Two Moorings Lost?

[SwanR]

Or everyone will move to Norfolk and give up on the holidays. 🤔

[rightsaidfred]

The difference a decade makes, from Navigation Committee meeting report 2012.

"The Authority’s established policy is to provide a network of free, well

maintained 24 hour moorings for use across the navigation area. The

exceptions in respect of charging are the two yacht stations at Norwich

and Great Yarmouth where facilities such as showers and toilets are

provided. The only other mooring where a member of staff is employed

to help the public moor is the Quay at Reedham where for safety

reasons a seasonal Quay Assistant is employed"

Fred

[Hylander]

What is also annoying about losing one of the best moorings on the Broads ie Langley Dyke is that you could dump your rubbish there.   Now we have lost that facility.      More expensive tolls and yet less bang for your buck!

[vanessan]

I heard a few days ago that the BA are going to take over the Hardley Mill pontoon moorings. I’m not quite sure what to make of that news (which comes from a knowledgeable source) but I am really saddened that the Langley Dyke 24 hour moorings will be lost. 

[Cheesey69]

Any chance of more pontoon moorings? I could imagine them in a few strategic places if only for the summer 

[Wussername]

Everything these days seems to eminate from a knowledgeable source, as if from some inner sanctum. No names, no pack drill. Nudge, nudge, say no more.

No disrespect  intended towards Vanessan whatsover but it seems that the only form of communication concerning important matters is by this means. Whispers in the night over a pint of two's.

My point is why should this be? Why the secrecy, the smoke and mirrors.

Unless of course there is a conflict of commercial interest why doesn't the BA come up front with these issues instead of faffing about and contributing to the intrigue.

It is our Norfolk Broads after all.

 

[MargeandParge]

34 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Everything these days seems to eminate from a knowledgeable source, as if from some inner sanctum. No names, no pack drill. Nudge, nudge, say no more.

No disrespect  intended towards Vanessan whatsover but it seems that the only form of communication concerning important matters is by this means. Whispers in the night over a pint of two's.

My point is why should this be? Why the secrecy, the smoke and mirrors.

Unless of course there is a conflict of commercial interest why doesn't the BA come up front with these issues instead of faffing about and contributing to the intrigue.

It is our Norfolk Broads after all.

 

The only thing about reliable leakage is that it softens the blow and gives wriggle room. It also gives those casting the blow time to create a defence. 

It will end in tears as The Thames with about 3 hire yards and all the decent people that enjoy the Broads alienated .

Sorry Marge and Parge 

[LondonRascal]

Few draw attention the point the owners of the land adjacent to rivers decide if they wish to continue leasing such to Broads Authority, and likely as the lease period comes to an end would look to re-negotiate the terms and cost based on current market values. Many however do not see this, and instead hit the Broads Authority with the 'stick of blame' which can be unfair and why balance is always key. 

From reading various reports and meeting minutes over the years, it would appear that one of the biggest issues land owners have is the cost of maintaining the piling at moorings. This has been further muddied with how the Environment Agency wishing to pass on liability for piling that is no longer required for flood defence purposes to the owners of the land behind the piling frontage. This formed a big reason why the landowner at Thurne Mouth decided to remove the moorings there, formerly leased by the Broads Authority, when neither the Environment Agency or the Broads Authority would fund future piling work. Many will single out the Broads Authority for these moorings being lost, but as you see it was not their fault entirely.

The Broads Authority (as of 2021) budgets £150,000 annually just for funding piling works at 24 hour moorings. Careful consideration is needed as to what moorings this fund covers, and which are not covered. I can well see why a land owner would not wish to continue paying to keep a mooring in good order, if they are not having any funding (over and above the lease cost/rental) given to the moorings. While things like mooring posts, gavel pathways and signage would be funded by the Broads Authority, this is not anywhere near as expensive as steel sheet piling, capping and the labour costs to replace such - indeed, it is estimated to cost £1,000 per metre to remove, replace and re-cap steel sheet piling at moorings. Given this sort of costs, I can see why there is a temptation to use what powers the Broads Authority were granted under the Broads Act 2009, to raise money via the introduction of mooring fees - the issue is, are such fees really going to go into the specific location's cost or swallowed in the vast darkness of outgoings generally? Here is where a more transparent Authority would be nice along with easier access to such information.

I'd draw peoples attention to the below about what the Broads Authority say on moorings and leases:

Quote

Due to the time needed to re-negotiate mooring leases and the fact that a renewed lease is not a given, officers start the renewal process 18 month prior to the end of the lease. This timescale is under review, as recent experience has shown that some locations have complicated legal work and a need for protracted discussion with third parties or organisations. Having said that, it is not always possible to predict timescales, particularly when the land ownership changes in the run up to the end of the lease.

The Authority is seeing an increasing tendency for landowners wishing to mitigate their responsibility for the piling at mooring locations, with many landowners wanting the Authority to assume and pay for piling replacement within the terms of the lease.

The Authority’s Scheme of Delegations gives the Chief Executive the ability to negotiate the following: Freehold purchases not exceeding £75,000; new leasehold terms with rents not exceeding £25,000; and increases in rent not exceeding £20,000 per annum. The renewal of leases has often involved the Authority taking on responsibility for the retained piling, which may involve substantial costs. Officers are careful to assess the implications of these responsibilities against the existing maintenance programme and the annual resources made available. Directors may authorise additional expenditure of up to £10,000 for maintenance on Authority owned, leased or rented land, or within any budget provision made for such works (whichever is higher).

So, as you can see it might well be that a landowner values (or has had independently valued) the lease of moorings to be more than £25,000 - and should this be the case, the authority has reached their own 'imposed cap' of new leasehold terms and talks (I presume) come to an end. The same would apply for rental terms too. It is therefore of no help to view the cost of our Tolls as excessive, but then further expect money to be made available for retaining moorings when negotiating with land owners - for there is only so much money in the pot.

From my point of view therefore, at times, it may well be six of one and half a dozen of the other. The landowner rightly wanting a decent and fair market value for the lease, and the Broads Authority not wishing to negotiate if it is above a certain threshold, or where that is not the case, the landowner being the sticking point wishing to mitigate their liability both in terms of costs to maintain and as far as risk/claims go about piling at a mooring.

[CambridgeCabby]

Whilst I can understand having capital limits as you have quoted on rent , purchases , and maintenance for moorings these limits should also have to be addressed annually (as our tolls are) or they will very quickly be inadequate.

This year we had an increase of 13+% , would I be wrong to assume the BA has there for increased their self set limits by a similar percentage citing the exact same reasoning they gave us when increasing our tolls ?

[Broads01]

Thanks, Robin for taking the trouble to write in detail. I accept that this isn't a straightforward situation.

[NeilB]

According to Facebook a well known ex contributor to this forum has spoken to the landowner at Langley Dyke, while not from the horses mouth it's sounds pretty close!

The rent was peppercorn at £1 per year and although the length was not mentioned it was stated as a long lease.  For some unknown reason the BA turned this offer down.

The reason maybe a perfectly valid one so I hope the BA issues a statement ASAP, over to you @BroadsAuthority

[LondonRascal]

2 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Whilst I can understand having capital limits as you have quoted on rent , purchases , and maintenance for moorings these limits should also have to be addressed annually (as our tolls are) or they will very quickly be inadequate.

This year we had an increase of 13+% , would I be wrong to assume the BA has there for increased their self set limits by a similar percentage citing the exact same reasoning they gave us when increasing our tolls ?

One would hope they were indeed addressed annually, to keep in line with market values - no good saying you are capping something at £25,000 and its five years on and still capped at this figure. We will see when the accounts are published for 2023.

The fact is though, it all has to be paid out of a set amount of money - and I'd like to think the Broads Authority did not just pluck an increase to Tolls which worked out to be 13% out of thin air without some careful financial analysis (hey we can live in hope, right?) Their costs will have gone up too and one has to accept that, from the utility bills, to the stationary, to the fuel they use, to the materials used to maintain moorings - and on and on  it goes. I therefore believe while 13 percent may have been 'unfair', it would still have had to have increased way over inflation whatever the case simply to maintain spending - let alone increase any budgets within the Authority.

The point I was making was more how moorings being lost may have a contributing factor of the Broads Authority - based on their strategies - but one has to also see how the owner of the land in question is often more 'the cause' of a mooring being lost. Nobody would want to have liability for costs and risk and just provide something out of the goodness of their heart, and if the Broads Authority can't afford to offer more than a set amount when leases come up for renewal, what you get is what we are seeing - moorings vanishing.  The only way I can see to break this, is charging for them, how else do you raise capital if you also cannot keep asking for ever higher Tolls and if the Government are not increasing their grants?

So, either private landowners charge, or the Broads Authority subsidise the cost of the leases with mooring fees.  I am happy for that,  so long as it can be shown the mooring fees directly go to support the moorings and not on goodness knows what else like pointless signage or vanity projects.

[imtamping2]

I really can’t wait for BA’s statement …..I more at Langley Dyke and trying to get BA to replace posts ripped out of the moorings was a joke ….the most BA did at these moorings was cut the grass now and again and um um um …. Absolutely disgusting a very well loved mooring just thrown away by the Quango that needs dismantling ….

[LondonRascal]

34 minutes ago, NeilB said:

The rent was peppercorn at £1 per year and although the length was not mentioned it was stated as a long lease.  For some unknown reason the BA turned this offer down.

 

13 minutes ago, imtamping2 said:

I really can’t wait for BA’s statement …..I more at Langley Dyke and trying to get BA to replace posts ripped out of the moorings was a joke ….the most BA did at these moorings was cut the grass now and again and um um um …. Absolutely disgusting a very well loved mooring just thrown away by the Quango that needs dismantling ….

Both of the above are subject to things we do not know.

For example, say the rent was indeed a £1.00 per annum - what does that actually include? Who will be responsible for the steel piling, capping and costs of keeping this in good order? It might well be the Broads Authority have declined this offer based on the fact they only have £150,000 budget for this across the network and know full well Langley Dyke is used very little - compared to How Hill. So they would not take on this liability, over to the landowner, who might bulk at the idea of paying for this too - and here we are - closing moorings.

As to the upkeep of the moorings, what is the liability of the Broads Authority - maybe they only do need to cut the grass. I am not a flag bearer for the Authority, but I won't 'have a go at them' unless I know what they are failing at, and what actually has nothing to with them - for all I know, I should be moaning at the owner of the land...So yes, let us see what the Broads Authority have to say though to be fair, even then it will be only their side of the story.

[NeilB]

7 minutes ago, LondonRascal said:

Both of the above are subject to things we do not know.

Exactly, which is why I stated the BA may have a valid reason.  I understand they have been contacted by several people so let’s hope they release a statement soon.

[NeilB]

While I was down south over half term week, despite not all boats being on hire most moorings were pretty full.  I would say this indicates the loss of any mooring will be an issue.

[LondonRascal]

2 minutes ago, NeilB said:

While I was down south over half term week, despite not all boats being on hire most moorings were pretty full.  I would say this indicates the loss of any mooring will be an issue.

It does, and 'down south' only has so many available anyway to moor at. It is going to be very interesting seeing how things pan out in the coming couple of years and what will be what. 

[Broads01]

A further point about Langley - unlike the North Broads the South has very few wild moorings and those that do exist no doubt could present depth issues on a low tide. The BA, therefore, has a responsibility to maintain and improve the availability of public moorings on the South just as much as it does in the north. If it's taking over Hardley Mill that's a positive step. Are pontoon moorings cheaper to install and maintain than piling?

[ScrumpyCheddar]

The way things are going on the broads is going to be a massive turn off to anyone thinking of coming on holiday or considering buying a boat.. What a complete shambles moorings disappearing, moorings now you have to pay for what was free, And toll increases, what’s next paying for bridge swings. ‼️

[Hylander]

1 hour ago, ScrumpyCheddar said:

The way things are going on the broads is going to be a massive turn off to anyone thinking of coming on holiday or considering buying a boat.. What a complete shambles moorings disappearing, moorings now you have to pay for what was free, And toll increases, what’s next paying for bridge swings. ‼️

So true,  we are planning to come South on a boat in 2024 but really now thinking of cancelling the whole idea.     

[Mouldy]

7 hours ago, Broads01 said:

A further point about Langley - unlike the North Broads the South has very few wild moorings and those that do exist no doubt could present depth issues on a low tide. The BA, therefore, has a responsibility to maintain and improve the availability of public moorings on the South just as much as it does in the north. If it's taking over Hardley Mill that's a positive step. Are pontoon moorings cheaper to install and maintain than piling?

If they do take over Hardley Mill moorings, expect a rise in the mooring charges that already exist.  As things stand, it’s £10 overnight, but if you become a Friend of Hardley Mill for £10 per year, the overnight charge reduces to £5.  Clearly, for us based ‘down south,’ becoming a Friend soon pays for itself.  If the BA take over, mooring fees will surely need to provide some funding for the mill, as well as to the coffers of the BA and to fund the collection of the fees.  Will this be a £15 per night mooring soon?

For the BA, it’s ideal.  Pontoon moorings require little maintenance compared to places with piling and timber quay heading and electric is already there, provided by two posts.  Are their plans to ban diesel powered cruisers from overnight mooring, given there’s only space for four craft and use them solely for electric or hybrid craft?  I cannot help thinking that should the BA take over Hardley Mill moorings, the reason will be in favour of the BA’s Notional Park status and not navigation in general.

[Roy]

It’s always been a dream of mine to have a boat on the broads but now I’m actually thinking owning a boat on the broads isn’t going to be such a good idea as I can only see this mooring issue getting worse maybe I should just remember the broads from when I was young in the 1980s 

 

[gancanny]

9 minutes ago, Roy said:

t’s always been a dream of mine to have a boat on the broads but now I’m actually thinking owning a boat on the broads isn’t going to be such a good idea as I can only see this mooring issue getting worse maybe I should just remember the broads from when I was young in the 1980s 

 

i would not read too much into all this,  there are a lot of doom and gloom mongers out there,  i have been coming to the broads since 1970 and had our own boat since 1991 but it is not putting me off the broads

[gancanny]

10 hours ago, NeilB said:

According to Facebook a well known ex contributor to this forum has spoken to the landowner at Langley Dyke, while not from the horses mouth it's sounds pretty close!

no prizes for guessing who,  you only have to log on to elsewhere

[rightsaidfred]

10 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

One would hope they were indeed addressed annually, to keep in line with market values - no good saying you are capping something at £25,000 and its five years on and still capped at this figure. We will see when the accounts are published for 2023.

The fact is though, it all has to be paid out of a set amount of money - and I'd like to think the Broads Authority did not just pluck an increase to Tolls which worked out to be 13% out of thin air without some careful financial analysis (hey we can live in hope, right?) Their costs will have gone up too and one has to accept that, from the utility bills, to the stationary, to the fuel they use, to the materials used to maintain moorings - and on and on  it goes. I therefore believe while 13 percent may have been 'unfair', it would still have had to have increased way over inflation whatever the case simply to maintain spending - let alone increase any budgets within the Authority.

The point I was making was more how moorings being lost may have a contributing factor of the Broads Authority - based on their strategies - but one has to also see how the owner of the land in question is often more 'the cause' of a mooring being lost. Nobody would want to have liability for costs and risk and just provide something out of the goodness of their heart, and if the Broads Authority can't afford to offer more than a set amount when leases come up for renewal, what you get is what we are seeing - moorings vanishing.  The only way I can see to break this, is charging for them, how else do you raise capital if you also cannot keep asking for ever higher Tolls and if the Government are not increasing their grants?

So, either private landowners charge, or the Broads Authority subsidise the cost of the leases with mooring fees.  I am happy for that,  so long as it can be shown the mooring fees directly go to support the moorings and not on goodness knows what else like pointless signage or vanity projects.

I think most of us understand the principals of good Financial accountability and budgeting and the requirement to spend public money responsibly, this brings into question the justification of spending 6K on a telephone box in an area of very low footfall but lets move on.

The Broads Act 1988 opens with the following.

"Functions of Authority: general.

(1)It shall be the general duty of the Authority to manage the Broads for the purposes of—

[F1(a)conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads;

(b)promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and ]

(c)protecting the interests of navigation."

A Speaks for itself and is covered by the Defra Grant.

B Dosn`t mean pretend its a make believe NP or act as a tourist board, it means providing an environment and facilities that allows businesses to attract people to the area, as almost all activities involve being on or accessing by the navigation adequate moorings are an essential part.

C Again this speaks for itself with the main points being maintaining an adequate depth through dredging and adequate moorings, the provision of rangers and bankside maintenance covers most of the rest.

As I see it there are two approaches to achieve the funding of the Navigation related duties of the authority.

What appears to be JPs method, constantly increasing the tolls beyond what appears to be a justifiable amount and reduce the facilities encouraging people to leave the area so that you need an even bigger increase next year to make up the shortfall.

Or my idea of a sensible approach, keep things at an affordable level for the majority of people, provide more and better facilities especially moorings to encourage those that are here to stay and to attract the additional new people needed to sustain the future, this in itself should provide more income meaning any increase should only be needed to keep pace with required spending. 

Fred