Mooring at Thorpe Green

[Paladin]

Manko, to answer your previous question, the 'official' explanation, given when it first occurred, for the use of the word 'official' was that "Actually it's an experiment to see if the word effects google rankings, so nothing sinister."

 

And that cropped up 3 years ago, so it's all a bit stale now.

[MBA Marine]

I think we all finally got to the point of, we all need to respect people, live and let live and when you have a grievance its far better received if you have attempted to discuss and resolve said grievance at source than on a open forum.

 

Its easy to make judgments from afar when you are only privy to select information, what would have been nice to have read was i post about "I was having trouble mooring but kind people came to my aid"  I still stand by a point I made very early in this thread 'Communication is key'

 

Stay well and enjoy boating people, for now MBA out!

[ExSurveyor]

I use both main broards forums, I see the same names cropping up, the other forum has been a bit 'robust' of late where as this one is generally a lot calmer.

It would be pointless and boring if they were identical.

[Manko]

Latest update....I went to Thorpe st Andrew Town Council's meeting tonight and spoke to Steven Ford, the Town Clerk. The BA have agreed to do some maintenance on River Green. 'Capping' I was told, although I'm not quite sure what that involves.

Steven confirmed that the BA don't intend to renew the lease on the moorings, which runs out in 2017.

Two members of the public spoke on this issue at the meeting, both expressing their concern that when the lease expires new Bylaws need to be in place to control mooring at River Green. In my opinion the response from TSA Town Council was hugely dismissive of their concern and this doesn't bode well.

I would hate to see these moorings become a free for all for, what shall we say, undesirables. Unpoliced and unrestricted mooring could lead to this. The council's attitude was breathtaking when you consider what a lengthy process introducing new Bylaws can be.

Steven Ford also mentioned there may be a possibility of charging for mooring. I personally can't see how that could work. Already boats wishing to moor have to negotiate the low bridges at either end of the island. To then face a mooring charge on top of the lack of facilities, well it's a nail in the coffin of mooring here. Why bother? Currently there are no shops, ugly metal fences covering large chunks of the quay heading, the rubbish bins are covered in signs warning boaters not to leave rubbish in them, and even the local Buck has closed yet again..that's another can of worms altogether.

Incidentally, the spies are out in force. My neighbour encountered an individual photographing and cataloging all of the boats in the vicinity last week. He challenged them, and the 'spy' was reluctant to reveal anything at all, except that he wasn't working for the Broads Authority. TSA Town Council confirmed that he was nothing to do with them either. It wasn't you was it Paladine?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guest]

.............Incidentally, the spies are out in force. My neighbour encountered an individual photographing and cataloging all of the boats in the vicinity last week. He challenged them, and the 'spy' was reluctant to reveal anything at all, except that he wasn't working for the Broads Authority. TSA Town Council confirmed that he was nothing to do with them either. It wasn't you was it Paladine?........

 

You don't consider that a little Aggressive Manko ?

 

Accusing Paladine of "Cataloging"  ?

 

I can sympathise with a lot that you have said in your post otherwise...

[Manko]

It was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it doesn't translate well to print, Strowager .

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

It was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it doesn't translate well to print, Strowager .

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

In fairness and in all honesty I read Manko's comment as being tongue in cheek. In this instance I can appreciate Manko's cynicism just as I can Paladine's thorough research and subsequent comment. Both approaches are relevant in this debate.

 

The BA is walking away from this and if the local council don't wake up and smell the coffee then quite possibly the 'new age mariners' will move in, unregulated, unwashed and largely unwelcome. Sensibly organised then the moorings could provide an income to Thorpe and create an attractive asset.

[Hockham Admiral]

It was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but it doesn't translate well to print, Strowager .

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Just as I read it, too, Peter.

[Guest]

........if the local council don't wake up and smell the coffee then quite possibly the 'new age mariners' will move in, unregulated, unwashed and largely unwelcome. Sensibly organised then the moorings could provide an income to Thorpe and create an attractive asset......

 

I agree with you completely there Peter, and a suitably controlled row of houseboats along that section would not only be an attractive asset to Thorpe Green, but also be excellent proof that licensed "Liveaboards" would be a very welcome addition to the Broadland scenery, as they are in many other picturesque waterside areas of the UK.

 

(Hence my "I can sympathise with a lot that you have said in your post" original comment to Manko.)

[Maxwellian]

We moored there last year. Enjoyed the location and restaurants. Caught the bus into Norwich as well, very convenient. It would be a shame to loose these.

[Hockham Admiral]

I couldn't agree more, Ian. It's a super spot and The Buck is a lovely pub!   :clap

[mbird]

I couldn't agree more, Ian. It's a super spot and The Buck is a lovely pub!   :clap

 

Or it was, according to Manko's post. Shame it's closed, as it looks so attractive, even though I've never had the pleasure of visiting there.

[BroadAmbition]

We passed by last week, there was 7ft under the bridges, I should have stopped off as it ages since I've been there.  Wish I had done so now

 

 

Griff

[NorfolkNog]

Or it was, according to Manko's post. Shame it's closed, as it looks so attractive, even though I've never had the pleasure of visiting there.

Lovely pub, pretty much unspoilt and dates back several centuries I believe. Hope it can reopen soon.

[BroadScot]

All the times we ended our trips at Thorpe St Andrew, at Hearts, we always went over to The Buck Inn. The menu never changed, and was plain good old fashioned pub grub at very good prices. I hope it reopens soon.

 

As for the moorings, I think the BA in this instance have got it wrong IMHO.

 

Iain.

[Paladin]

Latest update....I went to Thorpe st Andrew Town Council's meeting tonight and spoke to Steven Ford, the Town Clerk. The BA have agreed to do some maintenance on River Green. 'Capping' I was told, although I'm not quite sure what that involves.

Steven confirmed that the BA don't intend to renew the lease on the moorings, which runs out in 2017.

Two members of the public spoke on this issue at the meeting, both expressing their concern that when the lease expires new Bylaws need to be in place to control mooring at River Green. In my opinion the response from TSA Town Council was hugely dismissive of their concern and this doesn't bode well.

I would hate to see these moorings become a free for all for, what shall we say, undesirables. Unpoliced and unrestricted mooring could lead to this. The council's attitude was breathtaking when you consider what a lengthy process introducing new Bylaws can be.

Steven Ford also mentioned there may be a possibility of charging for mooring. I personally can't see how that could work. Already boats wishing to moor have to negotiate the low bridges at either end of the island. To then face a mooring charge on top of the lack of facilities, well it's a nail in the coffin of mooring here. Why bother? Currently there are no shops, ugly metal fences covering large chunks of the quay heading, the rubbish bins are covered in signs warning boaters not to leave rubbish in them, and even the local Buck has closed yet again..that's another can of worms altogether.

Incidentally, the spies are out in force. My neighbour encountered an individual photographing and cataloging all of the boats in the vicinity last week. He challenged them, and the 'spy' was reluctant to reveal anything at all, except that he wasn't working for the Broads Authority. TSA Town Council confirmed that he was nothing to do with them either. It wasn't you was it Paladine?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Manko, tongue-in-cheek or not, you clearly know nothing about me. I do not 'spy' with a camera. I am open about all my photographic expeditions, wherever they may be. If someone is interested enough to ask me what I am doing, I am very pleased to explain. They would probably regret having asked, though, as my wife says I can talk for England.

 

As it happens, I have been out of the county for the past week, but you may recall there was a discussion about these moorings on NBF quite recently, during which I posted photos I had taken on 13 July 2014 (Dinghy Only signs). That was the last time I visited Thorpe Green. I did try to get a meal in The Buck on that day, but was told they didn't have a chef.

 

Have you thought that, if the 'spy' wasn't working for the BA or the TC, he might just be an avid collector of boat photos, who doesn't like being quizzed or, as you put it, 'challenged'. If the person was taking photos from a public place, of boats in a public place, being 'challenged' might well have put his back up. (I actually have a large collection of Hampton Safari photographs, left over from when I owned one.)

 

If the BA intends not renewing the lease in 2017, the TC has got plenty of time to sort out bye laws of its own, provided it gets its collective finger out.

 

BroadScot, it is interesting that you mention your visits to Thorpe Green in association with Hearts. Perhaps that is the problem. It's 12 years since Heart Cruisers closed down. Fewer boats visiting the Green, now the BA is obviously looking at value for the toll payers pound.

[Paladin]

Dajen, the BA held a Moorings Workshop Meeting at the end of July. This is not open to the public, but includes various 'stakeholders'. Who knows, other 24 hour moorings might be in the frame for handing back to their owners. Two of the moorings at Irstead Shoals and a section of the mooring at Ludham Bridge have already been dealt with in this manner recently.

[Paladin]

The number of moorings hasn't decreased, only the cost to the toll payer. The BA are actually increasing the number of their moorings.

[kfurbank]

With regards to the person taking photo's of boats, there is a boat database website where you can search for boats by reg number, name, or style of boat. I'm not sure where the person lives, but I'm fairly certain it is not local. Running the site is their hobby and collecting the boat photo's, reg numbers and boat names is often undertaken during their holiday time visiting The Broads. It sounds like it could well have been this person. As has been pointed out, taking photo's and noting down boat names and reg numbers in public is not illegal and they shouldn't be harassed for doing so.

 

With regard to the moorings, there seems to be some concern that the council are not considering new byelaws for when the moorings are handed back. The reason cited is that they may become a free for all. Is not the real reason that if they become full with to quote "undesirables" then there would be no room to leave dinghy's by the residents on the island opposite? Likewise I suspect that is the same reason why the idea of mooring charges being introduced is not so popular!!!

 

It seems strange that there should be a worry about the moorings becoming a free for all, warranting the need for new byelaws, by the same people who today blatantly ignore the current BA byelaws. To the best of my knowledge the BA have reserved an area of these moorings for dinghy's, which still doesn't stop them mooring outside the reserved area, but haven't altered the 24hr byelaw for these moorings which is often flouted by the dinghy owners. The 24hr element states no mooring for longer than 24hr, AND no return within 24 hrs, which is the bit that is conveniently overlooked.

 

As it happens I think that the moorings opposite Thorpe Green look to be well run and agree that such places should exist and be encouraged for those who chose to live on their boat all year round. However taking on board the concerns for the future of the Thorpe Green moorings and the current blatant abuse of the byelaws, is it not time that the owner of the moorings opposite Thorpe Green makes an approach to the BA, or Thorpe town council for when the moorings are returned and tries to lease a portion of the moorings to provide a transit facility for the long term benefit of the residents.

[marshman]

All moorings are in the frame for handing back to the owners if the terms of the lease are too onerous but, i believe their aim is to have BA moorings every 30 mins or so - thats a long term aim but just because some of the moorings are underused, particularly on the Southern Rivers, it does not mean they should not be there.

 

Thorpe Green is surrounded by other moorings and its loss is pretty irrelevant when I can think of 4 moorings within half an hour or so. 

 

Its all very well Dave you suggesting that Hardley Cross ( I suspect!!) is underused but that I guess was easy to set up as the piling was already in place - where do you think they need one? Is the piling already in place and is the landowner in agreement to its use at a realistic rent? Nothing is ever as straightforward as just making statements such as that!!!

[Matt]

In may half term we crossed Breydon Thursday about 6pm from North to South. There were a few boats moored up at the Berney Arms and one at Pyes Mill (neither moorings appeal to us with young children). Reedham was our destination but upon arrival it was nose to tail and nobody seemed keen for us to double moor so we carried onto Hardley Cross where we spent a lovely evening all on our own!

[Manko]

With regards to the person taking photo's of boats, there is a boat database website where you can search for boats by reg number, name, or style of boat. I'm not sure where the person lives, but I'm fairly certain it is not local. Running the site is their hobby and collecting the boat photo's, reg numbers and boat names is often undertaken during their holiday time visiting The Broads. It sounds like it could well have been this person. As has been pointed out, taking photo's and noting down boat names and reg numbers in public is not illegal and they shouldn't be harassed for doing so.

With regard to the moorings, there seems to be some concern that the council are not considering new byelaws for when the moorings are handed back. The reason cited is that they may become a free for all. Is not the real reason that if they become full with to quote "undesirables" then there would be no room to leave dinghy's by the residents on the island opposite? Likewise I suspect that is the same reason why the idea of mooring charges being introduced is not so popular!!!

It seems strange that there should be a worry about the moorings becoming a free for all, warranting the need for new byelaws, by the same people who today blatantly ignore the current BA byelaws. To the best of my knowledge the BA have reserved an area of these moorings for dinghy's, which still doesn't stop them mooring outside the reserved area, but haven't altered the 24hr byelaw for these moorings which is often flouted by the dinghy owners. The 24hr element states no mooring for longer than 24hr, AND no return within 24 hrs, which is the bit that is conveniently overlooked.

As it happens I think that the moorings opposite Thorpe Green look to be well run and agree that such places should exist and be encouraged for those who chose to live on their boat all year round. However taking on board the concerns for the future of the Thorpe Green moorings and the current blatant abuse of the byelaws, is it not time that the owner of the moorings opposite Thorpe Green makes an approach to the BA, or Thorpe town council for when the moorings are returned and tries to lease a portion of the moorings to provide a transit facility for the long term benefit of the residents.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manko]

With regards to the person taking photo's of boats, there is a boat database website where you can search for boats by reg number, name, or style of boat. I'm not sure where the person lives, but I'm fairly certain it is not local. Running the site is their hobby and collecting the boat photo's, reg numbers and boat names is often undertaken during their holiday time visiting The Broads. It sounds like it could well have been this person. As has been pointed out, taking photo's and noting down boat names and reg numbers in public is not illegal and they shouldn't be harassed for doing so.

With regard to the moorings, there seems to be some concern that the council are not considering new byelaws for when the moorings are handed back. The reason cited is that they may become a free for all. Is not the real reason that if they become full with to quote "undesirables" then there would be no room to leave dinghy's by the residents on the island opposite? Likewise I suspect that is the same reason why the idea of mooring charges being introduced is not so popular!!!

It seems strange that there should be a worry about the moorings becoming a free for all, warranting the need for new byelaws, by the same people who today blatantly ignore the current BA byelaws. To the best of my knowledge the BA have reserved an area of these moorings for dinghy's, which still doesn't stop them mooring outside the reserved area, but haven't altered the 24hr byelaw for these moorings which is often flouted by the dinghy owners. The 24hr element states no mooring for longer than 24hr, AND no return within 24 hrs, which is the bit that is conveniently overlooked.

As it happens I think that the moorings opposite Thorpe Green look to be well run and agree that such places should exist and be encouraged for those who chose to live on their boat all year round. However taking on board the concerns for the future of the Thorpe Green moorings and the current blatant abuse of the byelaws, is it not time that the owner of the moorings opposite Thorpe Green makes an approach to the BA, or Thorpe town council for when the moorings are returned and tries to lease a portion of the moorings to provide a transit facility for the long term benefit of the residents.

I am familiar with Horning.org and it's boat database, and I don't think that the person photographing boats was from there. I'd be surprised anyway, as they were so cagey. If I encountered the chap who runs that database I'd be interested to have a natter about boats with him. I gather this person didn't want to talk at all.

I must clarify, it was taken as read that because I used the word 'challenged' in my original post that somehow aggression was involved. This was not the case at all. This is a classic example of how the terms used in a post can be read whichever way the observer wishes to interpret them. To add the word 'harassment' to the debate extrapolates the misinterpretation much further. There was no aggression and no harassment at all.

Moving on, I am not against charges or the possibility of undesirables long term mooring because I use a dinghy to cross the river. That accusation is off the mark. I stated that I don't see how charging could work. Who would collect fees? How would it be administered? How much would be charged? Would you charge the same for a dinghy as a 40ft cruiser? How would it be enforced? All relevant questions.

As for undesirables....well, I live a peaceful life here most f the time as do my neighbours. I remember a boat turning up here maybe five years ago. To cut a long story short after about an hour of police activity, two police vans, police dogs, an electric stun shield, aggressive resistance to arrest, police bitten by one of two huge aggressive dogs, etc etc both occupants of the boat were arrested. This boat is well known around here, and believe me you wouldn't want to be moored near it, or in fact near it in any capacity. It is still around.

If that boat moved in, it would be a nightmare for everyone. Nothing to do with wanting to moor my dinghy, as I say.

Interestingly the dinghies only signs are largely ignored by dinghy users. I can't defend this, other than to point out that it is not enforced in any way, but I'm sure if it was everyone here would comply. Unfortunately the signs are only visible from the river, and certainly where I moor my dinghy, it is one of the favoured spots for fishermen, even though there are 'No Fishing' signs there which are routinely ignored too.

As for 'blatant abuse f the Bylaws'? Oh, come on. We're not a bunch of lawless savages just because we use small dinghies to cross the river, and technically we shouldn't return within 24 hours once we've crossed the river? At least we are actually using the moorings...! That's what they are there for. If we were abating 20 foot plus cruisers over there indefinitely I could understand complaints but a few dinghies is hardly Armageddon, especially as they are not permanently there.

Interestingly my landlord here originally tried to install a chain ferry to get to the island. He even tested it. The BA put the brakes on that plan. I think it could have worked well.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MBA Marine]

Ever since I have been visiting the Island I have said there should be a chain ferry, shame the BA stopped it. my only concern would be that drunken fools might try and play with it and cross at night, you could not lock it as if the lock is on the Island side you could not get across from the green side and visa versa although their must be a way. 

[boatmadmike]

I used to have hearts b4 they closed down.been going with them for 10yrs.not many hire boats moor there due to the bridges i had trouble getting in and out off boatyard