Paddy's Lane moorings face closure?

[MauriceMynah]

Over 200 people in under 24 hours signed a petition without sufficient evidence that there was a problem (and yes, I was one of them.) but I wonder how many more would have signed it had there been more of an issue.

 

If nothing else this incident gives us an indication of the minimum number of people who are keeping their fingers on the pulse.

[Mowjo]

My sentiments exactly Maurice, the thing is everything I've read and the reply from Angie says it's being discussed, nowhere have I read it's actually going, reading between the lines it reads to me that BA are saying that in their opinion they no longer see why they should pay for something that in their view isn't used, but if NWT want to take it over BA will contribute to it's upkeep,

 

 

Frank,,,

 

Tell a fib! it does basically say that if NWT or someone else dosn't pay it will go, but whether they will remove it or just let it rot away it doesn't say,,,

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Yes, quite a pertinent point from Angie there, and very valid for the BA to balance the cost to the toll payers compared with the specfic benefits we would get back in return.

 

I cycle down the hill to Barton Turf Staithe quite frequently, and I've been asked several times by visiting boaters walking up, "where's the nearest Pub mate", or "where's the shop".....

 

...and then seeing them turn round and give up, on hearing how many miles it is.

 

 

Hi all,

 

i have`nt commented on this thread because i have`nt seen it til now.

 

I think the BA`s response about the relevence of the boardwalk to do with no visitor facilities is complete rubbish. Just because there are no commercial facilities in the area does`nt mean there`s no need to maintain an adequate access way to get to moorings.

 

A very valid point is made by Andy (Freedom) which is the MOST relevent point here, and that is for emergency access, be it for an engineer to reach a stricken, or even sinking boat, or worse, an ambulance or fire crew to attend an onboard emergency.

 

As far as the comment goes regarding Barton Turf Staithe, in comparison to Paddy`s lane moorings it`s tiny.

 

We went to Barton Turf in June this year which was the first time we`ve ever been there. We moored at the staithe BECAUSE we did`nt know if there was access to the village in case of any emergency, or we needed a shop, though we did`nt know that had gone too.

 

I know (and so do many on here) i tend to be rather synical, but i can`t help thinking that although the BA want to stop funding the boardwalk, in the hope that whoever takes it over cannot maintain a budget to keep it in a safe usable state, which may in futire.make access to the moorings impossible, therefore visiting boats don`t use them anymore, thus justifying the BA to do away with them altogether.

 

As has been mentioned above though, nothing like this has been said, but i will still have my suspicions.

[Oddfellow]

The safe and usable state I think is the key point here. 

 

if nobody will maintain it, it is more likely to be removed as the removal of official access will also mitigate any claim for injury or loss from whoever owns the land. 

 

What may fully determine the future of the boardwark is whether it is a proper and designated Public Right of Way. 

 

I feel that the argument that there are no facilities in the village is a very flimsy one. There's no facilities at plenty of other moorings that have boardwalks either. 

[ChrisB]

The loss of access will be a blow to those of us who day boat in winters shortest days and like to go for a walk from there. Freedom has a valid point re service to hire boats. I think the community shop delivers there from Neatishead. Dog fouling will increase unless bins are provided (how will they be emptied?) as will litter. Also as already stated many people will walk to Neatishead for a drink etc rather than risk the dodgems of Lime Kiln Dyke and Neatishead Staithe. I am not sure if there is a H&S issue?? I have often thought that I would like sight of the risk assessment file at the BA with regards to a number of their mooring policies and decisions.

[Hylander]

ChrisB   you can always ask under the 'Freedom of Information Act'.

[marshman]

How can the BA guarantee to maintain access over land they don't own?? Everyone knows how difficult it is to "force" landowners to do something they do not wish to do and as a lessee or licensee in these circumstances you have absolutely no control.

 

It would seem sensible to allow negotiations to run their course and await some definite news than to continue to spout on about rumours without basis - of course the boardwalk is handy and my guess is that it will sort itself out BUT if the BA does agree to maintain it, should it come out of the Navigation budget?? That will get you pondering.....   

[JennyMorgan]

Just a thought, I have previously raised the point that the boardwalk is not just for boaters thus the cost should be spread across tolls and into the National Park grant that covers other users. I wonder too if the Hire Boat Federation would dip their hand into their undoubted coffers for a contribution, their members have boats that break down there, or the local parish council might even see the advantage of the boardwalks existence.  Whatever, I don't see why boaters should shoulder the full cost when it is also used by other folk.

 

MM, edited to say that I see that we now have some similar thoughts!

[Guest]

...... I wonder too if the Hire Boat Federation would dip their hand into their undoubted coffers for a contribution, their members have boats that break down there.....

 

A good point Peter, people on here have already raised the usefulness of land access for hire companies to give breakdown assistance.

 

If it saves them time and money, and helps their clients, it seems only fair that they should help pay for the upkeep costs.

[ChrisB]

On another forum they are saying that Barton Turf Adventure Centre are the other party along with the BA and not NWT. But I was always under the impression that BTAC took over from and leased the land from Hertfordshire County Council Education Department. 

[Paul]

There does seem to be a tendency amongst some people that as soon as something needs paying for to invent a reason why hire boat yards ought to bear the cost. They are rarely convincing and this time is no different. Any benefit to the hire boat yards for access to break downs is equally valid for private owners, perhaps more so as yards have a far greater infrastructure to offer assistance by water than most private owners.

 

I would not like to see access lost, mainly because Pennygate Staithe (note the correct name, not Barton Turf Staithe, which doesn't exist) is one of my favourite moorings and will become very busy if Paddy's Lane was to become isolated. Perhaps there is an argument that the boardwalk, giving access to a 24 hour mooring should be funded in part at least from the navigation account, which yards already fund very heavily with their multiplied tolls remember.

 

I do wonder whether, if the boardwalk was funded from the nav account, it would be being earmarked for abandonment?

[marshman]

I was never aware of this land actually being NWT - they may have some management contribution but if so probably only voluntary.

 

i think the Heater is something to do with them but again not sure whether they actually own it. I believe that the actual owner of the land in question may even be Hertfordshire CC who may sublet it to the Barton Turf Adventure Centre - so its perhaps a "rubbish" issue with HCC!!!! Convoluted or not??? Of course it could even be let to HCC so that would complicate matters thrice more!!! Whoever actually owns it makes it seem to get further and further away from the BA!!

 

Probably no chance of getting a sensible outcome - time perhaps to just to get yer wellies on and sort it with Forum Memberts!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

Paul, don't want to be contentious but it was a yard owner who reinforced the need for access by repair teams, plus hire yards make money out of the Broads, sometimes a great deal, private boats don't, just a thought.

[JennyMorgan]

I wonder if the lack of handrails & H&E, whoops, H&S requirements has something to do with it?

[RumPunch]

 

because Pennygate Staithe (note the correct name, not Barton Turf Staithe, which doesn't exist)

 

Eh ? What do you base that on ? I could possibly concede Paddy's Lane to Pennygate, but Barton Turf Staithe not existing .....

 

That's new to me, the Barton Turf History Project ( http://www.barton-turf.co.uk/staithes.html ) and probably most of the village.

[Guest]

There does seem to be a tendency amongst some people that as soon as something needs paying for to invent a reason why hire boat yards ought to bear the cost. They are rarely convincing and this time is no different. Any benefit to the hire boat yards for access to break downs is equally valid for private owners, perhaps more so as yards have a far greater infrastructure to offer assistance by water than most private owners........

 

There's no "invention" in understanding that hire yards can save considerable overheads in staff time by being able to get to a breakdown by land at 40mph rather than water transport at 5mph.  A consideable number of hours can be saved.

 

The promptness of their rescue service to their hire customers is greatly enhanced, offsetting the disappointment at the boat having a fault.

 

...and far more hire craft appear to have emergency call outs at moorings than private craft, probably due to their far heavier continuous use of the waterways during the season.

[JennyMorgan]

Only 40 m.p.h.! Wow!!! 

[Guest]

Only 40 m.p.h.! Wow!!! 

 

Yes, maybe a tad faster Peter, the sixth emergency service, speeding on its way to distraught customers down so many God-forsaken country lanes and farm tracks...  

[Baitrunner]

Cant seem to find the sign part - any helpers or is it closed?

[ReedRunner]

lol.....

 

 

[Oddfellow]

It's disappointing that we're edging towards an us and them discussion here again. 

 

The benefits of road access to major moorings are clear whether the moorings are used by Hire or Private vessels. 

 

There are too few public moorings anyway and many of what already exist are poorly serviced. The removal of further services from moorings, the vast majority of which do not offer water or refuse disposal, even fewer with showers or toilets, would be detrimental to all boaters.

 

I simply highlighted one of my concerns about this that wasn't already in the melting pot. 

[Hockham Admiral]

It's disappointing that we're edging towards an us and them discussion here again. 

 

 

Quite so, Andy.

 

We have enough with pro and anti BA without extending it to Private/Hire, surely?

[Guest]

It's disappointing that we're edging towards an us and them discussion here again.........

 

A good "Forum" is a polite exchange of opinions and views.

 

That is exactly what has occurred so far on this thread, with no personal insults or animosity. 

 

All points of view have been aired, with no favouritism shown to either "side".

 

We can't all see things the same way, nor should we, it's human nature.

 

As long as it doesn't sour into personal attacks I can't see any problem. Everyone's personal opinion is published for all to see.

[JennyMorgan]

The pro and anti brigade, whether BA or private/hire or sail/motor is, to my way of thinking, a perception that is often hard to justify. I know that I get accused of being  'anti BA', but that's simply not so. However I am anti what I judge to be 'anti Broads'. Strowager has stated the obvious that a breakdown call out is more likely to be from a hire yard, that doesn't make him anti hire, surely. Hopefully we can ALL continue to state our opinions without being labelled as pro or anti.

[Guest]

....Hopefully we can ALL continue to state our opinions without being labelled as pro or anti.

 

Absolutely right Peter.

 

..or it couldn't claim to be a forum.