Neatishead Now Open

[Meantime]

I thought the topic was the fact that Neatishead was now open again, albeit two weeks late which probably cost Rick at least one night of our custom last week.

However, just to muddy the waters a little further, has anybody else noticed the size and location of the new fenders on some of the Ricko's boats? They seem to have gone for a fatter fender and mounted them horizontal, rather than vertical. My two first thoughts were:

1. Not much use when you only have less than 18in between the top of the quay heading and the water. 

2. How many fenders and fender eyes will I lose when one of them tries to moor at Neatishead unless I'm moored at the far end? Seriously most boats nudge fenders getting in and out of Neatishead without increasing the overall width of the boat by another foot with fat fenders.

Actually I just added a third, do the BA regs on the maximum size of boats take into account extra porky fenders? 

[FlyingFortress]

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Never mind.

You have managed to take us off the topic of bark chips versus gravel on a BA mooring and stir up yet more muddy water off the bottom of the broad.

It could seem to me as though that was your main intention.

Getting a bit punchy 😳

[Vaughan]

4 hours ago, FlyingFortress said:

Getting a bit punchy

Hmm . . . 

Yes, you are probably right, although you may not understand why, even if I explain.

I was literally raised on the river, on a houseboat, at a boatyard where, by the age of 14, they called me a "time served" painter and yacht rigger.  Since then I have watched the changing fortunes and seasons of the place I have still come to love more than anywhere I know.  I have seen its good times and the bad ones.  Right now I fear for its future more than I ever have before.  It has been under bad mis-management for several decades and this season I feel that we have finally reached a crisis point.

I seriously believe that this measure of charging for BA moorings will result in a recession from which the Broads as we know them will never again fully recover.  In fact we all should realise that they never fully recovered from the recession of the 80s.  The lessons from that, were never learned by the authorities.

So in that atmosphere It is perhaps understandable that I get frustrated as well as depressed, when I hear so much negativity about all the little things that people think are wrong with it, whilst at the same time seeming to be the lone voice that defends the boating tourism industry - the life-blood of the area - from ill-informed criticism that can easily do serious damage to its image in what is a very fragile market.

But on second thoughts you may be right : why should I bother myself with it?  There will always be those, for whom the facts of a matter just bounce off;  like water off a duck's back.

 

 

[Vaughan]

As a matter of interest, here is how a hire boat can be fairly easily adapted for use by the seriously handicapped.

It is based around one of our existing Bounty 44s, which we called "Atlantic".  It can still be hired as a conventional 7 berth boat, or for two couples handicapped with space for another three able bodied helpers. The aft chair lift is optional, as people can easily be carried aboard over the bows, with the boat moored bow or side on.

My design was overseen and approved by a large handicapped association in Switzerland, who gave their own input into some of the details, such as a fridge/freezer for special medicines.  The boat would also have had "beefed up" electrics, for the running of overnight oxygen breathing apparatus.  The conversion could have been done at my base in St Gilles where we had two of these boats in the fleet.

Unfortunately it never happened as my esteemed tour operator employers didn't think it was commercial.  I think the truth was they didn't understand it.  Despite the Swiss association having guaranteed in writing to provide a full 27 week season every year, just from their own members.

A sadly missed opportunity, I fear.

[Gracie]

For what my not so knowledgable opinion is worth, there's nothing wrong with our beautiful Broads only with the people that run it

Thank you for the excellent posts Vaughan and thank you Kate for letting everyone know Neatishead is open once again x

[FlyingFortress]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Hmm . . . 

Yes, you are probably right, although you may not understand why, even if I explain.

I was literally raised on the river, on a houseboat, at a boatyard where, by the age of 14, they called me a "time served" painter and yacht rigger.  Since then I have watched the changing fortunes and seasons of the place I have still come to love more than anywhere I know.  I have seen its good times and the bad ones.  Right now I fear for its future more than I ever have before.  It has been under bad mis-management for several decades and this season I feel that we have finally reached a crisis point.

I seriously believe that this measure of charging for BA moorings will result in a recession from which the Broads as we know them will never again fully recover.  In fact we all should realise that they never fully recovered from the recession of the 80s.  The lessons from that, were never learned by the authorities.

So in that atmosphere It is perhaps understandable that I get frustrated as well as depressed, when I hear so much negativity about all the little things that people think are wrong with it, whilst at the same time seeming to be the lone voice that defends the boating tourism industry - the life-blood of the area - from ill-informed criticism that can easily do serious damage to its image in what is a very fragile market.

But on second thoughts you may be right : why should I bother myself with it?  There will always be those, for whom the facts of a matter just bounce off;  like water off a duck's back.

 

 

And do you know what

I agree with you 

I don't have the background that you have but I do have a love of the Broads.

I also fear that the current management is doing untold harm.

[marshman]

Perhaps FF, you should fear for the next one just as much - we complain about this one, but the next could be a lot worse!!

Vaughan will tell you, if he digs back into the depths of his mind, that the Broads have seen these "crises" of management time and time again, and indeed not just of management! Crisis come and go and yet the underlying beauty and peace and tranquillity continue to be attractions beloved by many and by those who have not even discovered these attractions yet.

Whilst many of the "old stagers" have fond memories of the "good times" many of the problems seen in earlier crises often melt away and are soon long forgotten as new people come along and some will find new problems, yet others will go away thinking it is magical. People in this age of better and indeed instant communications have higher and and more exacting expectations but many will come and be happy with their memories of wildlife and wide open skies.

I watch with amusement cars being towed away in Snowdonia where they think they have the right to park anywhere - they clearly don't have enough parking either in peak periods as indeed do many attractions, especially natural ones. What however I am absolutely convinced of is that a £10 charge for an overnight stay is not in the overall scheme of things, going to make the slightest difference. Thats what you pay for 4 hours parking at Wells and you cannot even stay overnight !

Perhaps at Ranworth it will reduce the "hovering" but I actually don't think it, by itself, makes a jot of difference in the overall cost of the holiday.

Neither do I think the Broads are particularly badly managed but we have to pay when parking on roads that we "technically" have already paid for. Do I write to the Council and complain - no I accept it as a fact of life! How does the charge compare say, with the ULEZ scheme introduced in outer London Boroughs under the guise of alleviating pollution - its all to easy to find problems with the world and things like cancelled appointments and teachers breaching their pension limits, but nowadays I just tend to let it all wash over me, so to speak.

Of much greater concern to me, is the fact that advancing age may mean boating is actually over - over the years I have had a boat, mostly around here, for almost exactly 70 years but will I squeeze another year out of myself - I think it unlikely! What do I do then other than sit and watch?

[Broads01]

I agree that if the BA decided that Ranworth was going to be the only location for a charge then, whilst they shouldn't be charging, in the overall scheme of things it wouldn't be huge. The problem, however, I think Vaughan and others are worried about is that the Ranworth charge will set a precedent for numerous similar mooring charges elsewhere. The fact that most other BA moorings are unmanned wouldn't stop the BA from collecting money, they could either employ somebody to do that if they felt so inclined or introduce a "pay online/by phone" car park-style system.

[Lulu]

8 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

I agree that if the BA decided that Ranworth was going to be the only location for a charge then, whilst they shouldn't be charging, in the overall scheme of things it wouldn't be huge. The problem, however, I think Vaughan and others are worried about is that the Ranworth charge will set a precedent for numerous similar mooring charges elsewhere. The fact that most other BA moorings are unmanned wouldn't stop the BA from collecting money, they could either employ somebody to do that if they felt so inclined or introduce a "pay online/by phone" car park-style system.

Spot on. I’ve said before, this sets a precedent and if one free mooring after another becomes chargeable, that’s our boating days over. We will not be able to sustain the cost with the amount of days we are onboard.   Moorings are being lost every year it seems, the one at How Hill. Has that all been brushed over and forgotten about now?  Barton Turf, gone, the quiet moorings at Potter (I know these weren’t BA moorings) but these all add up so less places to go to.  

[FlyingFortress]

1 hour ago, Broads01 said:

I agree that if the BA decided that Ranworth was going to be the only location for a charge then, whilst they shouldn't be charging, in the overall scheme of things it wouldn't be huge. The problem, however, I think Vaughan and others are worried about is that the Ranworth charge will set a precedent for numerous similar mooring charges elsewhere. The fact that most other BA moorings are unmanned wouldn't stop the BA from collecting money, they could either employ somebody to do that if they felt so inclined or introduce a "pay online/by phone" car park-style system.

Couldn't have put it better myself 👍

[FlyingFortress]

MM 

I don't lightly call for regime change for the very fact that you state above. Better the devil you know etc.

During my limited time on The Broads compared to some I have largely been a supporter of The BA and have shook my head in dismay at the many BA bashers who have populated the Broads Fora 

But I have felt pushed into my current attitude by the constant above inflation tolls increases compound by this year's blatant money grab and then to add insult to injury attempting a further money grab by charging for 24 HR Free moorings already paid for in our Tolls.

For the record I see you are largely in favour of the mooring charges.

Could you also state your position on the 13% Tolls increase.

 

 

 

 

[Broads01]

7 hours ago, Lulu said:

  Moorings are being lost every year it seems, the one at How Hill. Has that all been brushed over and forgotten about now?

What mooring has been lost at How Hill?

[ChrisB]

1 off mooring at downstream end. Came up 3 or 4 years ago.

7 hours ago, Broads01 said:

What mooring has been lost at How Hill?

The Mill House, across the road from How Hill House has rights in it's deeds for access and a mooring.

Makes sense really:-- Wherry in wheat:- Wherry out Flour. 

[ChrisB]

P.S. Not sure that I would want to leave my boat there during The "Richardson Stampede"  of an afternoon!

[rightsaidfred]

18 hours ago, marshman said:

 

Neither do I think the Broads are particularly badly managed but we have to pay when parking on roads that we "technically" have already paid for. Do I write to the Council and complain - no I accept it as a fact of life! How does the charge compare say, with the ULEZ scheme introduced in outer London Boroughs under the guise of alleviating pollution 

 

But isn`t this all part of the creep into our lives and the freedoms that our forefathers fought to protect, whether its the BA the City Mayors or Local Authorities there are far to many instances now were the lives of Joe public are just collateral damage in the ambitions of a few.

While I am not in favour of the extremist actions of a few there comes a time when the silent majority need to take a stand against the dictatorial actions that are now blighting the lives of everyone, the so called free world is gradually shrinking and the mooring charges are just one example, doing nothing will only speed up this process.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, ChrisB said:

P.S. Not sure that I would want to leave my boat there during The "Richardson Stampede"  of an afternoon!

This mooring is the one tucked away on the down stream end, there is serious concern that this is another BA faux pas with a planning fiasco that has currently been withdrawn.

Fred

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, ChrisB said:

The Mill House, across the road from How Hill House has rights in it's deeds for access and a mooring.

Makes sense really:-- Wherry in wheat:- Wherry out Flour. 

No, it doesn't actually make sense.

1. The mooring subject of the covenant was located where the large black boatshed now stands. Wherries  used the parish staithe, which is where the wherry Hathor is on display during the summer.

2. The covenant dates from 1964, long after the last wherry ceased trading.

3. It is only a claimed right. There is nothing in the covenant that suggests the right was passed on to any successors of the original beneficiary. The Broads Authority chose not to challenge the claim, instead giving up one of the public 24hr moorings, which was provided and maintained out of the tolls income.

4. The Authority initially failed to consider that planning consent was needed, failed to find a way of overcoming the objections that were made against the retrospective application they submitted and withdrew the application, and have failed to remove the boat that is moored, in my view, unlawfully i.e. no planning consent for change of use and very much over the 24hr bye law restriction.

[Lulu]

So when that mooring eventually needs repair work, who will pay for that? 

[marshman]

Fred - you are right about the "creep" but I think you have to choose your battles carefully! I hate this pervasive creep, amongst other things, of downloading Apps to do a lot of this rubbish - talking of which you can now download an app to tell you when your bin is due for collection in Broadland!!

The trouble now as far as I am concerned, if I stand up for too long, I know I will just fall over - I just lose the will to fight and know the creep will continue whether I try to do anything or not! I have recently been having a difference of opinion over an issue one of my daughters came up against and I spent, cumulatively, over 4 hours discussing this with a major insurance company and making a formal complaint because of their intransigence. What did I get out of it? Bu**er all except a headache - even the Ombudsman agreed she was right but felt it was an issue they could not get involved in!!!

I cannot argue with your logic but will fighting help other than hassle over a £10 charge - we should but as you get older, you would fight everything whereas the young just accept it and get on with their lives!! I am sure we can all find similar things to rail against  - I am glad you think you may make a difference! Thank you for trying!!!!!

[rightsaidfred]

MM I understand what you are saying and to some extent agree, I to dont waste time on every issue.

However when it comes down to the current situation on the Broads where we have a probable case of fraud that could conceivably end up with a Police prosecution then yes it is worth fighting.

I am sure you will agree that if it wasnt for the efforts of our predecessors we wouldnt  have had the Broads we have enjoyed, I believe we have a responsibility to do the same for future generations.

Fred

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, Lulu said:

So when that mooring eventually needs repair work, who will pay for that? 

Lulu, the situation becomes more and more convoluted. When the agreement was made for the claimant to have the sole use of the 24hr mooring, he became responsible for the maintenance, or so I was told by the BA.

The senior planning officer's subsequent report to the Planning Committee said, among other things, that a 99-yr lease had been agreed between the BA and the third party, and signed by both parties. After the withdrawal of the doomed planning application, I asked for a copy of the lease. I was then told that it did not exist and had never existed.

I presume that the question of maintenance would have been covered by the (non-existent) lease. So now, it's anybody's guess.

[Lulu]

Very interesting. Thank you Paladin 

[garryn]

The whole of the How Hill moorings apart from the bit  were Braveheart moors has been renewed over the last couple of years.

[Andrewcook]

Hi Neatishead Moorings has been improved since it's been done by the Broads Authority with more Shore power being installed plus New Mooring posts? 

[BroadAmbition]

A mate is round there onboard his boat. Issues with crushed granite on deck. Also aground with only 2ft river depth available 

Griff