Ranworth Update

[grendel]

as in the document - the broads authority

 

[Meantime]

12 hours ago, grendel said:

I wonder if the church are aware and are recieving their tithe from the mooring fees paid?

I would imagine that all the time no income was being generated, no tithe would have been due.

Not at all correct I'm afraid.

The tithe or tenth was a system where the farmer would give a tenth of their produce to the tithe owner, this was often stored in the tithe barn, in many cases the tithe owner was the church.

The 1836 Tithe Act replaced the giving of a tenth of the produce from the land with a monetary value called the Rent Charge.

The Tithe Act of 1936 a century later sought to abolish the Tithe system completely. Under the act it was ascertained who was entitled to receive the Rent Charge and who was liable to pay the Rent Charge. The Government then paid compensation to those entitled to receive Rent Charge as a one off payment. Those liable to pay the Rent Charge had to setup redemption stock, which was basically an annuity payable each year for 60 years to the Government, and thus the tithe system would have ended in 1996. It was actually ended prematurely by the 1977 Finance Act.

However, Chancel Repair Liability has not been abolished and persists to this day. Part of the 1936 Tithe Act was to ascertain who was liable to pay it, and what the percentage was they would pay towards any chancel repair. The title deed for Ranworth staithe doesn't state what the percentage is, but it will be contained within the 1936 records somewhere. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it listed on the title deed on many of the houses and pub in Ranworth if they were built on former land owned by the church.

Interestingly, a church can make a claim for the full cost of chancel repairs against any of land owners who are liable. It is then down to that land owner to recover a share from all the other liable land owners, as was demonstrated by the Wallbank case which they fought and lost resulting in them having to pay £230,000 towards repairs and the subsequent loss of their farm to pay for it.

Chancel Repair Liability used to have an overriding status which meant that the rights existed even if it hadn't been declared on the title deeds. In 2002 PCCs were given 10 years to register Chancel Repair Liability with the land register as after 12th October 2013 it looses overriding status. Where is has been registered liability persists. Where it hasn't been registered you could still be liable if the church can prove that historically you should have been, however upon the first transfer for money of a property that hasn't been registered, it can no longer be registered, therefore any future liability ceases. This is the difference that removing overriding status makes.

 

[Meantime]

12 hours ago, Wussername said:

Who owns the staithe?

Answer that will allow me to proceed to my next question. But not until.

The simple answer as Grendel has said, is the The BA own the land, it comes with certain conditions, but they still own it.

[BuffaloBill]

How many more 'public moorings' do the BA own?

Next year there will be even more being charged for!

If that's the case, then we won't be back ever again

and I've been coming since 1963.

[Meantime]

7 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

How many more 'public moorings' do the BA own?

Next year there will be even more being charged for!

If that's the case, then we won't be back ever again

and I've been coming since 1963.

Beware! they don't need to own a mooring to charge for it. They only hold leases for Norwich, Great Yarmouth and I believe are in negotiation for Reedham still.

There are probably others, but ones I know about that they own are;

2 stretches at Berney Arms

Acle Bridge moorings

Ranworth staithe 

[MauriceMynah]

This could become even trickier.  For moorings the BA lease, there may be clauses regarding subletting.

[Meantime]

Precisely which is why they were told in 2014 that they couldn't introduce charges for Reedham Quay. I don't see that anything has changed in that situation except for the fact they haven't actually finished negotiating a new lease for Reedham yet!!!

[Wussername]

8 hours ago, Meantime said:

The simple answer as Grendel has said, is the The BA own the land, it comes with certain conditions, but they still own it.

I understand. 

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your well meaning comment:

 

With certain conditions. 

[Meantime]

43 minutes ago, Wussername said:

I understand. 

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your well meaning comment:

 

With certain conditions. 

The main conditions being as follows;

No building or structure to be erected on the land.

A right of way exists for the owner of the adjoining land.

Parishioners are entitled to use the staithe free of charge for pleasure, loading and unloading goods and for drawing water from Ranworth Broad.

[Wussername]

Once again I understand,  and I thank you for your reply.

 My understanding is that the BA has conformed to this requirement. Indeed they have had no choice. 

Within the contract, of the ownership, becomes by virtue of the contract,  a condition.

Is there any part of this condition, acceptable and agreed by both parties specifically states that the BA  is unable to place a charge for its services.

MT. A somewhat clumsy definition on my part. But I do feel a bit confused.

Andrew

 

[Meantime]

Andrew, In answer to your question, there's the legal response and the moral response. 

Legally the BA own the land as far as I can see and therefore are free to do as they wish as long as they observe the charges placed upon the title. In short and bear in mind I'm not a lawyer, but I see no reason why they couldn't levy a charge for mooring*

Morally the land was gifted to them by Blakes who assumed somewhat incorrectly that the BA would ensure it remained a free mooring for ever. So morally the BA is totally bankrupt, but we knew that anyway.

* I can see no reason why the BA cannot make a charge under private contract law, but their somewhat clumsy attempt to copy the car park cowboys falls well short of what would stand up in a court of law, as far as I can tell. The same is also true for any other mooring the BA own, or lease, subject off course to any charges or covenants levied on that title. If and when they sort proper and clear signage, and planning permission, then I think they could charge, but that doesn't mean I agree they should charge.

[NorfolkNog]

I thought there was some talk about charging at Reedham as well. Has that been implemented? Apologies if I've missed something. 

[CambridgeCabby]

29 minutes ago, NorfolkNog said:

I thought there was some talk about charging at Reedham as well. Has that been implemented? Apologies if I've missed something. 

Currently the BA are in discussions over the lease at Reedham and as such no charges are currently being made at Reedham 

[grendel]

I guess its safe to say that what they are gaining in revenue from this is vastly outweighed by the loss of good will amongst the boating community.

[Mouldy]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

I guess its safe to say that what they are gaining in revenue from this is vastly outweighed by the loss of good will amongst the boating community.

Goodwill doesn’t pay inflated salaries for certain staff members of the Blessed Authorities though and I can’t imagine that the good doctor is all that bothered, especially when infighting amongst some members of BRAG appears to be dragging the group into self destruction.

[rightsaidfred]

13 hours ago, Meantime said:

Andrew, In answer to your question, there's the legal response and the moral response. 

Legally the BA own the land as far as I can see and therefore are free to do as they wish as long as they observe the charges placed upon the title. In short and bear in mind I'm not a lawyer, but I see no reason why they couldn't levy a charge for mooring*

Morally the land was gifted to them by Blakes who assumed somewhat incorrectly that the BA would ensure it remained a free mooring for ever. So morally the BA is totally bankrupt, but we knew that anyway.

* I can see no reason why the BA cannot make a charge under private contract law, but their somewhat clumsy attempt to copy the car park cowboys falls well short of what would stand up in a court of law, as far as I can tell. The same is also true for any other mooring the BA own, or lease, subject off course to any charges or covenants levied on that title. If and when they sort proper and clear signage, and planning permission, then I think they could charge, but that doesn't mean I agree they should charge.

The point of contention here is that like public Rights of Way and Common Land that have a protected status irrespective of ownership, the staithe by way of unhindered free of charge public use for at least the last 70 years has the definition of being a Public Staithe as defined in the conclusions of William Mackenzie KC in 1916 in relation to Reedham, you could add to this the side issue that as the BA are a Public Body and all the BA moorings have been funded solely by public monies ie the Tolls that also implies all the various BA moorings are Public Staithes, the definition of a Staithe is described in the Broads Act section IV.

“staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place;.

Fred

[bucket]

Sadly it does look that way regarding the facebook element of BRAG....It can't be at all rewarding being a volunteer committee member or moderator. It is difficult to see a way forward at the moment.

All BA meeting minutes that I have read (all available on BA website) indicate that different views have been aired, the rationale for the increases in charges has been explained and discussed, with broad support (navigation committee supported the draft budget by a majority 9 to 1 with one abstention) from members.

The reply I received fron the minister, (shared with this forum) did not seem particularly damning of the authority. Although it did mention that recomendations of previous reviews had been largely implemented, and the minister indicated there remained strong interest in governance at the BA, it stated that determining, recovering and reporting of navigation income are considered to be operational matters......so I suspect little or no chance of ministerial intervention there.

A few of us posted on this forum that we would be prepared to put our hands in our pockets if needed, and I stand by that. A judicial review would only look at the way a decision has been made, not the conclusion and (sorry to keep coming back to meeting minutes)..... the decision making and approvals are set out quite clearly.

For clarity, I do not support the introduction of charges at Ranworth and I agree it could well be the thin end of the wedge.

Just one question.......who on the authority is meant to represent the interests of the boating community?

[Andrewcook]

There is one thing I've noticed the Broad Authority has not given the people Penalty Notice for not paying their Mooring fee at Ranworth Staithe so therefore it is unlawful to take any action against anyone with the penalty notice like us motorists get for any Car offences I believe. 

[Meantime]

56 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The point of contention here is that like public Rights of Way and Common Land that have a protected status irrespective of ownership, the staithe by way of unhindered free of charge public use for at least the last 70 years has the definition of being a Public Staithe

I believe you are conflating two issues here though. A public right of way, even one gained by prescription wouldn't enable you to occupy of trespass. By that I mean that a public right of way may have been gained over time across a farmers field, but that wouldn't enable you to pitch a tent and camp on it. A public right of way may have been gained across a piece of land adjacent to a road, but that wouldn't enable you to park your car for free.

Your access to the staithe isn't being blocked and I'm sure if you moored to deposit rubbish in the compound, or to drop off passengers, or even to make a delivery to one of the businesses at the staithe you wouldn't be charged. This is your right of access. However whilst you have a right to pass across the land, that doesn't mean it extends to mooring free of charge for an extended period of time.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the BA's actions at all. I think it stinks what they have and are doing, and currently I don't think its being implemented legally, but I think if they get it right and do things correctly there does exist the possibility for them to charge.

The yacht stations are funded from the public money, the tolls, and they have always charged. What is the difference between the cost of the lease for the yacht station and say the cost of the lease for How Hill, or Ludham Bridge? Or are you saying the yacht stations should be free as well? OK so the yacht stations are staffed but their wages come out of the toll account, not the mooring fees collected. The mooring fees end up in the navigation account, but are not solely collected for paying the wages.

Local councils are public bodies funded with public money. They still charge for the use of public car parks. 

[rightsaidfred]

44 minutes ago, Meantime said:

I believe you are conflating two issues here though. A public right of way, even one gained by prescription wouldn't enable you to occupy of trespass. By that I mean that a public right of way may have been gained over time across a farmers field, but that wouldn't enable you to pitch a tent and camp on it. A public right of way may have been gained across a piece of land adjacent to a road, but that wouldn't enable you to park your car for free.

Your access to the staithe isn't being blocked and I'm sure if you moored to deposit rubbish in the compound, or to drop off passengers, or even to make a delivery to one of the businesses at the staithe you wouldn't be charged. This is your right of access. However whilst you have a right to pass across the land, that doesn't mean it extends to mooring free of charge for an extended period of time.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the BA's actions at all. I think it stinks what they have and are doing, and currently I don't think its being implemented legally, but I think if they get it right and do things correctly there does exist the possibility for them to charge.

The yacht stations are funded from the public money, the tolls, and they have always charged. What is the difference between the cost of the lease for the yacht station and say the cost of the lease for How Hill, or Ludham Bridge? Or are you saying the yacht stations should be free as well? OK so the yacht stations are staffed but their wages come out of the toll account, not the mooring fees collected. The mooring fees end up in the navigation account, but are not solely collected for paying the wages.

Local councils are public bodies funded with public money. They still charge for the use of public car parks. 

The difference is the Yacht stations have always carried a charge the Public Staithes have always been free, as for car parks they are covered by specific legislation and are available to anyone regardless of whether they have paid council tax for that area, any one using the public staithes are legally obliged to have paid the toll.

Fred 

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, rightsaidfred said:

The difference is the Yacht stations have always carried a charge the Public Staithes have always been free, as for car parks they are covered by specific legislation and are available to anyone regardless of whether they have paid council tax for that area, any one using the public staithes are legally obliged to have paid the toll.

Fred 

The payment of the toll though is for your right to navigate the Broads network, not for free use of all the BA's assets.

And public does not mean free or unlimited access. Many public buildings close of an evening, or charge for entry.

And you still haven't addressed the difference between a right of way, which clearly exists and the right to occupy free of charge. Like I said there might be a public right of way across a framers field, but it doesn't mean you could camp free of charge overnight.

Staithes are for the loading and unloading of goods. Parish moorings are for the longer term mooring of parishioners own boats.

Your basic rights, the ability to moor for up to 24 hours is not being changed or obstructed. I'm guessing your ability to use it as a staithe, i.e to load or unload goods or passengers wouldn't be charged. 

As things currently stand the BA own the land. They are not restricting its use as a staithe as far as I can see, They are introducing a charge for its use as a short term mooring, not as a staithe, there is a difference between the two. It now looks like they are introducing that charge under private contract law and intend to enforce non payment under such law. It is in that respect where they are falling far short of what a court would demand. If in time they get the appropriate, proper signage in place, with planning permission then I personally think they will be successful in enforcing it.

It was me that asked the question sometime back and got assurances from John Packman that there would be no charge to stop and deposit rubbish at the yacht stations. In fact I was told you would get 15 minutes free to do so. I haven't asked, but I'm guessing the same would apply at Ranworth, in which case its use as a public staithe is not being charged for.

[Bytheriver]

22 hours ago, Meantime said:

Precisely which is why they were told in 2014 that they couldn't introduce charges for Reedham Quay. I don't see that anything has changed in that situation except for the fact they haven't actually finished negotiating a new lease for Reedham yet!!!

With the change in balance on Broadland District Council it could take even longer ( Those who live there could lobby their Councillor who may not even be aware of the situation.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

The payment of the toll though is for your right to navigate the Broads network, not for free use of all the BA's assets.

And public does not mean free or unlimited access. Many public buildings close of an evening, or charge for entry.

And you still haven't addressed the difference between a right of way, which clearly exists and the right to occupy free of charge. Like I said there might be a public right of way across a framers field, but it doesn't mean you could camp free of charge overnight.

Staithes are for the loading and unloading of goods. Parish moorings are for the longer term mooring of parishioners own boats.

Your basic rights, the ability to moor for up to 24 hours is not being changed or obstructed. I'm guessing your ability to use it as a staithe, i.e to load or unload goods or passengers wouldn't be charged. 

As things currently stand the BA own the land. They are not restricting its use as a staithe as far as I can see, They are introducing a charge for its use as a short term mooring, not as a staithe, there is a difference between the two. It now looks like they are introducing that charge under private contract law and intend to enforce non payment under such law. It is in that respect where they are falling far short of what a court would demand. If in time they get the appropriate, proper signage in place, with planning permission then I personally think they will be successful in enforcing it.

It was me that asked the question sometime back and got assurances from John Packman that there would be no charge to stop and deposit rubbish at the yacht stations. In fact I was told you would get 15 minutes free to do so. I haven't asked, but I'm guessing the same would apply at Ranworth, in which case its use as a public staithe is not being charged for.

The purpose of using the right of way and common land was in relation to it being a public not private staithe, as for charging A they have charged people to stop for water and whereas local authorities have legislation in place to allow for charging and to apply penalties for non compliance the BA do not have the power to set or issue penalties (fines) within their constitution.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

14 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

With the change in balance on Broadland District Council it could take even longer ( Those who live there could lobby their Councillor who may not even be aware of the situation.

As the previous lease expired in 2002 as verified by BDC in a FOI not anytime soon would seem likely.

Fred

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The purpose of using the right of way and common land was in relation to it being a public not private staithe, as for charging A they have charged people to stop for water and whereas local authorities have legislation in place to allow for charging and to apply penalties for non compliance the BA do not have the power to set or issue penalties (fines) within their constitution.

Fred

But have they charged for the stopping to take on water, or have they charged for the water, there is a difference.

With regards to fines, you are correct they can not issue a fine, and in the same way as car park operators cannot issue a fine, they could issue a legally recoverable invoice for breach of conditions under private contract law.

I'll repeat again, currently I don't think they are legally compliant in that respect, But if they get the appropriate, large enough and clear enough signage, with planning permission, I think they could charge and recover the cost of the mooring charge and admin fee should they have to pursue it through court, in exactly the same way as car park operators do.

I don't think its morally right, and I don't think they should be charging to moor there, but just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean they can't if they do things correctly.

I think those that have currently refused to pay will either not be pursued or if they defend it would win as things currently stand. That is just my opinion, and I do not encourage anyone to rely on what I have posted.

However we have seen how the BA have already learnt and moved the goal posts with the additional, in my opinion, too small A4 notice about entering into a contract. They will get it right eventually and when they do, would be able to enforce payment.

My personal view would be to make payment under protest and then pursue them through the small claims for the money back. It will cost very little to do and once the first payment has been returned you can publicise that and effectively their ability to charge is dead in the water until they do things correctly.