Two Moorings Lost?

[Karizma]

@Meantime - Thanks for sharing.

I can only assume that that they are currently failing against the target to "maintain as a minimum the present number of moorings available for visitor use" with what's happened in the last 2 seasons?

Thought this was also interesting and wonder what changed the minds of the panel to introduce charging at Ranworth (and potentially Reedham in the future) as I cant see that much has change for points (i) to (iv) below?............

 Section 5.2 This issue has been debated at length by the Navigation Committee in recent years: in 2006 when the Mooring Strategy was first adopted, in 2009 when the Strategy was reviewed, in 2013 when the Integrated Access Strategy was adopted and at the moorings workshop in November 2014. It has also been debated in relation to two specific sites, Ranworth and Reedham. On every occasion the Committee and the Authority has supported the current policy.

Section 5.3 The officer view is that the current policy is the right one for the following reasons:

(i) For most sites the cost of collecting mooring fees is likely to be outweighed by the costs of collection;

(ii) It could be seen as a deterrent to visitors to the Broads who have already paid significant amounts for the hire of a boat;

(iii) Private boat owners will quite correctly think that their toll should cover the cost of the provision and maintenance of moorings;

(iv) Landowners are likely to demand higher rents for the leasing of mooring sites if the Authority is levying a charge.

 

[Mouldy]

There have been several posts on various FB Broads groups this morning, confirming that further talks regarding the renegotiation of the lease at Langley Dyke have now concluded, with no resolution and the moorings will remain closed.  I guess that it’s no real surprise, with the apparent current attitude towards navigation and the dearth of moorings on the southern rivers.  Granted, Cantley is relatively close, but they frequently overtop particularly during the winter months, leaving some distance between Rockland Short Dyke and Hardley Cross.

So far, there has been no communication, (that I’ve seen, at least) from the Broads Authority.  Perhaps Tom @BroadsAuthority would like to confirm and whether alternatives are actively being sought.

[Bytheriver]

On 20/09/2023 at 10:26, Mouldy said:

There have been several posts on various FB Broads groups this morning, confirming that further talks regarding the renegotiation of the lease at Langley Dyke have now concluded, with no resolution and the moorings will remain closed.  I guess that it’s no real surprise, with the apparent current attitude towards navigation and the dearth of moorings on the southern rivers.  Granted, Cantley is relatively close, but they frequently overtop particularly during the winter months, leaving some distance between Rockland Short Dyke and Hardley Cross.

So far, there has been no communication, (that I’ve seen, at least) from the Broads Authority.  Perhaps Tom @BroadsAuthority would like to confirm and whether alternatives are actively being sought.

Those toll payers & hirers may like to contemplate how many additional moorings are required & how much increase it toll would be tolerated to achieve this & we must bear in mind the principle that once higher lease payments are offered others could well want some more at next negotiations time?

[imtamping2]

43 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

Those toll payers & hirers may like to contemplate how many additional moorings are required & how much increase it toll would be tolerated to achieve this & we must bear in mind the principle that once higher lease payments are offered others could well want some more at next negotiations time?

Remember we were talking £2000 here ..? Average boat x 5 annual toll fee …….Ludicrous !

[Mouldy]

4 hours ago, Bytheriver said:

Those toll payers & hirers may like to contemplate how many additional moorings are required & how much increase it toll would be tolerated to achieve this & we must bear in mind the principle that once higher lease payments are offered others could well want some more at next negotiations time?

Isn’t it likely that landowners will want higher payments as a matter of course anyway?  If the BA maintain their current policy of looking for cheap leases, without contributing to the maintenance of the quay heading, how many more sites will be lost moving forward.

The quantity of moorings at the locations listed on their website aren’t accurate either.  They state, for example, that Worlingham on the Waveney will accommodate six craft.  Two is more like it, even double moored, say four, unless they’re moored stern on.

This is 2023.  They need to adjust their thinking in line with the 21st century.

[Hylander]

On 20/09/2023 at 10:26, Mouldy said:

There have been several posts on various FB Broads groups this morning, confirming that further talks regarding the renegotiation of the lease at Langley Dyke have now concluded, with no resolution and the moorings will remain closed.  I guess that it’s no real surprise, with the apparent current attitude towards navigation and the dearth of moorings on the southern rivers.  Granted, Cantley is relatively close, but they frequently overtop particularly during the winter months, leaving some distance between Rockland Short Dyke and Hardley Cross.

So far, there has been no communication, (that I’ve seen, at least) from the Broads Authority.  Perhaps Tom @BroadsAuthority would like to confirm and whether alternatives are actively being sought.

I dont do FB but reading previous posts here and elsewhere it does seem that the BA or whoever is in charge at the BA does not want to keep Langley Dyke as a 24 hr mooring.    Has he got a boat moored down there?   Wants it all private?    The Landowner has always been ready to negotiate.    This has been a jewel of the South for a long time and one of the reasons we hired our boat for 2024 was a visit to Langley Dyke.    It has prompted us to cancel our booking.

[BroadAmbition]

and one of the reasons we hired our boat for 2024 was a visit to Langley Dyke.    It has prompted us to cancel our booking.

Informing your would have been hire yard and the Blessed authority of your decision would not be out of place methinks

Griff

[BrundallNavy]

44 minutes ago, Hylander said:

I dont do FB but reading previous posts here and elsewhere it does seem that the BA or whoever is in charge at the BA does not want to keep Langley Dyke as a 24 hr mooring.    Has he got a boat moored down there?   Wants it all private?    The Landowner has always been ready to negotiate.    This has been a jewel of the South for a long time and one of the reasons we hired our boat for 2024 was a visit to Langley Dyke.    It has prompted us to cancel our booking.

Langley dyke is a nice mooring but it’s not the be all and end all of the southern broads. Plenty of other nice moorings on the south side to choose from. 

[Vaughan]

54 minutes ago, BrundallNavy said:

Langley dyke is a nice mooring but it’s not the be all and end all of the southern broads. Plenty of other nice moorings on the south side to choose from. 

Sorry Doug, but I can't agree with that one, having grown up on the Yare.  Anyway, it's not just the south rivers - the problem is all over.  We hear about so many leases of banks for moorings, that the BA have somehow failed to renew.  Barton Turf Staithe being a classic example.  Even the Whitlingham Gravel Pits (which I view with disdain) have been a failure to renew a lease after what must have been a great deal of money invested in the site.

Where do we go from here?  Why do we pay our river tolls?  Just so that we can go out from our marina in Stalham and go round in circles on Barton Broad for the day?  Navigation, by its very definition, means going from place to place.  Navigation means a destination - it means moorings!

Landowners are either closing off their banks or charging exorbitant prices to moor, while the BA are failing to negotiate leases even on their existing moorings, let alone finding new ones.

I am sorry but the equation is simple : no more moorings means no more pleasure cruising in private boats, so no more river tolls paid. It is a slow but steady downward spiral.

[Hylander]

2 hours ago, BrundallNavy said:

Langley dyke is a nice mooring but it’s not the be all and end all of the southern broads. Plenty of other nice moorings on the south side to choose from. 

We particularly loved Langley Dyke because not only had you got peace and quiet, especially on really windy days as off of the main river and people tearing past you, but you could also dump your trash there and these days that is a rarity.

[BrundallNavy]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Sorry Doug, but I can't agree with that one, having grown up on the Yare.  Anyway, it's not just the south rivers - the problem is all over.  We hear about so many leases of banks for moorings, that the BA have somehow failed to renew.  Barton Turf Staithe being a classic example.  Even the Whitlingham Gravel Pits (which I view with disdain) have been a failure to renew a lease after what must have been a great deal of money invested in the site.

Where do we go from here?  Why do we pay our river tolls?  Just so that we can go out from our marina in Stalham and go round in circles on Barton Broad for the day?  Navigation, by its very definition, means going from place to place.  Navigation means a destination - it means moorings!

Landowners are either closing off their banks or charging exorbitant prices to moor, while the BA are failing to negotiate leases even on their existing moorings, let alone finding new ones.

I am sorry but the equation is simple : no more moorings means no more pleasure cruising in private boats, so no more river tolls paid. It is a slow but steady downward spiral.

I think you have misunderstood the reason why I posted. 

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry Vaughan,  I'd like to agree with you but don't think I can.

I have to wonder just what these negotiations involve. Who is being intransigent or has unrealistic ambitions. It is very easy to see the BA as the bogeyman all the time, but is this actually the case. 

Society reaps what it sows. You and I ( and many others on this forum ) remember well when people respected other peoples property,  held responsibility for their own actions,  and took pride in their behaviour.  This is no longer the case. People nowadays couldn’t care less about leaving litter and mess, they couldn’t give a damn about manners and responsibility and, if there is an incident,  their first response is to find someone else to blame,  and think about compensation. 

If I owned some riverside with mooring capabilities, these days my rush to put up "No mooring" signs would amaze the world. I would be saddened to do it,  but the problems these days would make it essential.

If the BA wanted to negotiate with me to create moorings then my list of requirements may well not be acceptable to them.

Could this be the stumbling block the BA is up against? Has society once again shot itself in the foot for lack of personal discipline?

[grendel]

17 hours ago, Mouldy said:

The quantity of moorings at the locations listed on their website aren’t accurate either.  They state, for example, that Worlingham on the Waveney will accommodate six craft.  Two is more like it, even double moored, say four, unless they’re moored stern on.

you forget, they are trying to encourage paddle boards and kayaks, you could fit 6 of those on the moorings.

[grendel]

how much extra are we willing to pay for our broads tolls to pay for extra moorings, is it just a case of the authority trying to be wise with a dwindling cash reserve, or something else, seriously we complain every year at the toll increases being above inflation, just ask yourself how much extra do we want to pay to give the authority the resources to pay for moorings (and their upkeep), at what point does it become financially non viable to keep doing so, I fear what we are seeing is this cutting edge of financial viability coming into effect.

[MauriceMynah]

Grendel,  that is if the problem is just financial. 

Imagine you owned a farm. Have you considered dogs worrying livestock? OK so your farm is arable,  how much in the way of disposable barbecues and empty beer cans can your harvester handle before giving you a hefty bill? 

Just two examples  but give me 5 minutes and I'll think of a dozen others. Well ok your not a farmer, you are just lucky enough to have some riverside land and the BA wants to lease a two meter strip alongside the river to create moorings.

Who is responsible for the land three meters away from the river if someone comes to harm there? Do you let the general public walk across your land to get to the road? What liability does that involve ? Who pays for that insurance? Who collects the litter there?

That's what I'm getting at, it might not all be about money

[Mouldy]

46 minutes ago, grendel said:

how much extra are we willing to pay for our broads tolls to pay for extra moorings, is it just a case of the authority trying to be wise with a dwindling cash reserve, or something else, seriously we complain every year at the toll increases being above inflation, just ask yourself how much extra do we want to pay to give the authority the resources to pay for moorings (and their upkeep), at what point does it become financially non viable to keep doing so, I fear what we are seeing is this cutting edge of financial viability coming into effect.

Get that, but what else are they spending it on.  Court cases chasing people for planning issues cost multiple thousands, but is that best use of the cash.  Does that come from the navigation budget?  Our tolls are rising in line with inflation, but it looks as if what they want to pay for leases for moorings isn’t.  Now inflation has fallen again to less than 7%, I wonder what excuse they’ll come up with to justify a toll increase we’ll over the rate of inflation?

Are we, as toll payers, really getting value for money?

[Andrewcook]

Well it looks like Private and Hiring Boats will suffer the consequences of losing moorings on the lack of communication between B A and the Land Owners with Toll Fees have gone up not the perfect recipe for the future of the Norfolk Broads that will be hard to get back to the good Old Days of Boating Sailing as well . 

[Roy]

41 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Get that, but what else are they spending it on.  Court cases chasing people for planning issues cost multiple thousands, but is that best use of the cash.  Does that come from the navigation budget?  Our tolls are rising in line with inflation, but it looks as if what they want to pay for leases for moorings isn’t.  Now inflation has fallen again to less than 7%, I wonder what excuse they’ll come up with to justify a toll increase we’ll over the rate of inflation?

Are we, as toll payers, really getting value for money?

I think bad summer weather will be BA answer to rising the tolls again 

[imtamping2]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

how much extra are we willing to pay for our broads tolls to pay for extra moorings, is it just a case of the authority trying to be wise with a dwindling cash reserve, or something else, seriously we complain every year at the toll increases being above inflation, just ask yourself how much extra do we want to pay to give the authority the resources to pay for moorings (and their upkeep), at what point does it become financially non viable to keep doing so, I fear what we are seeing is this cutting edge of financial viability coming into effect.

I keep banging on about this but  BA WOULD NOT PAY £2000 for Langley Dyke 24 hour moorings !

There doesn’t need to be a rise ….I just about paid that in my Toll fees alone ……

your just not getting it it’s BA’s way or the Highway …..they cannot and will not negotiate .

[grendel]

Actually, I think pontoon moorings is the answer, they can be moved from location to location, if they dont have land access, then the land owners have no claim against their being moored on the river. if they do have land access all that is required is a short section for the walkway to go across, and there are no great lengths of moorings to maintain at huge cost.

[grendel]

3 minutes ago, imtamping2 said:

I keep banging on about this but  BA WOULD NOT PAY £2000 for Langley Dyke 24 hour moorings !

There doesn’t need to be a rise ….I just about paid that in my Toll fees alone ……

your just not getting it it’s BA’s way or the Highway …..they cannot and will not negotiate .

and the costs to maintain the moorings / repiling, etc, would they be maintained by the land owner for that £2000? or would they be the authorities responsibility, in which case the £2000 is irrelevant compared to the other expenses.

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

you forget, they are trying to encourage paddle boards and kayaks, you could fit 6 of those on the moorings.

Ah, but they don't need moorings, do they?  Nor do they need the navigation to be dredged to a suitable depth above MLWS (in the case of the Yare).  If you run aground in one of those, you just pick it up and walk away.  All the paddlers would need at Langley dyke is to maintain public access to the slipway and provide a bit of car parking.  If you don't want to simply park out in the road.  As Hylander says, the bins are already there.

I agree with a lot of the comments in this past hour and I fear this has become the way forward.  The public can't be trusted to behave properly in the countryside ; the landowners fear the threat of litigation and so does the BA, who can no longer feel confident to simply provide an earth bank with some grass, where people set their rhond anchors, just as they always used to "in my day".  Nowadays a "mooring" has to mean a made up quay with posts and what Robin (Londonrascal) has described as "yet more bark chippings and signage".

But the end result will be the same : no more moorings will mean no more interest in private Broads boating, which will flood the market with secondhand boats and kill off the BA's own revenue in river tolls.  We can go on analysing the reasons for it until we are blue in the face but it is a creeping malaise which must be addressed.

 

[Hylander]

38 minutes ago, grendel said:

Actually, I think pontoon moorings is the answer, they can be moved from location to location, if they dont have land access, then the land owners have no claim against their being moored on the river. if they do have land access all that is required is a short section for the walkway to go across, and there are no great lengths of moorings to maintain at huge cost.

Absolutely.

[Hylander]

Gosh you lot can depress people.       

I think it is a bit of a generalisation to say that all of Jo Public are litter bugs, leave BBQ;s and beer cans all over the place and have no respect for anyone's property, but by God there are many of them and because there is no law and order in this country it will get worse until we do.      The fact that people are blatantly shop lifting and no can do anything about it, doesn't that tell us something.   I do still think most folk are not like this and they love and respect in this case our lovely Broads.

 

[imtamping2]

47 minutes ago, grendel said:

and the costs to maintain the moorings / repiling, etc, would they be maintained by the land owner for that £2000? or would they be the authorities responsibility, in which case the £2000 is irrelevant compared to the other expenses.

That’s what the budget is for …….try checking on what happens to the existing budget if not used in the financial year ……because it  doesn’t roll over …….so where does it go ?