Polkey’s Mill

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour 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. 🤔

Who decides what is reasonable? as we are  not privy to the negotiations and BA certainly won't divulge the information that statement is meaningless

Fred

[marshman]

Quite probably the District Valuer!  If you don't know what he/she does they advise on all public sector valuations.

And with the greatest of respect, what actual qualifications do Forum Members have in lease negotiations?

And don't bring up the Thurne Mouth moorings up - that was widely discussed at the time and the change, as far as I can recall. was due entirely to the landowner.

[ExSurveyor]

35 minutes ago, marshman said:

And with the greatest of respect, what actual qualifications do Forum Members have in lease negotiations?

I have rather a lot, they are a nightmare to deal with and nobody is ever happy.

[NeilB]

Information on the Thurne quiet moorings can be found here - 

Please note it contains a request from the poster not to muddy the waters during negotiations.  However, this was over 2 years ago and I've noticed a discrepancy between Expilots's report and the statement from the BA that Mouldy posted.

@expilot  Is it possible for an update on the mooring negotiations please as I've wish to cause any issues with any negotiation?

[Mouldy]

I’ve just found the minutes of the meeting of the Horning Parish Council that was attended by the good doctor, at which the renewal of the lease on the parish Staithe was discussed:

https://horning.norfolkparishes.gov.uk/files/2023/06/202306-June-minutes-HNG.docx

As can be seen, the current lease expires in March 2025.  It also states that some, if not all, of the Staithe moorings should be reserved for dayboats during the day at the suggestion of the PC.  I’m sure I recall additional information being available at the time, suggesting that the footfall to local businesses would increase if the moorings were restricted to dayboats during the day, as they would turnaround more frequently.

Current form would suggest that further negotiations regarding renewal are yet to start and it will come as no surprise to me, at least, to find that those moorings are also lost.

Obviously, I stand to be corrected and indeed surprised in due course.

[expilot]

In replying to Neil B's post, other than as a shareholder,  I am no longer associated with Thurne Bungalows Management Company Limited, TBMC Ltd still leases from the Environment Agency Potter Heigham's previous "quiet" moorings on the Repps bank below Potter Heigham Bridge.  My understanding is that the riverbank moorings will remain closed for mooring purposes because TBMC cannot afford to make them safe and fit for purpose. TBMC has no income other than from its River Thurne property Leaseholders. The Environment Agency stated that they had no interest in the plots as they were not directly part of the EA's flood defences. The Broads Authority stated that it couldn't take on the not insignificant immediate and future piling costs. The plots will continue to be wilded and mooring will continue to be forbidden by TBMC Ltd, the plots leasehold owner.

[Cheesey69]

I’m beginning to think the boat pound is on the wane. 
This so reminds me of the decayed seaside resorts that is the home of the day tripper. And even more the local councils that refuse to see the decline. 
See also the town centre parking charges on the rise as fewer people use them. The shopping streets die. 
Ring any bells?
Private owners spend way less than holiday markers overall I think. I know I do, I can’t afford to eat out all the time and bring shopping in. 
less places to stop means less interest for the hirers. 
I’ve never stopped at horning or wroxham because I can’t moor there even if i wanted to eat there. 
And slowly the rivers will just be a place we used to know

[marshman]

Cheesey - over many long years, the death knell of the Broads has been "sounded" many many times and almost always in the more difficult economic times.

Yet still the Brokers sell boats and still the visitors come!!!

[marshman]

I think Neil the reference to the Thurne moorings referred to those at the junction of the Thurne/Bure where there were extensive moorings moorings and that all happened several years ago

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, Mouldy said:

 It also states that some, if not all, of the Staithe moorings should be reserved for dayboats during the day at the suggestion of the PC.  I’m sure I recall additional information being available at the time, suggesting that the footfall to local businesses would increase if the moorings were restricted to dayboats during the day, as they would turnaround more frequently.
 

That would only be feasible if the PC took control of the moorings. Under the current BA bye laws the BA cannot reserve all or any part of 24hr moorings for a particular class of boat (other than for demasting). John Packman tried that at Beccles, reserving the mooring just in front of the bridge for boats that are unable to transit the bridge because of their height. He was challenged on this, and lost!

[Vaughan]

7 hours ago, Bluebell said:

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

The Commissioners' Cut on Whitlingham Lane in Thorpe is still a BA mooring I believe and was quay headed fairly recently. If you mean the Whitlingham gravel pits near Trowse, that is yet another failure of the BA to renew a lease.

This time, on the whole "country park"!

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

Yet still the Brokers sell boats and still the visitors come!!!

But not in the same proportions!

The brokers are selling the boats that the visitors used to come and hire.

[grendel]

The thing is we are all discussing the problem, what we need is a cost effective solution. One that can be implemented at many locations,.

It's my thoughts that this could be floating pontoons, these don't require expensive quay heading, and can be moved if needed, so the initial outlay is just for the pontoon, and installation. And all that needs to be negotiated is permission to connect to the land, which is not necessarily required.

[MargeandParge]

 

Would there be any way of connecting to footpaths or some of the old ferry rights of way. 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

[Hylander]

Well said Gendel ,   pontoon moorings all over the Broads would solve a lot of problems.    

[Mouldy]

7 hours ago, Paladin said:

That would only be feasible if the PC took control of the moorings. Under the current BA bye laws the BA cannot reserve all or any part of 24hr moorings for a particular class of boat (other than for demasting). John Packman tried that at Beccles, reserving the mooring just in front of the bridge for boats that are unable to transit the bridge because of their height. He was challenged on this, and lost!

So, based on your comment, unless the BA can come up with a plan to allow some of the moorings to be given over to dayboats, it seems that the most likely outcome will be for the PC to take over control of the Staithe and allow dayboat moorings during the day and perhaps larger craft overnight.

I think that double mooring is already permitted there, so given that the combined beam of two cruisers moored side by side could be around 25ft, they could even permit dayboats to moor stern on, thus increasing the potential space available, together with mooring fees.

It may not happen, but based on the BA’s hit rate for lease renewal, I can’t help but be suspicious.

[Hylander]

Sorry I know I ought to keep up but what is or who is PC please?

[Graham47]

I assume it’s a reference to Parish Council.

 

[Bluebell]

8 hours ago, Vaughan said:

If you mean the Whitlingham gravel pits near Trowse, that is yet another failure of the BA to renew a lease.

This time, on the whole "country park"!

Yes, these were the ones I was thinking of…😎

[MauriceMynah]

Ahhh yes Hylander, PC !

If a police officer on the local parish council was typing an email  to a traveller he would be... 

A PC typing a PC note on his PC for the PC.

Simples. 

[riverman]

Just covering a few points;

Pontoons are an incredibly obvious answer and would work brilliantly in many locations. A couple of mooring piles, a ramp onto the land and its done. This could be put out to tender and could be achieved extremely cost effectively. Admittedly, it wouldn't be, it would go to Walcon or Solent and be twice as expensive as it needed to be.

Quay heading doesn't have to be expensive, they choose to make it expensive. For instance, the spec on the tender for Hoveton Riverside Park is absurd. From memory, AZ piles with a lifespan in excess of what highways would require (120 years), cantilevered at 9m long although receiving very minimal load. Now I'm not saying that there aren't instances where piling like this is required however this isn't one of them. This could be done in a variety of the different options we offer at a fraction of the cost. The truth is, for an organisation that should know about the vast variety of different material options available to maintain our waterways, they really have no clue at all. 

Thurne mouth moorings. I don't much care for the speculation, I was there for the duration, I heard the conversations. All he wanted was the littering to stop, he even offered us to install bins if the Blessed would empty and maintain them.