Breaking News

[Meantime]

3 hours ago, grendel said:

I think its funny that they advertise the lack of facilities as a good feature- well I suppose if there are none thats the only way to do it, though to most a lack of facilities would be seen as a disadvantage, not a selling point.

It's a shame that more of the Broads isn't promoted in this way. A back to basics floating relaxing holiday, rather than a false narrative about a National Park and bling hire boats.

Not only can you pre book the mooring, but you can pre book the individual mooring spots meaning that 3 or 4 friends wishing to meet up can ensure they have a mooring spot and they are next to each other.

For some of the smaller less formal meets, that sounds ideal to be honest.

[Meantime]

24 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I agree, sometimes 'nothing' is good (at the risk of sounding like "cool hand Luke")

 

It will never catch on, look how empty the wild moorings on The Ant are all year round! 

[Vaughan]

Well, here's me getting grumpy again but I see this as yet another nail in the coffin.

Mouldy is quite right.  The BA have already quoted the charge for moorings on Ranworth island as their excuse for charging at the Maltsters.  This new charge, on what used to be one of their free moorings, will give them the perfect excuse to charge at other places  - Rockland short dyke might be next.

In fact, it is not only the BA's fault : the real disease, in my view, is that anyone who owns a bit of land with a river bank now expects to sit back and make a living out of a captive audience.

And don't say that there is no-one to take the money at Rockland - the local ranger can do that as he passes and at the same time ask everyone whether they have had a trial run or not.

[MauriceMynah]

I wonder what would happen at Sutton staithe if BA charged there

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I wonder what would happen at Sutton staithe if BA charged there

It might be easier to find an empty mooring there!!

[RS2021]

Next move. BA takes over the mooring complete with up an running payment platform which it can roll out across other sites...

[Meantime]

10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Well, here's me getting grumpy again but I see this as yet another nail in the coffin.

Mouldy is quite right.  The BA have already quoted the charge for moorings on Ranworth island as their excuse for charging at the Maltsters.  This new charge, on what used to be one of their free moorings, will give them the perfect excuse to charge at other places  - Rockland short dyke might be next.

In fact, it is not only the BA's fault : the real disease, in my view, is that anyone who owns a bit of land with a river bank now expects to sit back and make a living out of a captive audience.

And don't say that there is no-one to take the money at Rockland - the local ranger can do that as he passes and at the same time ask everyone whether they have had a trial run or not.

Apart from wild moorings, can you give me an example of a privately owned piece of river bank that is free to moor at? They either have a plethora of no mooring signs or are wild moorings. The last ones I remember are the quiet moorings at Potter, now closed for various reasons. 

As far as I'm aware most privately owned moorings are either chargeable or free by being leased to the BA and therefore still generate a revenue stream for the land owner.

Aldeby is private and charges, Stracy Arms windmill, Farm near The Ferry Stokesby, the newish streych below The Acle bridge between the pub and the old Hermitage moorings. Above Wayford Bridge until they were closed. All privately owned and charge.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, RS2021 said:

Next move. BA takes over the mooring complete with up an running payment platform which it can roll out across other sites...

Extremely unlikely since they had the chance to renew the lease on those moorings and couldn't agree new terms.

[Vaughan]

6 minutes ago, Meantime said:

All privately owned and charge.

Sure, they do now.  As soon as one farmer caught on, everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. 

Anyway, I have already made my decision. This sort of thing just confirms it.

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Sure, they do now.  As soon as one farmer caught on, everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. 

Anyway, I have already made my decision. This sort of thing just confirms it.

My point is, its not a new thing. 

 

32 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Well, here's me getting grumpy again but I see this as yet another nail in the coffin.

In the last 20 odd years I can still only think of the Potter quiet moorings as being privately owned and free to use. So I do not see the argument that one more land owner charging for a mooring that the BA used to, and could have leased opening the flood gates to the BA charging for moorings elsewhere. We all know the BA will do what the BA want to do regardless of others actions. 

[floydraser]

Just to re-jig the arguments here: If there are already private land owners charging for mooring I don't see how this one could influence the BA? Flip that over and it could be that the owner has seen the BA start charging at Ranworth and thinks why lease it to them and get less, when he could have the whole tenner?

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Just to re-jig the arguments here: If there are already private land owners charging for mooring I don't see how this one could influence the BA? Flip that over and it could be that the owner has seen the BA start charging at Ranworth and thinks why lease it to them and get less, when he could have the whole tenner?

True enough, but a few assumptions made there. The owner is female, not all landowners are male, and the BA were given plenty of chance to renew the lease and failed to reach agreement. The moorings could have been let as annual moorings with far less hassle, but they are still seeking to keep the short term moorings available, despite the BA's failings.

[Smoggy]

2 hours ago, SwanR said:

As a hirer who likes the peace and quiet and doesn’t want a pub then if there’s no facilities that’s a good place to be. 

Unless horricks is having another rave at the beauchamps arms.

[Hylander]

Sorry if been asked before but, where are the moorings,  up the end of the dyke where the 24hr mooring used to be or down at the entrance.   Darn long walk along that grass path to the bins if it is at the entrance.     Mind you , are the bins still there?

 

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Hylander said:

Sorry if been asked before but, where are the moorings,  up the end of the dyke where the 24hr mooring used to be or down at the entrance.   Darn long walk along that grass path to the bins if it is at the entrance.     Mind you , are the bins still there?

 

They are where the BA moorings used to be. I believe the bit that sticks out a little, nearest to the lane, is where the 4 32ft moorings are, and the next part along, away from the lane is where the 40ft moorings are. Not sure about whether the bins are still there.

[rightsaidfred]

There is a world of difference between a private individual who is prepared to make a mooring available and is responsible for the upkeep etc making a charge which is their only benefit and the BA who receive the benefit of tolls income.

We should be thankful someone is prepared to make the effort to provide a pleasant mooring available not criticise them for making a reasonable charge.

Fred  

[Mouldy]

I’m fairly certain that the BA’s lease on the moorings at Horning Staithe is ending soon and I seem to recall that the Parish Council was trying to pursue a means to get more visitors to the Staithe during the day to increase the footfall and potential business for the local traders.

You don’t need a crystal ball to work out what’s likely to happen there, do you?  Stern on daytime moorings for dayboats with a solar powered ticket machine, similar to what we have in car parks, maybe and another mooring lost for the toll paying Broads boating community?  That’ll fulfil the requirement for more visitors and greater footfall.

 

[Mouldy]

6 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

There is a world of difference between a private individual who is prepared to make a mooring available and is responsible for the upkeep etc making a charge which is their only benefit and the BA who receive the benefit of tolls income.

We should be thankful someone is prepared to make the effort to provide a pleasant mooring available not criticise them for making a reasonable charge.

Fred  

I’m not criticising the landowner.  As long as the moorings are well maintained, I’m more than likely going to use them.  What will annoy me is broken mooring posts and quay heading that could damage my gel coat.

My point is that due to the BA’s unwillingness to talk objectively to the landowner with a view to achieving a mutually acceptable settlement, we have lost moorings that were paid for from our tolls and which we will now have to pay additional money to use.  I still believe that the BA will be watching this with interest, as well as other landowners who may feel that this scenario will be more beneficial to them too, when current leases expire.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

In the last 20 odd years

If you are only looking back 20 years this may explain the difference in our opinions.

When I grew up on the Broads right up to the mid 70's, the only places where you paid to moor were the yacht stations in Norwich and Oulton Broad.  You also paid to mud weight overnight on Wroxham Broad but that has always been private water.  Anywhere else, if there was no sign saying "private" then you stuck your rhond hooks in the bank.  That is what they were provided for.  St Benets Abbey was like this and it was a much larger length of mooring than nowadays.

Members whose memory is not the same as mine, are free to say so.  

This idea of charging to moor was started by a few large pubs in about 1977 - and sure enough, Horning Ferry was the first to make a little bit on the side, by charging their own customers to moor on their premises.  This was very heavily resisted by the two main hire agencies but, like all contagious diseases, it rapidly caught hold and got out of control.

At the same time the farming landowners had successfully lobbied parliament to have their banks built up against flooding and protected by steel piling with wooden capping.  Paid for by government grant as has become customary in farming.  These new banks looked rather like a nice mooring and so "Oh, look, why not charge the boats to moor up there?"

I submit that the boating public have been fleeced ever since by this creeping malaise and now even the BA have got in on "a nice little earner".   Hardly concommittent with the idea of a "National Park" I would think.

So if you are really content with the thought that wherever you go in future on the Broads rivers that you have paid your toll to cruise, you then have to fork out ten Quid wherever you want to stop, I wish you well of it.  I have my memories of much more enjoyable cruising.

 

[floydraser]

I think this thread illustrates the changing attitudes of the generations. Back to the 1960s (again) and as we drove along, if my Dad saw someone broken down he would stop and see if he could help. Not just my Dad, everyone's Dad! It's what you did. Now, we get in the car, slam the door and instantly hate all strangers outside of the car. A generalisation but you should get my meaning.

I just wonder if I suddenly inherited a large chunk of land next to the Broads would I charge for moorings? I think I would be  seen as a mug if I didn't. Years ago I may have been seen as a Gentleman if I didn't

[Smoggy]

At least bikes tend to stop for other bikes at the side of the road still.

[Meantime]

19 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I think this thread illustrates the changing attitudes of the generations. Back to the 1960s (again) and as we drove along, if my Dad saw someone broken down he would stop and see if he could help. Not just my Dad, everyone's Dad! It's what you did. Now, we get in the car, slam the door and instantly hate all strangers outside of the car. A generalisation but you should get my meaning.

I just wonder if I suddenly inherited a large chunk of land next to the Broads would I charge for moorings? I think I would be  seen as a mug if I didn't. Years ago I may have been seen as a Gentleman if I didn't

I think part of the problem is, if you owned a plot of land back in the 1960's and someone moored for free alongside and stepped of the boat into a rabbit hole, they'd curse themselves for not being more careful and carry on mooring up. Now they're more likely to curse you the landowner for not taking more care of your land, for not putting up signs reminding them to be responsible for their own safety and be on the phone to lawyers R us to see how much they can claim from you.

[Gracie]

My attitude has changed regarding paying for moorings. I used to get a tad cross at a mooring fee being charged when we had paid so very much to hire a boat. After reading various threads on the subject I understand it all more now and I am just so pleased the moorings at Langley are not lost to us even if we have to pay to moor there.

We would very rarely moor at a pub overnight, preferring a lunch time stop and then finding somewhere peaceful for the night. Langley is perfect for that. I don't mind spending my money in a pub so a couple of quid more for a lovely mooring isn't a problem to me anymore  x

[gancanny]

on a lighter note, in a couple of months time the langley dyke moorings will be anything but peace and quiet,

and the noise will not be from fellow boaters but from the rookery on the other side of the mooring 

[rightsaidfred]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

If you are only looking back 20 years this may explain the difference in our opinions.

When I grew up on the Broads right up to the mid 70's, the only places where you paid to moor were the yacht stations in Norwich and Oulton Broad.  You also paid to mud weight overnight on Wroxham Broad but that has always been private water.  Anywhere else, if there was no sign saying "private" then you stuck your rhond hooks in the bank.  That is what they were provided for.  St Benets Abbey was like this and it was a much larger length of mooring than nowadays.

Members whose memory is not the same as mine, are free to say so.  

This idea of charging to moor was started by a few large pubs in about 1977 - and sure enough, Horning Ferry was the first to make a little bit on the side, by charging their own customers to moor on their premises.  This was very heavily resisted by the two main hire agencies but, like all contagious diseases, it rapidly caught hold and got out of control.

At the same time the farming landowners had successfully lobbied parliament to have their banks built up against flooding and protected by steel piling with wooden capping.  Paid for by government grant as has become customary in farming.  These new banks looked rather like a nice mooring and so "Oh, look, why not charge the boats to moor up there?"

I submit that the boating public have been fleeced ever since by this creeping malaise and now even the BA have got in on "a nice little earner".   Hardly concommittent with the idea of a "National Park" I would think.

So if you are really content with the thought that wherever you go in future on the Broads rivers that you have paid your toll to cruise, you then have to fork out ten Quid wherever you want to stop, I wish you well of it.  I have my memories of much more enjoyable cruising.

 

My memories only go back 40 years or so but they are somewhat different, I used the Ferry Inn regularly in the !980s and 90s when Malcom was mine host and there was never any charge, the non returnable mooring fee at pubs is very much a recent phenomenon as those that did charge always refunded against food.

As for the lost wild moorings I see two main reasons, restrictions came in all over the country with the foot and mouth epidemic much was lost on the Thames as well as the Broads, I would also suggest the behaviour of a minority of boaters was also a factor with litter, noise and general lack of respect, as a farmer I wouldn`t want my livestock put at risk.

Fred