Haven Bridge Out Of Action Again Due To Public Stupidity.

[Smoggy]

Copied from east coast notices to mariners (From Tillergirl of the YBW forums)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-68203870

 

3. PORT OF GREAT YARMOUTH - HAVEN BRIDGE LIFT BOOKINGS - owing to a health and safety concern raised by Great Yarmouth Port to Norfolk County Council, Great Yarmouth Port are unable to accept the responsibility and risk related to pedestrians and vehicles experienced during the immediate period prior to the lifting of the Haven Bridge for navigational purposes. We have proposed an interim solution to Norfolk County Council, however this has not been progressed by them. Therefore, Great Yarmouth Port are currently unable to accept bookings for Haven Bridge Lifts for Navigational purposes, and we advise you that any correspondence on this matter be passed to Norfolk County Council who are the owners and responsible party for the overall safety of Haven Bridge. This restriction does not impact any vessels that are able to pass safely under the bridge, who should continue to operate in the normal manner with communication with LPS.

[Vaughan]

13 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

We have proposed an interim solution to Norfolk County Council, however this has not been progressed by them.

Working with collaborative partners, again?

[Meantime]

So first they want £20 to transit through the port, and now they want to stop lifting the bridge due to safety concerns around systems that have been working just fine for the last few decades! The bridge has always jammed occasionally. The barriers haven't been changed or moved any closer recently!

Seems like they don't want boat traffic through to the Broads at all. Perhaps time for Norfolk County Council to take the port back into public ownership.

[Smoggy]

27 minutes ago, Meantime said:

The barriers haven't been changed or moved any closer recently!

It seems it's more down to people just being more stupid and less tollerant than they used to be, that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

[RumPunch]

So let's see if I've got this right:

We now have a large 'barge' stuck up river wanting to get out to sea

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24377698.boat-stuck-norfolk-broads-bridge-will-not-open/

as well as the business haemorrhaging money as not able to get boats out.

 

And Peel Ports want to charge for access out to sea IF we can get through............

 

[Smoggy]

I bet it's suddenly safe to open it for commercial craft.

[grendel]

only with a man walking in front waving a red flag.

[grendel]

the point is that they are contracted to open on request, so any costs incurred by having to wait should be met by the responsible body- in this case the council, but the BA should be fighting the case for the navigation.

[Roy]

Just reading about this makes me think how long before net work rail tries to keep somerlayton and reedham swing bridges shut  completely. 
 

I think if peel ports are left to do what they want then that will set a president why haven’t the BA stepped up to fight for the boaters (ie wonder ?) 

 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

the point is that they are contracted to open on request, so any costs incurred by having to wait should be met by the responsible body- in this case the council, but the BA should be fighting the case for the navigation.

Yes, they should, but, given their history of neglecting the navigation over the past two and a half decades, do you really think they'll lift a finger?

[Hylander]

3 hours ago, Roy said:

Just reading about this makes me think how long before net work rail tries to keep somerlayton and reedham swing bridges shut  completely. 
 

I

 

Give it a few weeks and we will have two days of hot weather and they will all be shut again.

[kpnut]

5 hours ago, grendel said:

but the BA should be fighting the case for the navigation.

During a meeting I was attending last week, this issue came up and the response was that the county council and Peel ports are at a stalemate and JP has been brought in as negotiator to try to break the deadlock.
Why am I not holding my breath?

[Paladin]

8 hours ago, kpnut said:

During a meeting I was attending last week, this issue came up and the response was that the county council and Peel ports are at a stalemate and JP has been brought in as negotiator to try to break the deadlock.
Why am I not holding my breath?

I just hope his solution doesn't include the Yacht Station staff taking on the responsibility for manning (should that be personning?) the bridge.

[RumPunch]

I see the EDP have more detail on the background in todays edition

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24379741.norfolk-bridge-blockade-caused-rowdy-public-hurling-abuse/

[Hylander]

1 hour ago, RumPunch said:

I see the EDP have more detail on the background in todays edition

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24379741.norfolk-bridge-blockade-caused-rowdy-public-hurling-abuse/

Oh so that is why the excuse not to open the bridge, nothing to do with a sensible reason but because a few drunks happened to jump the barriers and cause chaos.   World's gone mad.        I dont care who I upset,   it is manned.

[marshman]

But the individuals operating it do not want to face  abuse, and why should they?

Perhaps one way forward, at a cost, would be to reintroduce real gates, if possible, so it would  be easier to stop individuals approaching that area which the barriers " shut off" ? The lifts happen so rarely perhaps it could be a solution, at least in the short term, to have some greater security presence ,  when lifts are scheduled? 

This cannot be the only lift bridge in the country open to pedestrians as well - what do they do?

[CambridgeCabby]

I agree that no worker should be threatened whilst at work , but deciding simply not to open the bridge is ridiculous .

If the boating community and affected businesses decided to descend en mass and behave in a similar manner would that mean that Peel Ports would simply leave the bridge open as result? I think not 

Ive yet to see a supermarket refuse to open its doors due to staff being abused or a city to be without parking wardens or police who are continuously abused .

Peel Ports are contracted and paid to do a job if they fail to do so then they should cease to be paid and sued for breach of contract 

[ExSurveyor]

If Peel Ports are paid to do the job they should ensure that they have sufficient qualified staff available.

It does seem to be an overreaction to one days events.

[grendel]

or an excsue not to do their job, surely if someone gets abusive the staff are within their rights to do the same as any other service does and call the police, similarly if drunks trespass on the bridge while it is opening.

but to just say that someone threatened them, so they are not going to open the bridge is just ludicrous, any other company would have measures in place to deal with such a situation, surely the bridge control room doesnt allow access to the general public.

[RumPunch]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

But the individuals operating it do not want to face  abuse, and why should they?

Perhaps one way forward, at a cost, would be to reintroduce real gates, if possible, so it would  be easier to stop individuals approaching that area which the barriers " shut off" ? The lifts happen so rarely perhaps it could be a solution, at least in the short term, to have some greater security presence ,  when lifts are scheduled? 

This cannot be the only lift bridge in the country open to pedestrians as well - what do they do?

Watched a video of Tower Bridge - automatic gates

[floydraser]

It seems to be about responsibility. I think this may be the case: Being employed as bridge staff you wouldn't expect abuse but you do have rights. So if you are now expected to deal with abuse you have the right to say not acceptable. If your boss tries to force the situation that'll be constructive dismissal. So the boss makes the decision to not open the bridge.

Surely one way forward would be to have the attendance of a couple of police officers or pcso's for the first few openings to see if things settle down.

[RumPunch]

Need some experienced 'gate guards'

 

[rightsaidfred]

Not to sure of the legalities but I would have thought there is a protected right of unrestricted navigation in play here, while it is difficult for individuals to take action maybe the businesses affected could seek compensation for loss of income and the RYA to act on behalf of private boaters.

Fred

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, RumPunch said:

 

Oh God, the Rock Apes! 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

Not to sure of the legalities but I would have thought there is a protected right of unrestricted navigation in play here, while it is difficult for individuals to take action maybe the businesses affected could seek compensation for loss of income and the RYA to act on behalf of private boaters.

Fred

The right of navigation isn’t entirely unrestricted, but it is (should be) only restricted by the time taken to raise the bridge. When the (previous) bridge was built, the process was subject to the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Act 1866, section 59 of which, on the subject of opening the bridge, said:

“Except as herein-after mentioned, no Seaborne Vessel navigating the Haven, and for the Passage of which it is requisite that the Bridge be opened, shall at any Time between Sunrise and Sunset, if all Rates payable under the Act in respect of the Vessel and her cargo have been duly paid, be detained at the Bridge longer than is sufficient for the opening of the Bridge for the Passage of the Vessel, and no Charge shall be made for the opening of the Bridge; and if any Person offend against this Enactment every Person so offending shall for every such Offence forfeit not exceeding Forty Shillings: Provided always, that the Haven Bridge shall not be opened within Ten Minutes next before the Time fixed for the Departure of any Passenger Train from either Station of the Great Eastern Railway Company.”

When the existing bridge was built, the process was subject to the Great Yarmouth Haven Bridge Act 1925, which repealed inter alia section 59 of the 1866 Act, BUT continued the effect of the section by virtue of section 27 of the 1925 Act, which says:

“The new bridge shall be managed and worked by the Commissioners under and subject to the provisions relating to the managing and working of the Existing Haven Bridge (including those as to charges in respect of the opening thereof) and such provisions shall extend and apply and may be exercised by the Commissioners in relation to the new bridge accordingly…”

Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Act 1866 ukla_18660247_en.pdf Great Yarmouth Haven Bridge Act 1925.pdf