Paying For Everything On The Broads

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I believe this is the relevant paragraph, but I understand the relevant document is well hidden nowadays

"11.18 Vessels manufactured prior to 16 June 1998 are not required to comply with that
part of paragraph 9.1 which requires that sanitation systems shall comply with the
requirements of BS MA 101."

 

I believe the quotation is from the BSS requirements (please correct me if I'm wrong) and only relates to the nature of the fittings, not the discharge of waste. The byelaws which prohibit the discharge of "polluting matter" applies to "any craft using mechanical power as the principal means of propulsion", which would include electrical propulsion. There are exceptions for "vessels which ordinarily proceed to seaward beyond the Port of Great Yarmouth", but I doubt whether the electrically propelled vessel mentioned by the OP would be one of those.

[batrabill]

Sailing boat with electric drive. 

[Broads01]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I believe this is the relevant paragraph, but I understand the relevant document is well hidden nowadays

 

It doesn't read like that to me. The paragraph says only that  sanitation systems pre-1998 don't have to comply with the current standard. That's not the same as saying they're permitted to discharge human waste. In any case, why would you need to. Would you do that on a campsite?

[Broads01]

6 hours ago, batrabill said:

You paid before at Yarmouth and Norwich, as the old joke goes, “we’ve established the principle, now we’re just haggling over the price.”

Totally different at Yarmouth and Norwich as both are staffed and have facilties that Ranworth doesn't.

[Paladin]

11 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Sailing boat with electric drive. 

Therefore, whether or not it is a historic boat is completely irrelevant. It is exempt simply because the bye laws regarding the discharge of "polluting matter" (in this case, human faeces and urine) don't apply to such vessels, no matter how old they are.

But thank you for providing that information. I wouldn't like to think that users of 'historic' motor cruisers might think they could just dump their dumps overboard, as your original post seemed to suggest.

[batrabill]

12 minutes ago, Broads01 said:

Totally different at Yarmouth and Norwich as both are staffed and have facilties that Ranworth doesn't.

Totally different? Really? 

If there’s a mooring assistant aren’t they rather similar?

[Paladin]

23 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Totally different? Really? 

If there’s a mooring assistant aren’t they rather similar?

Can you really not see the differences?

Gt Yarmouth/Norwich

both side-on moorings

tidal flow can make mooring difficult as can the tidal range

dedicated staff whose prime function is the safety of the boaters

practical advice and assistance given (e.g. which way to head into mooring, taking ropes ashore and assistance in setting ropes to account for tidal range)

both are closed when unmanned during the winter months

Safety is clearly a factor in the provision of attendants

Ranworth

stern-on moorings

no tidal flow and very little tidal range

staff's primary function is to deal with customers in the tourist information centre and drive the trip boat. Moorers come a poor third in the list

the 'mooring assistant' is not expected to have much expertise in boat handling and can only take ropes once the stern of the boat is almost touching the staithe i.e the difficult (but not dangerous) manoeuvre of reversing between two moored boats has already been accomplished. Tales are told that they don't even take ropes and assist with tying up, simply hold their hands out for the mooring fee

will remain open during the winter months when the TIC is closed, which proves there is no safety requirement for there to be an attendant. That is just a red herring to get more money to prop up the flat-lined government grant.

[BrundallNavy]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Therefore, whether or not it is a historic boat is completely irrelevant. It is exempt simply because the bye laws regarding the discharge of "polluting matter" (in this case, human faeces and urine) don't apply to such vessels, no matter how old they are.

But thank you for providing that information. I wouldn't like to think that users of 'historic' motor cruisers might think they could just dump their dumps overboard, as your original post seemed to suggest.

I could name a few motor cruisers that don’t have waste tanks fitted. 

[ChrisB]

I have often wondered, when you see boats on the rivers or moored in the Broads Marinas, their windows/screens festooned in GOBA stickers if they have been converted for Broads use.

Every boat that I have had the use of, been a crew member on and hired on the RGO system was fitted with direct discharge sea toilets.

[Vaughan]

11 hours ago, Paladin said:

I'm always willing to learn, so where does the exemption for 'historic boats' from putting human waste into the Broads come from? Nothing in the extant byelaws give such an exemption.

I am not up to date with the latest bylaws @Paladin but perhaps I can help historically.

When holding tanks were first introduced on the Broads in the early 70's, sailing yachts were exempt, for two reasons.  One was the simple lack of space for a tank in a yacht.  Some yachts don't even have a toilet compartment.  I remember one (Mimosa) where the toilet slid out on a drawer in the back of the well, right under the tiller!

The second reason was that you can't have a toilet tank, open at the top (as the early ones were) in a boat which is going to heel over at more than 45º when sailing!  Yachts with conventional sea toilets have to have seacocks on the pipework, or the toilet would fill up the boat, when heeling over.

So it has nothing to do with the date of building.  As to regulations, this is a bit of a "grey' area.  There were no building regs on the Broads until Blakes introduced their own standards and had them ratified by the Commissioners.  Don't forget it was the hire companies (alone) who designed, fitted and paid for, the pumpout installations, on boats and on boatyards.

There are still no building standards for UK inland waterways and so the industry adopts ERCD regs, Category D.  These regs were introduced in 1992 and updated in 1996, which is where this mystery date of 1998 may have come from.  All the same there were no specific regs about pumpout toilets and their installation was only insisted upon by local authorities.  There are still no pumpout stations on French canals although they often say they are going to do it.  So all hire boats in France built after 1996 have holding tanks, but the sewage still pumps straight out into the water as there are no pumpout stations.

This "grey" area in the regs about holding tanks may well be why the BA have consistently failed to provide pumpout facilities on the Broads and casually rely on what is left of the boatyards to do it for them.  Either that, or they blame the EA instead.  Perhaps that's what they call "working with partners"?

Edited to add : The BSS is an installation safety standard; not a building standard.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Vaughan
line added

[Chelsea14Ian]

I've heard of yachts,also as I understand  it most sea going boats have sea toilets  and holding tanks.In my opinion  regardless of who's ruling it Is,about time a fixed single rule should be in place.There has been talk for a number of years  of a gray water holding tank.(for example  showers and washing up).

 

 

[Vaughan]

Perhaps I didn't explain, that the only building regulation is ERCD, which is a sea standard.  Most inland waterways adopt ERCD cat D as there is no other choice, but it does not mention holding tanks.

Hence the local byelaws, which insist on tanks. 

I don't know about the Broads but since 1996, all boats built for France by Crown Blue Line and Connoisseur, have "grey water" holding tanks. In the case of a 10 berth boat, the Grand Classique, this tank is 800 litres capacity.  Quite a problem if the local town moorings only have a 500 litre pumpout machine.

Grey water is a complicated issue in a boat as all water from shower trays and basins has to be pumped into the holding tank.  To avoid odours, all this has to be stripped and cleaned every week, on a hire boat.

These days there are biodegradable washing and showering products which are easily available and go a long way to improve water quality.

[MauriceMynah]

I might be wrong here but I suspect a single fixed rule on this might remove all traditional broads yachts from the Broads. All Hunters fleet for example would have to go. This would be tragic. 

In the old days when leisure boating was far less common discharging straight into the river caused no problems. Later on, in the 60s and 70s the Broads were much busier and the pumpout was born out of necessity.  A few exceptions, ie the traditional Broads sailing boats  were/are not a problem

 

[Smoggy]

The small amount of direct discharge boats are probably far less polluting than farm land run off, as long as used without chemicals it will break down very quickly and is flushed by the tide.

Different matter when hundreds of hireboats were doing it.

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, Smoggy said:

Different matter when hundreds of hireboats were doing it.

Funnily enough, it wasn't!

It was only after the hire companies had installed and were operating a pumpout system, hence removing boat sewage from the system, that the Countryside Commission (nowadays the EA, I think) discovered that it made no difference.  In fact a survey commissioned by Blakes before the pumpouts were fitted, found that the water contained far more parts per million of dissolved toilet paper, than sewage.

It was only then, as you rightly say, that attention was turned to agricultural fertilisers and bad treatment in sewage works, especially North Walsham.  Many riverside towns in those days, including Thorpe, had drains which ran direct from houses into the river.

[Smoggy]

That's interesting to know Vaughan.

[floydraser]

Shouldn't we warn paddleboarders? 

Nah! 

[Vaughan]

2 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Shouldn't we warn paddleboarders? 

Of course not - no need!  After all, according to the BA we are not allowed to swim on the Broads.

Are we?

[MargeandParge]

3 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Shouldn't we warn paddleboarders? 

Nah! 

Behave or you will have one of our nice mods after you.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

[Vaughan]

6 minutes ago, MargeandParge said:

one of our nice mods

Which one is that?

[batrabill]

We swim all the time. Life is for living. 

[annv]

Have you never heard the expression BUCKET AND CHUCK IT, applies too most sailing boats. And what about fishmen?

[SteveO]

Parking my car for free on our local seafront, taking a stroll along the clean and well-kept promenade and marvelling at how the local council can afford to pay a man to reularly empty the plentiful waste bins when our council tax is no higher than anyone else's. Makes me wonder why I am spending £5000 + a year on boating on the Northern Broads.In my view the area is in serious danger of pricing itself out of the market with it's continual money-grubbing antics. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

Very true.Perhaos God forbid poor management. 

[twowrights]

6 hours ago, annv said:

Have you never heard the expression BUCKET AND CHUCK IT, applies too most sailing boats. And what about fishmen?

Are they the male equivalent of mermaids?