Two Moorings Lost?

[YnysMon]

I’m obviously reading all the info provided from both sides re:Langley Dyke with interest, and hope there might, eventually, be a reconciliation.

Is there any news about Gaye’s Staithe? 

[Mouldy]

10 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

Is there any news about Gaye’s Staithe? 

Tom hasn’t responded, so no news sadly.  I wonder if his hands are being tied by the powers that be?  I do fear the worst though.

[floydraser]

11 hours ago, Hylander said:

Far from misleading us, he has given us all a heads up as to what is happening.   

Just to clarify: We were told the ex contributor posted on fb. He was responding to someone else who raised the issue I believe.

[SwanR]

I have no idea whether anyone will be interested in this or not. But I dipped in and out of it, and found it quite interesting. It's a document I found with a Google search, I don't know when it was written, I couldn't see a date. 

The introduction states that it was commissioned by the Broads Authority, but is written by historians not lawyers.

The Staithes of the Broads: a history and assessment

[Jonathan]

SwanR,

Interesting!  It says here: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/234598/BF-Minutes-280716.pdf that the document was presented on 28 July 2016.

[Broads01]

I'm confused as to why the BA would reject situating the mooring at the river end of the dyke on safety grounds. Would a mooring there really be unsafe compared to South Broads moorings elsewhere?

[Matt]

16 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

I'm confused as to why the BA would reject situating the mooring at the river end of the dyke on safety grounds. Would a mooring there really be unsafe compared to South Broads moorings elsewhere?

I couldn’t work it out either!

[Hylander]

6 hours ago, Broads01 said:

I'm confused as to why the BA would reject situating the mooring at the river end of the dyke on safety grounds. Would a mooring there really be unsafe compared to South Broads moorings elsewhere?

A mooring at the river end would be a darn long walk to the bins.

[BroadsAuthority]

11 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Tom hasn’t responded, so no news sadly.  I wonder if his hands are being tied by the powers that be?  I do fear the worst though.

Hi both,

The 24hr moorings at Gay Staithe (which I believe is now the accurate spelling!) is operated under an agreement between the Parish Council and Great Yarmouth Port & Haven Commissioners, dating from from the GYPHC days. We have been maintaining the mooring there during this time. The aforementioned agreement remains in place until 2028.

Sorry for the delay, I've been on training the last few days and now on annual leave until next week.

Best

Tom

 

[rightsaidfred]

10 hours ago, SwanR said:

I have no idea whether anyone will be interested in this or not. But I dipped in and out of it, and found it quite interesting. It's a document I found with a Google search, I don't know when it was written, I couldn't see a date. 

The introduction states that it was commissioned by the Broads Authority, but is written by historians not lawyers.

The Staithes of the Broads: a history and assessment

While interesting it should be noted that it was conducted on behalf of and the original draft was edited by the BA.

Fred

[Mouldy]

38 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi both,

The 24hr moorings at Gay Staithe (which I believe is now the accurate spelling!) is operated under an agreement between the Parish Council and Great Yarmouth Port & Haven Commissioners, dating from from the GYPHC days. We have been maintaining the mooring there during this time. The aforementioned agreement remains in place until 2028.

Sorry for the delay, I've been on training the last few days and now on annual leave until next week.

Best

Tom

 

Thanks Tom!  My spelling is from Google Maps - must be an American/English thing. 😁

[marshman]

I believe it was prepared and presented by someone at the UEA - he stressed at the time he was NOT a lawyer. He and his team spent quite some years putting it together and if I recall his name may have been Prof Tom Williamson - but my memory could have failed me  - again!!!

It was indeed commissioned by the BA, and indeed perhaps edited, but I doubt the substance was changed. All the information used to collate it, was in the public domain. It was just a study and is by no means  authoritative but it was certainly of value

[Broads01]

Just one mooring lost for the moment, then, that's a relief. It seems the Gayes Staithe Facebook rumour was just that. Good old Facebook.

[Hylander]

Such a pity about Langley Dyke - a real gem to let go.

[rightsaidfred]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

I believe it was prepared and presented by someone at the UEA - he stressed at the time he was NOT a lawyer. He and his team spent quite some years putting it together and if I recall his name may have been Prof Tom Williamson - but my memory could have failed me  - again!!!

It was indeed commissioned by the BA, and indeed perhaps edited, but I doubt the substance was changed. All the information used to collate it, was in the public domain. It was just a study and is by no means  authoritative but it was certainly of value

MM You are correct on all points including Professor Williamson, I have often found it useful and certainly interesting, as the author says it is not definitive, what should be remembered is not what it contains  but what it may not.

Fred

[YnysMon]

5 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi both,

The 24hr moorings at Gay Staithe (which I believe is now the accurate spelling!) is operated under an agreement between the Parish Council and Great Yarmouth Port & Haven Commissioners, dating from from the GYPHC days. We have been maintaining the mooring there during this time. The aforementioned agreement remains in place until 2028.

Sorry for the delay, I've been on training the last few days and now on annual leave until next week.

Best

Tom

 

That's a big relief! Let's all cross our fingers the agreement can be extended beyond 2028.

Thanks

I'm sad about the loss of Langley obviously, but can see the reasons which led to it.

[MauriceMynah]

That's the problem with government bodies and clarity,  often what's said is far from clear.

Sir Humphry Appleby for PM.

[Hylander]

1 hour ago, YnysMon said:

That's a big relief! Let's all cross our fingers the agreement can be extended beyond 2028.

Thanks

I'm sad about the loss of Langley obviously, but can see the reasons which led to it.

I still think Langley if everyone got around the table could be a good mooring again,  especially after reading what the landowner had to say.

[MauriceMynah]

From what I have read, the owner of Langley dyke wants his cake and eat it. BA to have short lease and responsibility to maintain it, owner to receive two grand and to be able to take it all back whenever he likes.

Often I read here about "money grabbing land owners" yet here all I'm getting is " BA should negotiate ".

No, the BA should maintain its position on behalf of us the boaters rather than let itself be dictated to by those land owners.

If the land owners think they can get more cash from letting the moorings for long term private boats, that should be considered "change of use" and planning permission refused. 

If short term (24hr) chargeable moorings is the idea, then anybody mooring there should have the right to expect the moorings to be kept to a certain standard and to have redress should they not be so.

All this is inmy far from humble opinion. 

 

[Smoggy]

19 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

If the land owners think they can get more cash from letting the moorings for long term private boats, that should be considered "change of use" and planning permission refused. 

But if it's private land leased to the BA for mooring and the lease expires it wouldn't be a change of use, it would still be private land for mooring, it would just be rented to different people.

It's not at all the same as the how hill farce where a BA mooring was given to a private mooring.

[Meantime]

9 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

If the land owners think they can get more cash from letting the moorings for long term private boats, that should be considered "change of use" and planning permission refused. 

The mooring was a long term mooring before being leased to the BA who didn't need a change of use planning permission to use it as a short stay mooring, so why would the land owner need planning permission to continue using it as she had. 

 

13 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Often I read here about "money grabbing land owners" yet here all I'm getting is " BA should negotiate ".

I'm not sure how much you pay for your mooring, but £2000 for 97metres of mooring seems like quite a bargain to me. A money grabbing land owner would rent it out for possibly 6 or 7 times that amount to private boaters and have a lot less wear and tear on their quay heading as well as less potential damage to the other boats moored up and down the dyke. Maybe that was why they wanted to move the mooring to the river end of the dyke.

I suspect and hope that all is not lost, but the BA do need to negotiate with the land owner who is a very pleasant and reasonable lady.

Now if we are going to talk about money grabbing land owners! How much are the BA expecting to make from the land they own at Ranworth per annum? Land we already pay them via our tolls to maintain!

Let's just say the season is 20 weeks long, so 140 days long. Lets assume the average 12ft beam roughly translates to 4 metres at £15 per day that equates to £2100 every 4 metres of quayheading that we pay to maintain. Who's money grabbing now, but you already knew that surely!!

 

[grendel]

8 minutes ago, Meantime said:

but £2000 for 97metres of mooring seems like quite a bargain to me.

until you factor in the new piling and capping at £1600 per metre, thats just shy of £160,000 of toll payers money, even 13% isnt paying for that.

its all swings and roundabouts, both sides put the argument that shows them in the best light, the end point is they didnt come to an agreement in the time available.

[Meantime]

13 minutes ago, grendel said:

until you factor in the new piling and capping at £1600 per metre, thats just shy of £160,000 of toll payers money, even 13% isnt paying for that.

its all swings and roundabouts, both sides put the argument that shows them in the best light, the end point is they didnt come to an agreement in the time available.

The existing mooring which the £2000 is quoted for doesn't need any work, so its a Red Herring!

[Mouldy]

11 minutes ago, grendel said:

 . . . . . the end point is they didnt come to an agreement in the time available.

We almost lost the moorings at St Benets as negotiations overran.  The BA need to get a wriggle on and source additional moorings on the southern rivers, where there are all too few already.  Cantley floods regularly, as do the ones at Reedham.

Given the interest in electric boats and the BA’s apparent desire to promote the use of electric, losing moorings like Langley Dyke, where running cabling to should surely be relatively easy, it does seem strange that more effort wasn’t put into effecting a compromise with the land owner.  Much easier to provide electric posts there than some more remote locations, like Hardley Cross.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

From what I have read, the owner of Langley dyke wants his cake and eat it. BA to have short lease and responsibility to maintain it, owner to receive two grand and to be able to take it all back whenever he likes.

Often I read here about "money grabbing land owners" yet here all I'm getting is " BA should negotiate ".

No, the BA should maintain its position on behalf of us the boaters rather than let itself be dictated to by those land owners.

If the land owners think they can get more cash from letting the moorings for long term private boats, that should be considered "change of use" and planning permission refused. 

If short term (24hr) chargeable moorings is the idea, then anybody mooring there should have the right to expect the moorings to be kept to a certain standard and to have redress should they not be so.

All this is inmy far from humble opinion. 

 

As someone who spent quite some time negotiating contracts as part of my job it takes two to tango, both sides start from a point of maximum benefit then reach a compromise that works for both sides.

Fred