Ranworth Update

[Smoggy]

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

My way obliges them to at least listen.

I get you point MM but do you really think jp will listen once he has your money, we are just the little people that get in his way of his dream.

[MauriceMynah]

5 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

I get you point MM but do you really think jp will listen once he has your money, we are just the little people that get in his way of his dream.

That depends on to whom you complain.

[BroadsAuthority]

On 29/05/2023 at 10:19, Vaughan said:

This is an extremely telling witness statement, especially as it happened at the height of a very important Bank Holiday weekend.

I very much hope that @BroadsAuthority will be reading this post carefully, when their office resumes work tomorrow.

Hi MM, sorry to hear of this, I can see why you would be frustrated.

If you're unhappy with what happened please drop a line through the contact form and it'll be picked up by the Visitor Services Manager who will take a look at it.

It sounds like you possibly already did so (re the complaint) but just letting you know if not.

The link is here: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/contact-us/contact-form

Best,

Tom

[floydraser]

On 29/05/2023 at 07:19, MauriceMynah said:

I told her that it was my belief that the justification for introducing this charge was that there were rangers there to assist people mooring.

She apologised and explained that she was in the information centre with customers and was the only ranger there. The other ranger was taking trippers out on Liana.

 

Sorry if this is a silly question but if Liana and the information centre were both there before the charges were introduced, how many rangers were there? (Not an A level maths question by the way!) 

[Chelsea14Ian]

None it' was The NWT,I think two one in the info centre  and one on the boat.They worked or volunteered for the trust.Nothing to do with BA.

[Wussername]

34 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

None it' was The NWT,I think two one in the info centre  and one on the boat.They worked or volunteered for the trust.Nothing to do with BA.

Although they did record, at the end of the day, boat numbers/name's for the BA in order that they might have a record of those who might ignore the 24 hour rule.

CCTV is also available, and still available, at Malthouse and Reedham.

 

[Chelsea14Ian]

I didn't  know that.

[rightsaidfred]

14 hours ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

None it' was The NWT,I think two one in the info centre  and one on the boat.They worked or volunteered for the trust.Nothing to do with BA.

That is not completely true, the BA reopened the Information Centre in 2021 including volunteer attendants with the moorings free of charge till 1st April this year, they also had the Information Centre and mooring attendants and trip boat prior to 2014 when they then handed it over to NWT. and moved the boat to Wroxham, there was also the extra increase in tolls in 2021 to pay for additional rangers.

All of this is a Red Herring as while the BA are the land owners including the Information Centre, the moorings are a public staithe something JP refuses to prove to the contrary, if he had concrete proof of the BA`s right to charge he would have no reason not to publish the correct documents.

Fred

Fred

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

the moorings are a public staithe something JP refuses to prove to the contrary, if he had concrete proof of the BA`s right to charge he would have no reason not to publish the correct documents.

I have a strong feeling that Fred is right about this but it may need historical research.

The Malthouse staithe may have been both public and parish : in other words serving not only Ranworth but other villages close by and would have been a large facility, in the days when wherries transported everything to and from the local communities.  Coal, marl, farm produce, supplies for the villages, reeds from the two broads and the big marshes to the south of the staithe.

The quay may not be the same shape nowadays, but it would have been a big one.   A staithe, traditionally, is for the transfer of cargo to and from water and road.

Let's consider the size of Barton Turf staithe in the old days :

 

 

Or the length of St Olaves staithe, with reeds stacked on the quay ready for loading into wherries :

 

 

 

These last two photos were taken in 1952.  Not long ago, in terms of the rights to moor free of charge at a public staithe!

 

[rightsaidfred]

28 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I have a strong feeling that Fred is right about this but it may need historical research.

The Malthouse staithe may have been both public and parish : in other words serving not only Ranworth but other villages close by and would have been a large facility, in the days when wherries transported everything to and from the local communities.  Coal, marl, farm produce, supplies for the villages, reeds from the two broads and the big marshes to the south of the staithe.

The quay may not be the same shape nowadays, but it would have been a big one.   A staithe, traditionally, is for the transfer of cargo to and from water and road.

Let's consider the size of Barton Turf staithe in the old days :

 

 

Or the length of St Olaves staithe, with reeds stacked on the quay ready for loading into wherries :

 

 

 

These last two photos were taken in 1952.  Not long ago, in terms of the rights to moor free of charge at a public staithe!

 

It's History as a Public Staithe is defined by its free use over the last 70 years under both Blakes and the BA. neither the BA or anyone else has so far refudiated the oft quoted findings of William Mckenzie KC in 1916.

Fred

[YnysMon]

36 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Let's consider the size of Barton Turf staithe in the old days :

Isn't the lack of trees in the background of that Barton Turf photo striking.

[Lulu]

10 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

Isn't the lack of trees in the background of that Barton Turf photo striking.

Is the building  behind the first one, the structure that is still there? 

[CeePee1952]

This is interesting, especially the section concerning Ranworth mooring

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/about-us/committees/navigation-committee/navigation-committee-8-june-2023

Chris

 

[floydraser]

55 minutes ago, CeePee1952 said:

This is interesting, especially the section concerning Ranworth mooring

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/about-us/committees/navigation-committee/navigation-committee-8-june-2023

Chris

 

So that makes it easy then: If someone would approach the pub and other local businesses to see if it's true that their trade has increased due to the charges, it would seem to settle things. I don't see what Charles Cator has to do with it?

[marshman]

Mr Cator IS Ranworth, like it or not! He owns quite a lot of it, he owns the land surrounding it and the Broad and he is one of those people, like the BA , who will be listened to.

[CambridgeCabby]

I have spoken to the local business owners about whether trade has shown an upturn since the introduction of the charges over and above the expected increase due to the beginning of the “ silly season” usual increase ; both have said that there has definitely been an increase in turnover of boats which has led to a marked increase in footfall and trade 

[Splasher]

I was interested to read the section of the Navigation report on charging for mooring at Ranworth.

I note that this report is included in the agenda for the meeting on Monday 8 June. 

The first point i would make is that the table on the report shows the anticipated income. There is no matching of income and expenditure to include staff costs and other charges.

The report also indicates that 'the majority of staff time is devoted to helping boaters moor up, taking their fees and providing them with information'.

On our annual trip to the Broads we moored overnight on Tuesday 2 May at Ranworth Staithe. We arrived between 4.00 pm and 5.00pm and were able to squeeze between two other boats on the quay with about a foot on either side. A couple form one of the other boats on the quay assisted with our mooring. There was no sign of Broads Authority staff in attendance. As we were preparing to leave the boat to visit the shop the attendant came along the quay with a clipboard taking a note of the registration numbers of the moored boats.

After a visit to the Granary shop we called into the BA office to pay the £10 overnight charge and enquired about the legality, being aware of the controversy that has been reported on this forum and elsewhere. The attendant, who was the only person on duty, was pleasant enough as we paid but advised us that she was only an employee and didn't want to get into politics. She did ask if we had been to Ranworth before, presumably meaning to offer information if required, but we advised her that we had paid a number of visits in previous years and knew the area.

During our stay at the mooring until the following morning we did not see any boats being offered assistance in mooring by BA staff. This was obviously only a short visit but i would question the assertion about time devoted to helping boaters moor up.

As a once a year visitor to the Broads I appreciate that a £10 charge is slightly annoying but not excessive in an area served with other facilities such as public toilet facilities, electric posts, shops and eating places, but it must be very galling to those who are regular visitors using their own boats and paying hefty annual fees.

Splasher

[Wussername]

I would imagine it is somewhat difficult to assist a newcomer with regard to a stern on mooring, on a wind day.

The helm could be over 40ft away unless you have the right to board an adjacent boat with or without the attendance of the owner/hirer.

 

 

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

So that makes it easy then: If someone would approach the pub and other local businesses to see if it's true that their trade has increased due to the charges, it would seem to settle things. I don't see what Charles Cator has to do with it?

Shouldn't quote myself but on second thoughts the suggestions have been that any increase is due to more boats being able to use the moorings because of the time slots. In which case it's the time slots having the impact and NOT the charges. I see no reason why the timeslots couldn't stay and the charges go.

Whoever Charles Cator is, the ba shouldn't be in competition with him; they should look after their own business.

[floydraser]

On 01/06/2023 at 08:23, rightsaidfred said:

That is not completely true, the BA reopened the Information Centre in 2021 including volunteer attendants with the moorings free of charge till 1st April this year, they also had the Information Centre and mooring attendants and trip boat prior to 2014 when they then handed it over to NWT. and moved the boat to Wroxham, there was also the extra increase in tolls in 2021 to pay for additional rangers.

All of this is a Red Herring as while the BA are the land owners including the Information Centre, the moorings are a public staithe something JP refuses to prove to the contrary, if he had concrete proof of the BA`s right to charge he would have no reason not to publish the correct documents.

Fred

Fred

Thank you Fred. The point I was trying highlight was that the ba have tried to justify these charges as a means of providing rangers, but if they were in place for the last two years they must have been already funded. So now fees are paid and there are no more rangers than before? So is that misrepresentaion by the ba? (Again!) If so, not a red herring thanks.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, marshman said:

Mr Cator IS Ranworth, like it or not! He owns quite a lot of it, he owns the land surrounding it and the Broad and he is one of those people, like the BA , who will be listened to.

I can`t find the link at the moment but the approach by Charles Cator and the Lady who ran the Granary stores at the time was in 2014 and was rejected by the BA as they couldn`t justify charging in the financial climate at that time.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

9 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

I can`t find the link at the moment but the approach by Charles Cator and the Lady who ran the Granary stores at the time was in 2014 and was rejected by the BA as they couldn`t justify charging in the financial climate at that time.

Fred

My apologise it should be 2012 not 14, I am a bit restricted at the moment and can't post links, it is quite a long report and can be found in the minuets of the Navigation Committee meeting 19th April 2012 if anyones interested.

Fred

[Vaughan]

22 hours ago, CeePee1952 said:

This is interesting, especially the section concerning Ranworth mooring

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/about-us/committees/navigation-committee/navigation-committee-8-june-2023

 

Thank you for that Chris.  I am amazed by this report from the Nav Committee and I will try to get my thoughts in some sort of order :

Para 1.1.  says the Nav Com was "favourable" to the idea.  Does that mean they were unanimous?  We are not told.  Nor are we told whether the three members who are actually directors of boatyard and boat hire companies were allowed into the meeting, or allowed to vote!  After all they were summarily excluded from the previous discussions about this year's rise in river tolls.

Para 1.2  says that the mooring charge has always been argued by the late Charles Cator, whose family also now charge £12 for the island moorings on the other side of the Broad.  This land used to be leased by Peter Mills as a syndicate duck flight, on about 40 acres of otherwise useless marsh.  After his death the family gave up the lease on this land, for which the Cator family now happily rake in £12 a night for where the BA report admits "there are no facilities".  I find it saddening that the BA in a report, should seek to quote the landowner's evident greed as an excuse for their own actions.

In Para 1.2.  it says that the Granary Restaurant has taken on extra staff to cope with extra demand.  It fails to mention that the Granary has also changed its business model to concentrate on offering luxurious breakfast meals.  Presumably so as not to compete with the pub, or with the existing pizza outlet?   Apparently this is successful - but be careful not to overstay your "welcome" on the moorings and get "banged" another five Quid while you finish your breakfast!

Para 3.1.  Here is where "the lines", get blurred!  They say the moorings are additional income to the navigation budget but : It also has implications on the allocation of Ranworth costs between National Park (their words not mine) and navigation.  Hidden away in this paragraph it says they have received 1627 mooring fees paid in the last 2 months but we don't know whether these are £10 or £5, so no idea of actual income or whether they are likely to meet their projected annual "budget".

Para 3.3.  The visitor centre has "national park sales" of £15,500 but only has costs of £3000 as the land is already owned by BA.  (And maintained by river tolls but they don't mention that).  There are, however, staff costs of £55,560 for the visitor centre alone.  I thought someone said there were volunteers?  If I were trying to run a business like that I would have gone out of business very fast.  Perhaps that is why the other visitor centre on Ranworth Broad was a failure and had to be given over to the NWT?

So here is the sting in the tail!  The report says that as visitor centre (national park) staff are being used to look after the moorings, then income can be apportioned between navigation, and national park budgets.  Even though the staff are not looking after the moorings as many witnesses have stated.  All they do is come out of the office as soon as you have tied up, and "rattle a collection tin".

So where are we now?  You have paid your river toll for the use of the navigation and its facilities but when you get to Ranworth, you are also obliged to fork out again, to subsidise the cost of the national park visitor centre. Is this centre even necessary?  Perhaps that's another subject.

Sorry but I just see this as the casual and underhand extortion of a "captive" audience by devious means, to satisfy political accounting. 

I think it stinks and want nothing to do it.

 

[Lulu]

I can’t see the situation at Ranworth changing now. People are still mooring there, money is coming in.  Personally, we have rarely gone there due to not liking stern mooring so at the moment doesn’t affect our plans.  I see they are advertising for a Visitor Services Officer: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/careers/current-vacancies/visitor-services-officer-liana-trip-boat-skipper2

I’m just waiting for all the BA free moorings near pubs and other facilities to go the same way, Acle, Stokesby, How Hill, Ludham,  Potter…
 

 

[YnysMon]

1 hour ago, Lulu said:

I’m just waiting for all the BA free moorings near pubs and other facilities to go the same way, Acle, Stokesby, How Hill, Ludham,  Potter…

Hopefully we are all being overly pessimistic about that.

I’m with you on Ranworth. I like it during the winter months but it’s not somewhere that is appealing to us during the summer. Too much like ‘sardines’. Over the years we found The Maltsers a bit bit and miss, great sometimes, other times not so. I’d like to try out The Granary though.