Polkey’s Mill

[vanessan]

Cruising past Polkey’s Mill this morning, I noticed the BA 24hour mooring signs are no longer there. It’s not showing on the list of BA moorings either. Anybody know when they were lost? I must have missed it!

[Vaughan]

Oh no, not another one . . . 

[NeilB]

I hope not, it's a great spot for waiting on the tides for Yarmouth.

@BroadsAuthority - Tom, could you please look into this?

[vanessan]

It looked like the moorings were still in use - just not BA maintained any more. I guess the question is, will they be looked after or left to fall into disrepair. 

[YnysMon]

That’s bad news. 

[grendel]

could it possibly be that because they are downstream of reedham, where there are rangers to help you safely moor they are now considered unsafe for boaters to moor themselves up (particularly solo boaters after the incident a few weeks back )

[catcouk]

I spotted that when I passed last month - I assumed it was old news and I had missed something. Whilst there weren't any BA signs up, it did look as though the moorings were still in use. Would be interesting to know their status.

[Mouldy]

Wouldn’t bit be good if the @BroadsAuthority would confirm what has happened and why, to save speculation and rumours?

[Broads01]

7 hours ago, grendel said:

could it possibly be that because they are downstream of reedham, where there are rangers to help you safely moor they are now considered unsafe for boaters to moor themselves up (particularly solo boaters after the incident a few weeks back )

I find that hard to believe given that Berney Arms moorings have been in the same area for many decades.

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all, forgive the delay on this - have received the following info from colleagues:

Following a landowner change at Polkey’s Mill, the Broads Authority was not able to accept demands for a substantial increase in rent and therefore a new long-term re-lease of this 24-hour mooring location could not be agreed.

During negotiations the Authority offered to purchase the moorings or pay a reasonable increase in line with a market valuation for a lease.

Our understanding is that mooring on this site is still available, but it should be noted that it is no longer under the upkeep or byelaw management of the Broads Authority.

Tom

[Mouldy]

15 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi all, forgive the delay on this - have received the following info from colleagues:

Following a landowner change at Polkey’s Mill, the Broads Authority was not able to accept demands for a substantial increase in rent and therefore a new long-term re-lease of this 24-hour mooring location could not be agreed.

During negotiations the Authority offered to purchase the moorings or pay a reasonable increase in line with a market valuation for a lease.

Our understanding is that mooring on this site is still available, but it should be noted that it is no longer under the upkeep or byelaw management of the Broads Authority.

Tom

Thank you Tom @BroadsAuthority for the update.   However, one does wonder when the Blessed Authority will agree to pay an increased rent for a mooring when the lease expires.

Thinking back over the last couple of years, we’ve lost Barton Turf, Langley Dyke and Polkeys Mill moorings.  Charges have been imposed at Ranworth (previously free) and I believe the lease on the moorings at Horning Staithe expires soon.

Are the Broads Authority ever going to find moorings to replace those that are now lost, or even redouble efforts to keep the ones we have, which do appear to be being lost at an alarming rate?

[NeilB]

Thanks Tom @BroadsAuthority

Unless I'm mistaken the BA did not make any announcement that these were no longer free 24hr moorings which is a poor show.  They may have been wary of an angry backlash as yet another free mooring disappears while tolls continue to rise above inflation.  I know they have no say over wild moorings but some are being being hogged by certain people who also seem to avoid paying tolls, there's been a Seamaster at Sutton for more than 24 days, let alone 24hrs!!

Throw in the Bure hump, Ranworth charges and probably Reedham next it's no wonder people are getting angry. 

Nurse!!!  Where's my pills? 

[Vaughan]

This also begs the question : would it not be a better use of toll funds to accept a higher lease agreement and thus maintain existing moorings, than fall into a bottomless pit of legal fees just to be able to charge for moorings at Reedham, which already, would not recover that cost for years to come?

Price  rises above inflation - sadly - are not the unique preserve of the Broads Authority!

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, NeilB said:

Nurse!!!  Where's my pills? 

Quick nurse, the screens! It's happened again!!

Peter Sellers.

[Mouldy]

I’ve just looked back at the BA’s response to the thread posted last year, regarding the loss of Langley Dyke moorings.  The reason for not renewing the lease was much the same as the one detailed in Tom’s response above.  I dare say that the same reason would be stated for the loss of Barton Turf as well.

It appears that they are unwilling to increase the rent on any moorings and expect landowners to continue to charge nominal amounts, yet increase tolls at rates way above inflation.

Do they have any intention of successfully renegotiating a lease on moorings moving forward?  Recent history suggests otherwise.

[SwanR]

In fairness perhaps it should be noted that Tom did say that they offered to “pay a reasonable increase in line with a market valuation for a lease.” I’m not sure folk would have been happy if they had agreed to pay an overpriced inflated amount. 🤔

[Mouldy]

1 minute ago, SwanR said:

In fairness perhaps it should be noted that Tom did say that they offered to “pay a reasonable increase in line with a market valuation for a lease.” I’m not sure folk would have been happy if they had agreed to pay an overpriced inflated amount. 🤔

If it was a single occurrence, perhaps it would be more acceptable, but the BA has come up with the same excuse for Polkeys Mill as they used at Langley Dyke almost a year ago.

I do seem to remember that they also used cost as a way round renewing the lease on the Barton Turf moorings as well.

The mere fact that the loss of the moorings at Polkeys Mill was not advised by the BA is, in my view, exceptionally poor, as they are able to post regular updates on all other aspects of Broads news.  As @NeilB stated, I also suspect that this has been ‘hushed up’ to avoid the inevitable backlash from the toll payers who surely have a right to expect to to be kept up to date with a further loss of free moorings.

[marshman]

It has been said before but its rarely the cost of the lease which is actually the issue but other factors,  which can often come into play.  Langley Dyke for example had no security of tenure and another unknown can be the ongoing cost of maintenance, and / or renewal. And not all landowners " play" fairly either - I can think of several cases on the Northern Rivers where moorings have been lost due the fact the landowner acted "unreasonably". Looking at other posts, I see you can now book Langley Dyke for up to 7 nights on their website - I doubt they will make £2000 pa from that which perhaps puts the BA offer in perspective. 

I have not moored at Polkeys for some time but my guess is that it is primarily sheet piling which can be pretty expensive to both maintain and renew if necessary - the Langley Dyke post covers that issue and that figure is now 5 years almost out of date. 

I accept this is BA's problem but it all comes out of tollpayers pockets eventually

[RS2021]

Serious question for Tom. How many leases for free 24hour moorings has the BA successfully renewed in the last two years?

[Vaughan]

42 minutes ago, SwanR said:

I’m not sure folk would have been happy if they had agreed to pay an overpriced inflated amount. 🤔

Sorry, but what have we been forced to pay in river tolls, for the last 2 years and more?

If they can casually hike their prices for no apparent reason and with no recourse to their customers, then maybe they must accept that others can jump on the same bandwagon?

[Roy]

3 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Thank you Tom @BroadsAuthority for the update.   However, one does wonder when the Blessed Authority will agree to pay an increased rent for a mooring when the lease expires.

Thinking back over the last couple of years, we’ve lost Barton Turf, Langley Dyke and Polkeys Mill moorings.  Charges have been imposed at Ranworth (previously free) and I believe the lease on the moorings at Horning Staithe expires soon.

Are the Broads Authority ever going to find moorings to replace those that are now lost, or even redouble efforts to keep the ones we have, which do appear to be being lost at an alarming rate?

Also the quite moorings at potter heigham have been lost to I don’t know if that’s to do with the BA or not. 

It seems the BA are cutting the moorings down to make boats move off the broads as they don’t want boats on the system anymore! 
 

[ExSurveyor]

2 minutes ago, Roy said:

Also the quite moorings at potter heigham have been lost to I don’t know if that’s to do with the BA or not. 

As far as I recall these moorings are not BA but belong to others.

[Bluebell]

9 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

As far as I recall these moorings are not BA but belong to others.

Yes, that’s my understanding.

Talking of lost moorings do I remember right that there used to be BA moorings at Thurne Mouth, and also at Whittlingham?

[WherryNice]

11 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

As far as I recall these moorings are not BA but belong to others.

They belong to the Thurne Bungalows Management Co if I remember correctly

[dom]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

This also begs the question : would it not be a better use of toll funds to accept a higher lease agreement and thus maintain existing moorings, than fall into a bottomless pit of legal fees just to be able to charge for moorings at Reedham, which already, would not recover that cost for years to come?

I've just done a quick bit of calculation and reckon BA already need to charge for something like 7 moorings a day at £10 a time, just to cover the cost of the person staffing the mooring (not taking into account things like NI or pension costs if it's a permanent staffer). If you add that into the equation, I suspect it'd be quite a long period of time before Reedham started generating any actual revenue.