Jump to content

Two Moorings Lost?


Mouldy

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

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. 

Only last week, the ‘good Doctor’ appeared on TV, extolling the virtues of The Broads, but warning us to think about the environmental impact of how we visit, warning of excessive car journeys.

I’m trying to work out how you promote a National Park, or even a Notional Park and travel to one, without encouraging people to travel by car.  Surely, that’s a contradiction?  Does he think we can all afford to travel by train, that’s if they’re running, or live close enough to walk or cycle?

Is a National Park not a tourist destination by definition?  I, for one, am not sure what his aim is for The Broads, but discouraging tourism must be damaging for the economy of an area, that is dependent on it for the survival of many of its businesses.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mouldy said:

Only last week, the ‘good Doctor’ appeared on TV, extolling the virtues of The Broads, but warning us to think about the environmental impact of how we visit, warning of excessive car journeys.

I’m trying to work out how you promote a National Park, or even a Notional Park and travel to one, without encouraging people to travel by car.  Surely, that’s a contradiction?  Does he think we can all afford to travel by train, that’s if they’re running, or live close enough to walk or cycle?

Is a National Park not a tourist destination by definition?  I, for one, am not sure what his aim is for The Broads, but discouraging tourism must be damaging for the economy of an area, that is dependent on it for the survival of many of its businesses.

You are on the money there, by its very nature and the activities of those that enjoy the Broads access by car is the only practice method of travel for the majority, sadly over the years JP seems to have more and more joined the ranks of the deluded who seem to think the only answer to anything they disagree with is to ban it regardless of the consequences and affect on the everyday life of everyone else.

Fred 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roy said:

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 

 

It isn’t just the Broads , but other waterways also .

During the current worldwide economic climate all businesses are having to look again and try and realise what they can from their assets .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

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?

I would hope that for £1 per annum it wouldn't be the land owner, but the lease owner!

11 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

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

Do you know that is the actual figure, or are you supplying a defense for the BA based upon supposition. I would more wonder why the BA didn't take on the lease at £1, and even if it did need money spent on refurbishment, then why not close the mooring for a year until the budget can be found to refurbish it the next year. Do we even know if it needs work doing immediately? 

 

11 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

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

Yet you are providing hypothesis and supposition in their defense when none of the real facts are known! 

Nobody will disagree that the costs to the BA have gone up. Costs for every person, company, authority and service organisation have gone up, yet council tax increases were capped at 3% or 5% where they have social care duties. Which given the rate of inflation meant they had to make savings or find alternative sources of income.

The BA have chosen to find alternative sources of income whilst having the luxury of being free from any of the restraints put on local authorities and putting in place above inflation increases in tolls! Having their cake and eat it at our expense springs to mind.

Keep wearing those rose tinted spectacles because where the BA are concerned you are becoming rarer than a sighting of the Bittern!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its steel piling then that is probably your answer in a nutshell  -  that's VERY expensive to renew and is probably part of the flood defences. Is their another flood bank further back there - I cannot remember but am inclined to think not??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

 Is a National Park not a tourist destination by definition?  

Perhaps not. Here is a lift from the pages of Encylopedia Brittannica webpage.

National Park. An area set aside by a government for the preservation of the natural environment or because of its historical or scientific interest. The national parks of various countries  differ greatly in their effectiveness in protecting their resources. Some provide park systems with large enough budgets to make possible strict enforcement of regulations, others do not. 

Most parks have a built in paradox : although they often depend on tourism , the preservation of their wildlife depends on it not being molested. This paradox is usually resolved by allowing visitors to travel only within limited areas. This allows them to see the park whilst minimising their contact.

So, thank goodness for Sandford . We still need to remain vigilant that JP and the RSPB do not erode that principle.

Perhaps losing boat mooring availability from the system is a back door way of achieving that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RealWindmill said:

Perhaps not. Here is a lift from the pages of Encylopedia Brittannica webpage.

National Park. An area set aside by a government for the preservation of the natural environment or because of its historical or scientific interest. The national parks of various countries  differ greatly in their effectiveness in protecting their resources. Some provide park systems with large enough budgets to make possible strict enforcement of regulations, others do not. 

Most parks have a built in paradox : although they often depend on tourism , the preservation of their wildlife depends on it not being molested. This paradox is usually resolved by allowing visitors to travel only within limited areas. This allows them to see the park whilst minimising their contact.

So, thank goodness for Sandford . We still need to remain vigilant that JP and the RSPB do not erode that principle.

Perhaps losing boat mooring availability from the system is a back door way of achieving that ?

Agreed, but National Parks are a magnet for tourism by virtue of the fact that they are areas of natural beauty, that in our quest to concrete over the countryside to provide housing, warehouse space and to shave 10 minutes off the time it takes to travel from London to Birmingham by train, are places for us to enjoy the tranquility they afford.

As for Sanford, if the principle is adopted, it will spell the end of navigation on The Broads.  Is this what we really want?

 

IMG_1640.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, marshman said:

If its steel piling then that is probably your answer in a nutshell  -  that's VERY expensive to renew and is probably part of the flood defences. Is their another flood bank further back there - I cannot remember but am inclined to think not??

The steel piling at Langley are in very good condition and probably better than most other mooring , so that’s that one out the window ..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, imtamping2 said:

The steel piling at Langley are in very good condition and probably better than most other mooring , so that’s that one out the window ..

you appear to be a little agitated with this thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Agreed, but National Parks are a magnet for tourism by virtue of the fact that they are areas of natural beauty, that in our quest to concrete over the countryside to provide housing, warehouse space and to shave 10 minutes off the time it takes to travel from London to Birmingham by train, are places for us to enjoy the tranquility they afford.

As for Sanford, if the principle is adopted, it will spell the end of navigation on The Broads.  Is this what we really want?

 

IMG_1640.jpeg

 

Really have to come back on this one...

 

FIRST The Sandford Principle doesn't exist in Law. It was finally enshrined in law in 1995

Key words in the 1974 National Parks Policy Review Committee report are “priority must be given to the conservation of natural beauty”. Although these words have been used in policy-making and decisions for many years, they were not a legal statement. When the principle was eventually translated into law in 1995, its interpretation and impact were subtly changed. 

The Environment Act 1995 s62 (1)(2) states:

In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.

 

SECONDLY,  AND MORE IMPORTANTLY

 

You say "As for Sanford, if the principle is adopted, it will spell the end of navigation on The Broads.  Is this what we really want?"

Yet the "Sandford Principle" (1995 Act) is in play in the other National Parks,  yet there are lots of boats on Lake Windermere, and look here: https://www.facebook.com/recordsweek/?locale=en_GB

They set water speed records on Coniston every year

Your statement is ridiculously UNTRUE!

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Agreed, but National Parks are a magnet for tourism by virtue of the fact that they are areas of natural beauty, that in our quest to concrete over the countryside to provide housing, warehouse space and to shave 10 minutes off the time it takes to travel from London to Birmingham by train, are places for us to enjoy the tranquility they afford.

As for Sanford, if the principle is adopted, it will spell the end of navigation on The Broads.  Is this what we really want?

 

IMG_1640.jpeg

You've missed the point.

Sandford can only be applied to Full status National Parks. The whole reason the Broads NP debate exists is that Sandford exists.

Sandford Principle prevented the Broads becoming a full NP member, just a pretend one for advertising purposes. This was of course discussed ad nauseum on here and elsewhere and I already regret bringing it up again.

Thought it was clearly known that without the threat of Sandford the full NP title would have been passed and Navigation Rights subsequently threatened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mouldy said:

 

I’m trying to work out how you promote a National Park, or even a Notional Park and travel to one, without encouraging people to travel by car.  Surely, that’s a contradiction?  Does he think we can all afford to travel by train, that’s if they’re running, or live close enough to walk or cycle?

 

Might I suggest - Flying Carpet.   Well it goes along with Flying Pigs in this instance.         

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gancanny said:

you appear to be a little agitated with this thread

No I think most just dislike trying to protect the unprotectable, its a simple fact to anyone who spends any amount time afloat that there has been a steady decline in the last 10 years.

Agreed not all is the BAs fault but much of it is down to the intransigent direction the administration has taken.

Fred

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 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?

The last few times we've stopped on the Hardley Mill pontoon I've thought to myself that it won't be too long before a major upgrade will be needed as the pontoon itself is plastic and several of the cleats that you tie up to are missing. So it might be a good thing if they BA are willing to take that one on. I doubt the Mill charity could afford to do it. They probably got a special grant to install the first set of pontoons, but you know what these grants are like, it's often easier to get money for a new project than an ongoing maintenance one.

I hope it is preserved anyway, as it's one of our favourite moorings. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will be a certain irony not lost on a lot of people if the BA do take on The Hardley Mill pontoon! 

I hope if the BA do take it on they give themselves a rap over the knuckles if they forget to repaint it the correct shade of Grey!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Roy said:

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 can't resist this :

 

blakesmoorings.thumb.jpeg.f88b860e4e80be3929b663184d25a44a.jpeg

From Blakes catalogue of 1969.

Not forgetting the network of around 100 boatyards, Blakes and Hoseasons, all offering free moorings and all the services to go with them.  This, however, is not the only problem!

I think Broads cruising really started to change in the early 70s when river banks were built up and piled to make flood defences for deep drainage of the meadows.  At about the same time pubs (with Horning Ferry in the van) decided they could make a bit over the odds by charging their own customers to moor on their premises.  The local farmers and landowners soon caught on, and used these new flood defences (which looked like moorings) to charge boats to moor on what had previously just been a riverbank wild mooring.

The BA, to their credit, took on certain staithes and moorings (such as St Benets) and maintained them out of toll money.  I don't remember the River Commissioners ever having their own moorings.  These were normally provided at Parish Staithes, whose upkeep was heavily subsidised by Blakes.  The only paid moorings were at GYYS and Norwich YS.

We have now reached the stage where even the BA have caught on to the "fast buck" and started charging as well, which leaves Broads cruising in future as simply "pay up or else!"

Another question : why do we need such fancy and expensive made up moorings?  Looking at old brochures of the 60s and 70s reminds me that almost all moorings were just earth banks with a footpath through the grass on top of the bank.  I include the whole of both sides at Acle;  both sides of Thurne Dyke;  likewise Ludham Bridge;  all of Salhouse Broad and you wouldn't believe what Coltishall common was like, in those days!  St Benets was just as popular as nowadays but just an earth bank.  Thorpe Green was only half made up, out of old railway sleepers. The rest was just grass.

So that is where history has brought us and I think if nothing else, it shows us how much the area has so vitally depended on the hire boat business.

How do we reverse this creeping malaise before it is too late?   I wonder, more and more, if we ever can.

  • Like 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I can't resist this :

 

blakesmoorings.thumb.jpeg.f88b860e4e80be3929b663184d25a44a.jpeg

From Blakes catalogue of 1969.

Not forgetting the network of around 100 boatyards, Blakes and Hoseasons, all offering free moorings and all the services to go with them.  This, however, is not the only problem!

I think Broads cruising really started to change in the early 70s when river banks were built up and piled to make flood defences for deep drainage of the meadows.  At about the same time pubs (with Horning Ferry in the van) decided they could make a bit over the odds by charging their own customers to moor on their premises.  The local farmers and landowners soon caught on, and used these new flood defences (which looked like moorings) to charge boats to moor on what had previously just been a riverbank wild mooring.

The BA, to their credit, took on certain staithes and moorings (such as St Benets) and maintained them out of toll money.  I don't remember the River Commissioners ever having their own moorings.  These were normally provided at Parish Staithes, whose upkeep was heavily subsidised by Blakes.  The only paid moorings were at GYYS and Norwich YS.

We have now reached the stage where even the BA have caught on to the "fast buck" and started charging as well, which leaves Broads cruising in future as simply "pay up or else!"

Another question : why do we need such fancy and expensive made up moorings?  Looking at old brochures of the 60s and 70s reminds me that almost all moorings were just earth banks with a footpath through the grass on top of the bank.  I include the whole of both sides at Acle;  both sides of Thurne Dyke;  likewise Ludham Bridge;  all of Salhouse Broad and you wouldn't believe what Coltishall common was like, in those days!  St Benets was just as popular as nowadays but just an earth bank.  Thorpe Green was only half made up, out of old railway sleepers. The rest was just grass.

So that is where history has brought us and I think if nothing else, it shows us how much the area has so vitally depended on the hire boat business.

How do we reverse this creeping malaise before it is too late?   I wonder, more and more, if we ever can.

No doubt  fancy mooring due to elf and safety. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Only last week, the ‘good Doctor’ appeared on TV, extolling the virtues of The Broads, but warning us to think about the environmental impact of how we visit, warning of excessive car journeys.

I’m trying to work out how you promote a National Park, or even a Notional Park and travel to one, without encouraging people to travel by car.  Surely, that’s a contradiction?  Does he think we can all afford to travel by train, that’s if they’re running, or live close enough to walk or cycle?

I believe this is a fair thing to say, and while it may not be possible for all, just talking of it, raising the subject is a good start surely to slowly nudging people to consider changes on how they may travel to areas and help the environment they travel through and their impact upon it?  I went on the Broads for years before I could drive and did so entirely by public transport - it is easy, and when booked in advance far cheaper than going by road.

Look at what is going on in London - which is an amazing thing to see how people are being nudged to accept change. Freedom's are not being removed from anybody, but should you wish to use a car, it will cost you more and it will take a very long time to get to where you want to go verses other forms of transport. This causes frustration and costs people which makes the other ways of moving around the city begin to appeal more.   New buses can now only travel at the speed limit of the road they are using because they know the speed limit of the road and know where they are (GPS) and since almost all the roads in London (where they are managed by the local Council) are 20MPH, this is a great way to create rolling speed controls where drivers behind the buses cannot do more than the speed limit it also ensures the buses are driven with more care and cannot speed either, this all makes for a more pleasant environment if you are walking by the road or cycling along it.

Convenience is the real  hurdle to get people to make such changes, this is also one of the big 'moans' about EV cars 'range' and 'charging them when away from home'. It is all possible, but not as easy as filling up with fuel, so it becomes something many latch onto as a negative and why a lot of people dislike the idea of owning one - and yes, EV's are not any better for the planet in their lifetime than a vehicle with an engine (well unless you take account of no actual emissions from them so far as gaseous pollutants) but what does help the environment greatly is just travelling less often by whatever means.

The fact is, as years go on, we are going to have to make changes, and some of those are not going to be welcome (or easy to adjust to) but come they will. John Packman was beginning the conversation, so to speak, about this in my view and that is something that will be needed, after all. while some question how on earth the Broads could become 'electrified'I think it will have to be one day, as once vehicles no longer have engines in them, where will the base engines come from to be marinised by the likes of Nanni? So it might not be something there will be much choice over in time - it will just become the way it has to be.

36 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Another question : why do we need such fancy and expensive made up moorings?  Looking at old brochures of the 60s and 70s reminds me that almost all moorings were just earth banks with a footpath through the grass on top of the bank.

I thought the other day something similar, whatever happened to corrugated steel? You used  to see it all over the place, and often too at construction sites acting as a temporary wall around them for safety and security. Now such sites have to have Plywood boards put up, wrapped in vinyl to promote the buildings going up, they are often adorned with lights too.  In short, if a building site now has to appear 'pretty' what chance is there of a mooring being natural? But it is more than aesthetics, you now (rightly) need to think about people and their comfort, consider risks too and access requirements.

How Hill uses to be some grass bank and you'd arrive and use the Rhond Anchors (I've got photos from the 1990's showing this) but now they are piled moorings, full of mooring posts and topped with crushed Granite to walk over. This makes mooring easier, and safer - as you've got a post right there to tie to. It means those who have holidayed with their baby/toddler can easily walk along with the Pram/Pushchair or indeed those less mobile  can ensure a level and even surface to walk along, not just those who need the use of a  Mobility Scooter too.

It has nothing to do with just health and safety (though this should not be seen as a bad thing - why should it be acceptable for someone to sprain their ankle (or worse) because of a hole hidden in the grass.) It means the area and the moorings there are available to be enjoyed without inconvenience to more people - and this can only be a good thing as if you make somewhere accessible to a more diverse set of people, more people will be able to enjoy it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just come back from a week on a Brooms boat. In there video they advise not to mudweight overnight and not to overnight on rond anchors on the subject of health and safety gone mad. Of course I ignored them on both counts and are still alive to tell the tale. Langley Dyke is one of my favourite moorings on the South by the way, moored twice in May and by the sounds of it glad I did

Neil 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CambridgeCabby said:

With all this speculation etc on here concerning  free 24hr BA moorings , I wonder if Tom @BroadsAuthority would be able to let us know how many there are now compared to 5 years ago ?

I have a feeling that the number of moorings may be skewed by the BA to look better than they actually are, even if they have the decency to respond.  Use Reedham as an example, where double mooring is permitted, would the numbers they provide include double mooring places where allowed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

There is an update on our website now regarding this: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/boating/navigating-the-broads/boating-news/an-update-regarding-langley-dyke-24hr-mooring

"The current 20-year lease for the two sections of the moorings (totalling approx. 97 metres) finishes on 12 June 2023.  The original owner who agreed the current lease at a £1 rent per annum passed away in 2014.

The Authority’s policy on leasing moorings, agreed with the Navigation Committee, is that it is willing to take on the responsibility for the maintenance of moorings if a long lease is granted at a nominal rent. This is because the cost of repairing and replacing piled moorings is a long-term investment. If the landowner is willing to retain responsibility for the maintenance then the Authority will consider a shorter term for a lease at a commercial rent.

Negotiations for a new lease at Langley started in 2021, with the new owner offering the Broads Authority an alternative location as they wanted to retain the current mooring for their own use. The alternative location would have provided the same length of mooring space but is not currently piled and is located at the mouth of the dyke. This was considered to be unsuitable because of the close proximity to the main river and unaffordable due to the extensive cost of piling works required at the site.

Many other options have since been discussed, including the Authority undertaking additional work such as dredging for the landowner as an alternative to a large annual rent, however none of these have been acceptable to the landowner.

The final offer from the landowner was the current mooring for an annual rent of £2,000 per annum on a year-by-year basis with no long-term security of tenure but requiring the Authority to assume the costly responsibility and liability for the piling. The cost of such works is currently around £1,600 per linear metre to install a standard 6m trench sheet and the associated quay furniture (mooring posts, footpaths, capping and walings).

This option has been declined by the Authority as it is not financially viable. As a result the site will regrettably cease to be a Broads Authority mooring from 12 June 2023.

We are continuing to explore alternative locations for new 24-hour moorings and hope to provide an update later on in the year."

Tom

  • Thanks 7
  • Sad 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CambridgeCabby said:

With all this speculation etc on here concerning  free 24hr BA moorings , I wonder if Tom @BroadsAuthority would be able to let us know how many there are now compared to 5 years ago ?

Hello CambridgeCabby,

"The Authority currently manages 53% more mooring frontage than twenty years ago (data not shown in table), 9.9% more than 10 years ago and 4.8% more than five years ago. Although the total number of different 24-hour mooring sites has fluctuated from year to year, the length of mooring frontage has increased despite pressures from landowners as well as rising material and equipment costs."

image.png.e81620bc4f55da60c74a4ec37c2314eb.png

There's more information on this in Broad Sheet Feb 2023 and on this page here: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/frequently-asked-questions-navigation-charges-2023 (scroll down a bit)

In response to whether the figures are accurate/include double mooring. They are fairly accurate but some mooring lengths on our website are approximations/rounded up so may not be to the exact metre. The figures above are for mooring frontage in metres, so don't include double mooring.

Hope that helps,

Tom

  • Thanks 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.