Johnny Crowes Staithe

[650xs]

Orf my land ............

[Paladin]

One of our members has just tried the circular walk, clockwise as I suggested, but I must confess I had been thinking more of the summer time, and from Johhny Crowe's staithe, when I suggested that direction, which is when the river bank section is more likely to be overgrown and, possibly, impassable. He and his companion had to turn back, because, as part of the annual maintenance programme, the dykes either side of the rhond on the fen had been dredged and the spoil levelled on top of the rhond. This is necessary to keep the dykes clear and to maintain the height of the rhond. The fen is managed for reed, sedge and wildlife, so water levels must be controllable and controlled.

 

I thought I would go and take a look for myself, to see what the situation is at the moment. It looks like the whole length of the rhond has been covered with spoil, which is still very wet and soft. It is possible, though not advisable, to walk it at the moment. While much of the spoil is silt mixed with reed litter and is fairly firm, there are other places which are very soft and, on a couple of occasions, my feet sank down to the original level of the rhond. The mud came almost to the top of my wellies, some 14" into the gloop. Not a pleasant experience and I had visions of walking out in my socks!

 

The clockwise direction approaches the rhond from the river end. Not many (almost none, well, two perhaps) walk from that direction, so I doubt whether there was any warning of the conditions. At the Fenside entrance (so going anticlockwise) there is a warning sign and the entrance is taped off. I took several photos, which describe the situation better than any words can.

 

If anyone else is considering taking the walk, I strongly suggest they leave it a few weeks, to let the dredgings dry out (if the rain ever stop, that is!!!)

[Paladin]

This is one of the soggy bits, but not the worst.

[Paladin]

I walked out for a few hundred yards and took photos in each direction. It looks terrible at the moment but it's amazing how quickly the greenery grows back.

[Samuel]

Yes me and my girlfriend were those mad people who tried it. His legs must be longer than mine because I sank well above the knees. I concur with Paladin's assessment of current conditions but don't let that put anyone off doing the walk in a few months time. The river bank section was a delight and only a bit wet. The rhond section is the equal if not better than similar walks in nature reserves in the northern and southern broads. I imagine the insect and bird life will be prolific in summer. Thanks again to Paladin for suggesting this walk.

[NorfolkNog]

We were up the River Ant last week - just wondered is this Johnny Crowes staithe???

[minor2011]

That's the one.

Looks different to whenever I see it though.

There's no boat there lol

[marshman]

Must admit i have often wondered over the origins of the name - now I know what a dimwit!!!! Cromes Staithe of course - all a bit obvious now you know!!!!!!

[Paladin]

Marshman, not quite so obvious, it would seem. I've been doing some digging around, on the BA web site and elsewhere and it's quite interesting.

 

Regardless of what it was called in the 1979 Commons Commissioner's report, these days the terminology is Crome's Broad, Crome's Dyke (which links the broad to the river and Johnny Crowe's Staithe. (The CC's report initially shown the location as Suffolk!)

 

I've been down and had a look-see and taken some photos (which I'll post when I have the time), and the staithe proper (what's left of it) looks like it's 100 yards or so along the dyke, away from the river. It might be possible to get a small boat up to it, but I wouldn't advise trying it in anything much bigger than a dinghy. What is commonly referred to JC's staithe is just the bank at the entrance of the dyke.

 

When the planning application was submitted in 2008, for the flood defence work at How Hill, it was suggested (by Catfield PC) that the footbridge that was going to be installed, for the BA to use, should be upgraded for public use, so that there would be a permissive footpath all the way from How Hill, alongside Crome's Dyke, upstream to Mud Point and along The Rhond to Fenside. Also that the dyke could be dredged and the old staithe reinstated for public moorings.

 

That idea seems to have sunk without a trace.

[littlesprite]

If there are moorings/staithe along the dyke it follows that this was at some time navigable water, doesn't that mean the BA have a duty to maintain that navigation? or is it only those waters that were navigable at the time of the act.

[Paladin]

littlesprite, you raise an interesting point.

 

In the 1988 Act it says, ‘the navigation area’ means those stretches of the rivers Bure, Yare and Waveney, and their tributaries, branches and embayments (including Oulton Broad) which, at the passing of this Act, were in use for navigation by virtue of any public right of navigation;
( b)the banks of the waterways which make up those stretches; and
( c) Haddiscoe New Cut and its banks;

and

The Authority shall:
(a) maintain the navigation area for the purposes of navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required; and
( b)take such steps to improve and develop it as it thinks fit.

 

The staithe still exists, and existed at the time the 1988 Act was passed, so (IMO), it follows that there existed at that time a public right of navigation to the staithe. Whether the dyke was actually navigable, or overgrown, seems to be immaterial. The right to navigate existed then and exists today.

 

I have found the following on the BA web site:

It should be stated that the BA is committed to protecting the status of staithes and of vehicular rights of way to staithes. Also that it will encourage the re-use and restoration of derelict and abandoned staithes.

 

If you take a look at the document I've attached (which deals with the responses of consultees to the BESL application for the flood defence works at How Hill), you will see that the Catfield Parish Council supports the idea of the staithe being brought back into use and a continuous footpath being created, the latter being supported by the Broads Society (the emboldment is mine). So it looks as if you would be pushing against an open door if you were to make that suggestion to the BA (hint, hint).

BA2008-0249-FUL Compartment 4 Left bank River Ant Clayrack Marshes How Hill.doc

[marshman]

There are many many staithes on the Broads which have fallen into disrepair over the years, and many which are not even on the main river system, often on parts of the river perhaps even now abandoned - not sure these should be included as the dyke was not actually "in use" despite the fact that they lead to what remain technically staithes!!!! The dyke is about wide enough for a dinghy and is still easily navigable - but only to the "bridge"!!.

 

As far as that footbridge is concerned, my recollection is that the position of the weir or stop was moved for some reason or another and whilst it had been intended for it to have been a footbridge, it was decided to put it in place but not use it. Where it crosses the dyke at the moment, it does not link up on the BA land at least, to a public footpath -- indeed that is some distance away. 

 

You may be flogging a dead horse - or two to be precise!!!!

[Paladin]

mm, I'm not actually trying to flog any flavour of horse. Much of what goes on around here is rather buried and not readily accessible to us mere mortals, and, having found out some of the background info., I thought I'd share it. If one considers narrow cul-de-sacs such as Catfield Dyke and, even narrower, Waxham Cut, the thought of Crome's Dyke being put to better use isn't that far-fetched.

 

Width-wise, I think memories can sometimes be deceptive. I've posted some pics below which show that there is a fair amount of width, which would be improved if the reed encroachment was removed. I understand that the staithe was used by wherries, loading corn, years ago. I know a Cleopatra 700 moors further along the dyke, with plenty of passing room. (22'8" length 8' 4" beam). The only reason I wouldn't take my cruiser up there is because I don't know what's on the bottom. I believe the EA did clear out fallen trees etc., when they put the sluices in, but that's not the same as clearing out the rubbish with a dredger.

[Paladin]

This is the mooring spot commonly known as Johnny Crowe's staithe, looking towards the dyke (but the staithe is actually further up the dyke, Crome's Dyke). The river is just to the right, out of shot. From the mooring, paths lead alongside the dyke, to Sharp Street, and upstream along the Ant to Mud Point. I have described a circular route using these paths in an earlier post.

 

 

 

[Paladin]

About two or three hundred yards along the dyke, it has been artificially narrowed by short sections of quay heading (pic 1) and the dyke dog-legs to the right. The bay shown in pic 3 can just be seen to the left. I don't know why the restriction, perhaps to allow the use of a ligger? Looking back towards the river from that point (pic2) the potential width can be visualised.

 

Looking up the dyke from the 'throttle point', the bank is cut back on the left, which is probably the original staithe, bearing in mind I was standing on the public green lane when I took the photos. (closest access for loading etc). At the far end of the dyke can just be seen a sluice, which blocks any further progression towards Crome's Broad.

 

It seems to me that this dyke is ripe for all those who bemoan the loss of 'wild' moorings.

[Paladin]

In my description of the circular walk, I mentioned a public footpath that went through someone's garden. The footpath has now been separated from the garden with a chain-link fence, but the sign is very easy to miss. The entrance to the FP is directly opposite the entrance to Grove Barn Caravan site, which isn't so easy to miss! The path looks well used.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Hi Paladin,

 

you`ve really opened up a hornets nest on this thread. As a result of reading this thread, i`m now very interrested in mooring at JCs staithe, and venturing further up to have a look at the general state of the dyke. It WOULD be an interresting idea to try and get the BA to do something about opening up this dyke and the staithe for "wild mooring" etc, and it would make an ideal place for those that prefer the peace and quiet afforded due to the lack of a pub etc.

 

 

Regards to all ..................... Neil.

[Paladin]

Speedtriple, a spark of interest rather than a hornet's nest, I hope. Each time I've passed the mooring it's either been occupied, or I've been on my way somewhere, so I've only ever reached it on foot. But bear in mind that, if you moor up anywhere upstream, as far as Mud Point anyway, you can explore on foot via the path I mentioned earlier.

[littlesprite]

Paladin,

 

I've decided nothing ventured nothing gained so will be writing to the BA and see what they say, however, it would be nice to know how big the staithe is. (number of potential moorings)

 

many thanks martin.

[marshman]

Sorry Paladin - moved this over to this thread now!!!! But still do not think it is navigable in that sense of the word!!!!!

 

Your pictures clearly show the brick constriction and where the stop planks went - this could have been to control the water level in Cromes Broad at some time but not conclusive evidence of the positioning of the"staithe" I am sure you can produce a picture with the staithe marked or at least as far as the parish council is concerned.

 

You will no doubt also be able to confirm the owner of the land on the stbd side of the dyke as you go away from the river - you suggested that it may be the How Hill Trust - not sure that is the case; might just be the BA itself!!

 

All interesting but not a valid excuse to spend the tolls money IMHO!!!!!!

[Paladin]

marshman, your continual and frequent use of exclamation marks !!!!!! comes across as sounding very angry, and I’m not sure why that should be.

 

“Your pictures clearly show the brick constriction and where the stop planks went...”

 

My photo of the ‘throttle point’ shows wooden piling capped with wooden quay heading. Which photo shows any brickwork? A sluice has now been installed further along the dyke, so the quay-headed section is no longer required for stop boards and could easily be removed.

 

“I am sure you can produce a picture with the staithe marked or at least as far as the parish council is concerned.”

 

It was the PC chairman who gave me the description of location of the staithe that I gave in post #65. The award of the staithe was by virtue of the Catfield and Sutton Inclosure Award 1808. There is a copy in the Norfolk Records Office if you want to take a look at it. I've read it and it is a very interesting document.

 

“...you suggested that it may be the How Hill Trust - not sure that is the case; might just be the BA itself!!”

 

What I actually wrote, in the Volunteers Group thread post #2, was “The land either side of the dyke is owned by either the BA (or maybe How Hill Trust) (south bank) or Catfield Parish Council (north bank).” I was unsure, hence my comment re How Hill. However, having read through the planning application for the flood protection works I can confirm that the BA is the owner of the south bank. From that application :“Compartment 4 comprises 1050 metres of floodbank that protects Clayrack Marshes, Crone’s (sic) Broad and Marshes and property at Sharp Street.  Attached, as Appendix 1 is a location plan.  The majority of the compartment is owned and managed by the Broads Authority as part of the How Hill nature reserve.“

 

In post #61, I provided a link to the consultee responses to the planning application in 2008. The Catfield PC’s response finishes with “As BESL will be building a footbridge here for BA use, it should be built to a specification suitable for public use to avoid the cost of subsequently upgrading the bridge. Crowe’s Staithe Dyke should be dredged within the BESL work programme while they are working on the adjoining bank, an enhancement which would restore Johnny Crowe’s Staithe to use as public mooring.“

 

littlesprite, I don’t know how many potential moorings there are in the dyke. That would all depend on the extent of any work carried out (if any). I would be interested in the BA's response, though.

 

[Paladin]

It seems the more I enquire, the more I find.

 

This has just come to my attention, from the minutes of a Catfield PC meeting in 2012:

 

"Dr Bacon, Mr Beckley and Mrs Walker went to look at Johnny Crowe Staithe earlier in the month. It is possible to moor a boat in the dyke leading up to the end of the Staithe or at the top end. They measured the depth and width of the dyke and physically there would be no problem to moor a boat.

 

Under the Code of conduct no favour should be shown to Parish Councillors and other parishioners who wish to moor should be considered.

 

Dr Bacon suggested that as there are no facilities a low fee should be considered in the region of £150 per boat or £8 per foot. Mr Gardiner and Mr Beckley agreed that a charge per foot would be best. Mr Beckley then proposed that a charge of £8 per foot be made; this was seconded by Mrs Walker with all in agreement."

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

In response to Marshmans comment above

 

"an interresting but not a valid excuse to spend the toll money",

 

well, elswhere i started a thread regarding volunteer groups which would surely drastically reduce the required toll money, and let`s face it, if it`s going to re-open an important area of extra mooring on one of the busiest areas of the broads, or indeed any other area on the broads for that matter, at least the tolls are being spent in the right way?.

 

One other thing i think is important to remember, in recent decades, the  size of broads cruisers (length x beam), be they private or hire, has dramatically increased, meaning fewer boats being able to moor on the same quay heading. yes the number of hire boats has decreased, but the number of private boats has increased to more than overcome the hireboat numbers. Add to that the majority of hire boats are on the northern rivers, with an increasing number unable to transit low bridges, With this in mind, re-instating areas such as JCs staithe, and the dyke to the broad, and other overgrown rivers etc, would offer more options for mooring, and many, like me, like to moor away from pubs and busy areas.

 

I`d also like to thank Paladin for all his hard work in research for this thread, as it`s definately sparked an interest for me, as well as others i`m sure.

 

 

Regards to all .................... Neil.

 

PS, to Marshman,  no offence is meant in quoting you above.

[marshman]

Me  - angry ????? Far far from it!!!!!!! Although I cannot see a great deal of point in continuing to pursue this as I think there are better things to spend money on. (Conquered my desire to put exclamation marks!)

 

Paladin is right - there is no brick structure (my memory failed me!!) but that does not alter the principle. There are many dykes in the marshes which are "navigable" and I am not going to type a list here for risk of starting an explosion of people who may wish to establish a so called right of navigation to a long forgotten staithe. I also disagree with Speedtriples comment that this instance could open up "an important mooring space" - How Hill is just downstream and whilst in the busiest times it can be quite busy, most times throughout the year it has plenty of space.

 

A volunteer force does not have the facility to dredge the dyke - apart from all the necessary permissions, which I doubt they could get, where would you get the appropriate equipment from and to the site?

 

All moorings which are established have to be of a certain standard today if they are formal moorings and do the Parish Council want to pay for this, let alone the ongoing maintenance? My guess is not but no doubt someone will now write to them to find out!

 

I still maintain, despite the assurance of others that the dyke is not large enough to establish such a mooring in, nor is there enough room to establish a turning basin and is the cost warranted to establish a limited number of moorings? It is certainly narrower than Upton Dyke and most find that a bit of a squeeze! Whilst i know you will all disagree vehemently, and you entitled to your view, just as I am to mine, the costs would far outweigh the benefits - the BA are catching up on a dredging backlog but are we seriously suggesting the benefit would justify the cost?  I am sure it is on the BA website somewhere and I know it is buried in their documents, but dredging is pretty expensive as is the establishing of quay heading. I am sure someone will tell me where to look and the precise nature of dredging costs.

 

Nonetheless I wish you well with your attempts but dont be surprised if it fails!!! (Ooops slipped 3 in there) I was well aware that the BA owned that land and that it is a valuable Nature Reserve - I doubt they could be encouraged to believe that this would be anything other than detrimental to the area.

[Paladin]

I must confess I would much prefer the dyke be used as informal moorings (do-able) than have it lined with pilings and quay heading (most unlikely).

 

Now I have discovered that the PC is actually renting moorings to parishioners (there is a small boat  along there, as well as the Cleopatra), I am more confident about what is down below. I hardly think they would have taken that step if there were underwater obstructions awaiting the unwary.

 

It might be narrower than Upton Dyke, but it's much wider than some parts of Waxham Cut.