Shipmeadow R.I.P.

[JennyMorgan]

I have just read that we have lost the moorings at Shipmeadow. Found this comment on Facebook, posted by a friend of mine.

 

Shipmeadow mooring has gone, no way can you moor a boat by the meadow now it's all been destroyed by our beloved navigation authority. Access denied, trespassers will be persecuted, fence erected. Damnable shame.

 

Not only a great shame for us punters but also for the tenants of The Locks. This loss will really put the pressure on the remaining moorings and surely visitor numbers to the Pub. Sheer bloody mindedness in my opinion. Whether down to landowner or Authority, or both, I don't know. Either way, a great loss.

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

We wre there last year, but moored in the lock cut. I took a walk over there to take some pictures, and i have to say, the land was in a bit of a state, making it difficult to walk. I know some riverside land was made off limits by the owners because somebody sprained their ankle when they tripped in a hole, and tried to sue the landowner, whether the landowner at Shipmeadow has done the same, i don`t know, but as you say Peter, a real shame to lose such a valuable mooring facility.

[Liberty]

Where is Shipmeadow?  Not heard of this one...

[JennyMorgan]

Liberty, if you go to the iconic Geldeston Locks you will find a fork in the river just before the pub. The right hand one leads to the 24hr mooring and pub, the left hand fork leads to the Shipmeadow bank of the River Waveney. It has been a popular, informal mooring for generations.

[Guest]

We were there last weekend and walked over the bridge. There was a private motor cruiser moored there and I don't remember any signs, so if things have changed it is very recent.

[JennyMorgan]

Spider, I do know that this has been rumbling on a for several months with various rumours flying around. My friend arrived there yesterday to find the mooring closed.

[Liberty]

Thanks Peter.  We can't get under the bridge, but have been up there by rib.  

 

A beautiful piece of water up there, and a good reminder to explore some more.

[CooWee]

That is a shame, it is one of our favourite places to go, although we weren't able to go there in July.

[Guest]

Peter, do you know the background to this? It is a great loss to those of us who prefer informal moorings and I imagine an even greater one to the pub.

[marshman]

Whilst everything is possible, I doubt it has been the doing of the BA. If this was land actually owned by them, which again I very much doubt, they would have turned it into a 24 hour mooring years ago unless there is an land access problem.

 

i am sure more will come out in due course but it is sometimes a shame that the BA seem to get blamed for everything - sounds to me that the landowner probably has some involvement.

 

Peter is probably out sailing but with a rubbish day forecast for tomorrow I expect he may be in to tell us more - it would be nice to know more and whether the finger is to be pointed at the BA, or more probably on the very brief info so far, the landowner of either that land or surrounding bits.

 

I seem to recall some years ago problems surrounding that field in the past but cannot dig deep enough into my mind to recover it!!!!!!!

[BuffaloBill]

I remember just a few short years ago that there was a

sign saying 'No Mooring'.

A real shame to lose it now though again!

Is it not possible to moor on the starboard bank just

before the entrance to the 24hr moorings?

I feel sure that there is a foot bridge to cross the small

dyke between the two.

Not sure though about the state of the banks!! It's been

a couple of seasons since I last went to The Locks Inn.

[JennyMorgan]

Marshman is right, it's been excellent sailing today.

I have e-mailed some folk who probably do know the answer regarding the mooring.

The Authority might own land there, I believe that they inherited some from the National Rivers Authority.

[JennyMorgan]

have been doing some googling and came up with this:

http://www.broadly-speaking.co.uk/forum/topic821

Two pages of anti BA vitriol, some of which might be helpful, then again it might not! One thing is certain, it's all been rumbling on for a long time.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

If it`s private land, which i would assume it is, as there`s been livestock grazing there, i would`nt have thought the BA would have any say in it. I know i`ve often been critical of the BA for various reasons, but somehow, i don`t think anybody can blame the BA for this. It sounds to me more than likely the farmer / landowner because of a possible threat to livestock, or maybe the result of some personal injury claim by somebody who`s had a few too many sherberts. But as i said, that`s only my thought, but i can`t see the BA being responsible.

[JennyMorgan]

If it`s private land, which i would assume it is, as there`s been livestock grazing there, i wouldn't have thought the BA would have any say in it. I know I've often been critical of the BA for various reasons, but somehow, i don't think anybody can blame the BA for this. It sounds to me more than likely the farmer / landowner because of a possible threat to livestock, or maybe the result of some personal injury claim by somebody who`s had a few too many sherberts. But as i said, that`s only my thought, but i can`t see the BA being responsible.

My thoughts exactly but this issue goes back several years to when the BA decided to become involved when it was decided to improve the footpaths and bridge, not a universally popular decision.

Anyway, I e-mailed a good friend who has been involved with Geldeston over many years and who has a deep, personal interest in the area. This his his response, which I think is absolutely fair:

'My concern a few years back was the totally unnecessary new bridge, fencing, fishing platform and mooring. That was all BA work.

This problem, as I understand it, is the riparian owner who does not want hikers walking to Beccles along his bank (in truth I think that's impossible). Not directly BA's fault but someone should have negotiated with him.

No idea about fencing as there was none when I was there a few weeks back'.

The footpath issue is an interesting one, and having a public footpath over my land I do have some interest in this issue. I understand that the walk from Beccles to Geldeston is very popular and that it is also a part of the Angles Way, as is the footpath outside my front door. In that case it's surely down to the local county councils.

[Paladin]

have been doing some googling and came up with this:

http://www.broadly-speaking.co.uk/forum/topic821

Two pages of anti BA vitriol, some of which might be helpful, then again it might not! One thing is certain, it's all been rumbling on for a long time.

Of the 8 contributors to that thread, only 2 were critical of the BA (usual suspects?).

 

For anyone interested, the planning application, subject of that thread, can be found here.

 

We seem to forget that there is no right to moor on private land. Whether the land in question is owned by the BA or someone else is immaterial.

 

I don't know why the owner has decided to prohibit mooring, but tacitly permitting mooring imposes a duty of care on the owner. The risk of being sued these days is so great that it surprises me that we are still provided with so many informal moorings.

[riyadhcrew]

Of the 8 contributors to that thread, only 2 were critical of the BA (usual suspects?).

 

For anyone interested, the planning application, subject of that thread, can be found here.

 

We seem to forget that there is no right to moor on private land. Whether the land in question is owned by the BA or someone else is immaterial.

 

I don't know why the owner has decided to prohibit mooring, but tacitly permitting mooring imposes a duty of care on the owner. The risk of being sued these days is so great that it surprises me that we are still provided with so many informal moorings.

The last paragraph is an excellent comment and if I was an owner, I would have 'NO RESPONSIBILITY' signs everywhere.

[Guest]

..........Of the 8 contributors to that thread, only 2 were critical of the BA (usual suspects?).........

 

 

I'm afraid that BA bashing is an incurable malady for some....

 

Nice to see a balanced thread with links to factual content.

[Paladin]

Joe Friday was one of my childhood heros 

[JennyMorgan]

I don't know why the owner has decided to prohibit mooring, but tacitly permitting mooring imposes a duty of care on the owner. The risk of being sued these days is so great that it surprises me that we are still provided with so many informal moorings.

My thoughts exactly, a very regrettable sign of the times. I can quite understand the BA not wishing to become involved, corporate liability has to be considered.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

The last paragraph is an excellent comment and if I was an owner, I would have 'NO RESPONSIBILITY' signs everywhere.

 

 

I think, though i`m not 100% sure, that if you allow people on your property, no matter whether it`s a mooring issue, or doestic tradesmen/women, the simple fact that you`ve "allowed them access" to your property means you have accepted liability for their safety and wellbeing, and must have a duty of care towards them, no matter how many warning signs you put up, or whatever they say. As i said, that`s only what i was told, and have beleived, rightly or wrongly, for some time, but i wilfully stand to be corrected, does anybody know more about this?.

 

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

[riyadhcrew]

I work in the hotel business and my example is that if a customer parks their car in the carpark, there are signs that say the hotel will not accept responsibility for the car, or its contents. I have personally witnessed people who TRY to claim for damage or theft and because of the signage, they get nowhere. However, I don't know if that would apply in this case.

[Paladin]

Loss or damage to property is expressly excluded from the duty of care owed by an occupier by the Occupiers Liability Act 1984, which also says that:

 

"An occupier of premises owes a duty to another (not being his visitor)...if —

(a)he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

(b)he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger (in either case, whether the other has lawful authority for being in that vicinity or not); and

( c)the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection."

 

In the case of uneven ground, mole holes, unsafe banks, the protection offered might be in the form of notices warning of the dangers. Or it might simply be easier to erect No Mooring notices. You will note that the duty of care even extends to trespassers.