not, but even I recognise the perils of standing alone.

Take Mr Joe Average, and ask him to describe a typical boat owner. I have no doubt he will start thinking of champagne drinking Henry's at the Henley regatta. This does not describe the vast majority of boat owners, but it would, very likely, be the way we would be described by those we were arguing against.

"Be careful who you chose as a bedfellow," again as my grandmother would say as she held a rolling pin, standing behind my grandfather.

 

 

Having followed a number of debates here & on other forums & FB Pages I have been wondering who should be represented particularly on Nav Ctte but the BA Board too. Despite (usually) being scheduled up to a year in advance there are often apologies ( with no reason given) and I suspect other than owners / toll payers who are by definition/ admission, fairly well off financially & are likely to among those who can be available and have the confidence & skills to attend meetings. Hire Yard owners are represented but cannot take a full part in discussion. Individual Toll payers may well factor in regular toll increases to retain what facilities are available Who is there to represent rank & file hirers

I responded to someone who in the last week or so were critical of BA encouraging canoes paddle boards & the like to use the Broads. That Group so far are only represented on the Broads Local Access Forum but maybe they need a rep on Nav Ctte too ( they are an income stream ) Diversification and inclusion of visitors from the entire population is key currently for the entire National Parks Family. I have taken part in debates where 75% of the meeting has been just that

 

[Ray]

If an 'Authority', Quango or similar body has it's remit clearly defined and their role not open to interpretation then the values, wishes and requirements of those who fall under the heading of stakeholders should be advanced and protected without them having to acquire the confidence and skills necessary to attend meetings to lobby their case.

[Roy]

Maybe the pub could employ someone in a small boat to ferry customers from their boat which would be mud weighed on the broad to the Staithe that way they may still retain some customers and that would show the BA 🤣

[BroadAmbition]

That's a fine idea BUT - The Ba would no doubt insist that the pubs small ferry boat be classed a hire / commercial and toll it a such.  On top of that the Pub has to buy such a suitable vessel, then the maintenance then employ someone to helm it - all adds to the expense

Griff

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, Bytheriver said:

Hire Yard owners are represented but cannot take a full part in discussion. Individual Toll payers may well factor in regular toll increases to retain what facilities are available Who is there to represent rank & file hirers

Your question has its own answer!

Rank and file hirers - the traditional life-blood of today's navigation - are surely represented by the hire yard owners on the committee?  But the owners cannot take part in discussion.  What nonsense is this?

There can be no question of a "declaration of interest".  Of course they have an interest.  That's why they have been appointed to the blasted committee!

Isn't it?

[Ray]

1 hour ago, BroadAmbition said:

That's a fine idea BUT - The Ba would no doubt insist that the pubs small ferry boat be classed a hire / commercial and toll it a such.  On top of that the Pub has to buy such a suitable vessel, then the maintenance then employ someone to helm it - all adds to the expense

Griff

Plus a sizeable public liability insurance I imagine if transferring people from cruisers via a small(ish) craft!

[Roy]

1 hour ago, BroadAmbition said:

That's a fine idea BUT - The Ba would no doubt insist that the pubs small ferry boat be classed a hire / commercial and toll it a such.  On top of that the Pub has to buy such a suitable vessel, then the maintenance then employ someone to helm it - all adds to the expense

Griff

Yes when you think of it like that it’s not worth it unfortunately. 

If only we were back in the 60 s no health and safety etc 

[NeilB]

The EDP article states "The total length of mooring provision has increased".  I must have missed this, what new moorings have been added to the system?  Or have the EDP got the wrong end of the stick again?

[garryn]

1 hour ago, NeilB said:

The EDP article states "The total length of mooring provision has increased".  I must have missed this, what new moorings have been added to the system?  Or have the EDP got the wrong end of the stick again?

I was thinking the same thing myself.

[grendel]

perhaps they are referring to the accidental addition to the mooring at burgh castle where the mispositioning of a sign annexed the farmers mooring?

[Boatingman]

What about committee members who own private craft can they take part in the discussion if they are allowed then so should boatyard owners

Ray

[Mouldy]

Packham responds:

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/frequently-asked-questions-navigation-charges-2023?fbclid=IwAR3UcVSvNDB00-zxUXeBwhERW8YSW4lWBDszZvunYyMF4ILMyvgNmpu-lUk