Hickling Broad

[ExMemberBobdog]

Hickling and Horsey are special because of their remoteness and solitude.  Beautiful and quiet.  If people want to share the beauty they can do so in day boats and smaller craft.  One of the joys of the Broads is the variety of its offerings The last thing we need is to turn this unique area into another Oulton, Horning or Wroxham with an endless stream of big boats.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

You CAN`T moor overnight and sleep in a dayboat.  Back in the 70s in the Broads hey day, most boats could get under the bridge because it still had decent headroom at alws. I rememeber reading a post elswhere, where one of the old Brooms "Admiral" went through with an airdraught of around 7ft 2ins, and the upper Thurne network was`nt anywhere near as busy as the likes of Oulton broad or Gt Yarmouth. The reason being was because there was`nt a lot to attract people, so what you had was a small group of people who wanted to spend a few days pottering around somewhere nice and peaceful, maybe for fishing, or maybe for just getting away from the crowds?. So why should it not be the same now, after all, with the increasing numbers of high ltop boats, and the number of hire boats being considerably LESS than in the 70s, i can`t see the problem. If local people don`t want any cruisers in those waters because THEY like the peace and quiet all to themselves, is`nt that a blatant example of selfishness?. The broads are for ALL as someone posted either yeasterday or today on another thread elswhere, or is that only if they suit YOUR SELFISH ideals. 

 

We all like to have things "our way", but in reality we can`t, so with this in mind, you might think to consider dropping the NIMBY stance?.

[Bonzo]

Despite one of my earlier posts which was somewhat tongue in cheek (Belfast's guns and Tower Bridge) I think Potter Heigham Bridge should stay there for evermore. Perhaps I am a bit biased on this subject as my boat will pass through the bridge at any state of the tide.

 

When you look at the mooring facilities above the bridge they would never accommodate the number of boats that would go there. The amount of smaller craft that will go through the bridge limits any impact on the wildlife.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

You've made it very clear how much you hate bridge Neil ! 

 

I wonder how many other Broads users feel the same way as you do though, and that it should be removed or raised, to allow bigger and much more boating traffic through, making it just as busy as the rest of the Broads ?

 

It would be interesting to see the results on a vote thread on it.....

 

To be honest Strow, with your views belittling the e-petition on the subject of the BNP gathering a significantly few in number signatures, why do you think a poll on this forum would be representative of fealing on the subject?.

 

Having cake and eating it,

 

Pot calling kettle black,

 

and the word Hypocracy come strongly to mind.

[Guest]

To be honest Strow, with your views belittling the e-petition on the subject of the BNP gathering a significantly few in number signatures, why do you think a poll on this forum would be representative of fealing on the subject?.

 

Having cake and eating it,

 

Pot calling kettle black,

 

and the word Hypocracy come strongly to mind.

 

Not at all Neil, I'm sorry that my opinions annoy you so much.

 

My only "belittling" of the BA NP ePetition was that it was too wide in its scope as it was a total vote of no confidence in the BA, rather than a focussed public vote on how many people object to the BA renaming themselves as a National Park. (A view that seemed to be shared by a lot of people on these Internet forums when it was launched.)

 

As for voting, I have no hypocrisy there at all. 

 

The petition has gathered a very small percentage of votes, considering that it is an official government website based petition open to anyone in the country.

 

If there was a simple vote on this forum on whether Potter bridge should be removed to allow unlimited access to the 10 miles of upper Thurne and Hickling, it would be a much more representative,  albeit a small sample of Broads boaters, hirers and private.

 

The crucial difference would be that people could vote "yes" or "no", so the support for both options could be revealed.

 

You feel so strongly about the bridge that it's reasonable to assume that others may too.

 

However, when you look back over this thread,it looks as though there might be quite a few "no" votes already.....

[BroadScot]

Mod hat very much off!

 

I rarely get involved in heated discussions, I like to read and digest all replies. However, on behalf of us hirers I think work should be done so we get to see the wonderous world of Hickling Broad, without the additional expense of hiring a day boat!

 

On a hypothetical question, I think. What IF a boatyard through modern technology designed many cruisers that could go through the PH Bridge, would they be banned because it only suited others who wish a permenant place of tranquility.

 

I, like Neil, remember going up to Hickling, Horseymere and West Sommerton on boats of different heights and widths in the 70's and 80's and yes the 90's also. I have only been through once since the Millenium it was a two berth named Sabre Princess. Are we only suppose to drive to the PB inn by car, the same for Martham Kings Arms? or use a dayboat, which for me now is a no no. It was me who said earlier the Broads are for ALL, but, having read many replies, that thought is disappearing very quickly!  Rant over...for now.

 

 

Iain

[Guest]

There you go, it would be a very interesting vote.

 

That looks like two "for" votes now, if I understand Iain correctly... 

[JennyMorgan]

Iain, even some privateers have to hire if they wish to go under Potter,  I have hired off Hunters for the purpose. Personally I'd hate to see Potter Bridge destroyed. Folk can always hire a paddle board or Canadian canoe from Martham Boats 

[Soundings]

Well I for one do not want more boats up on HIckling. Just because you hire a big boat at a relatively high cost does not mean you should have access. In fact it is probably a good reason not to have access. There are small cruisers that will go under and upon which one can sleep. Our old Freeman goes through easily as do the broads sailies

 

Yes the Broads are for all and not all want the same!

[BroadScot]

I once had to navigate through a regatta on Hickling, which was awash with yachts of all shapes and sizes. When I arrived at PB Inn there were three cruisers. Later that day five at Horseymere and when I arrived at my favourite spot, West Sommerton, there were two other 32ft Alphas so not exactly a floatilla of cruisers, this was in early July. 

 

There has to be an answer to all the problems above and below the bridge. Its a case of finding them ! Removing it is not an option, that I do agree with.

 

 

Iain.

[BroadScot]

Iain, even some privateers have to hire if they wish to go under Potter,  I have hired off Hunters for the purpose. Personally I'd hate to see Potter Bridge destroyed. Folk can always hire a paddle board or Canadian canoe from Martham Boats 

JM you'd need a crane to drop me into a canoe, paddle it and crane me back out! lol As for quanting a Hunter through, no ta very much

 

 

Iain

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

To tput Strow rightr, i`m not in favour of removing Potter Bridge either. I do however think it should, because it CAN quite easily and economically be raised by 12" so as to allow the passage of traditional broads designed boats with either lowering tops, and single level floors. Yes, i have said jokingly in the past about "blowing up the bridge", but elsewhere i`ve stated that Repps would`nt be the same without it, and it should be raised.

 

One thing i find annoying is the attitude "i live there and prefer it the way it has been allowed to become, as this as i said above is pure selfish NYMBYism. Where would we all be if we were ALL to adopt that attitude?.

 

One other thing, using Strows theories, if a boat is unable to proceed through ALL the bridges, would it be fair to charge LESS for the river tolls because of the lesser amount of cruising water?.

 

I wonder how much discontent that would cause?.

[JennyMorgan]

Speed, everyone has the right to buy or hire a boat that will pass under Potter, their choice.

[ExMemberBobdog]

Lovely up on Hickling ...

[ExMemberBobdog]

In the words of the great Sid Kipper, "they reckon Norfolk's all unspoilt, so then they come and spoil it".

[smellyloo]

I don't live there but when I visit by day boat it is quite magical.

 

I'm afraid it would not be so if there were a line of large stinkies ploughing their way to the pub.

 

So leave the bridge alone.

 

I would however quite like to see formally navigable stretches re-instated such as the Waveney to Bungay.

 

I know this is unlikely ever to happen but it would be nice.

[Guest]

To tput Strow rightr, i`m not in favour of removing Potter Bridge either. I do however think it should, because it CAN quite easily and economically be raised by 12" so as to allow the passage of traditional broads designed boats with either lowering tops, and single level floors. Yes, i have said jokingly in the past about "blowing up the bridge", but elsewhere i`ve stated that Repps would`nt be the same without it, and it should be raised.

 

One thing i find annoying is the attitude "i live there and prefer it the way it has been allowed to become, as this as i said above is pure selfish NYMBYism. Where would we all be if we were ALL to adopt that attitude?.

 

One other thing, using Strows theories, if a boat is unable to proceed through ALL the bridges, would it be fair to charge LESS for the river tolls because of the lesser amount of cruising water?.

 

I wonder how much discontent that would cause?.

 

Sorry Neil, I've tried to always quote you as just wanting the restriction of the bridge removed by either raising or removing it, and not that you would wish it to be blown up.

 

The proposed vote on here  could simply ask whether the restriction imposed by the bridge should be somehow overcome to enable much greater access to the 10 miles above it, thereby greatly increasing the number of boats using it, or leaving it as it is, a much quieter area, accessible by anyone in a boat with an air draught of about 6 feet 3 inches or less on average.

 

The prospect of charging different toll rates for the waters accessible by different sizes of boats sounds fair in theory, but the borderline cases may be difficult to manage, and it would seem there's quite a large  proportion of craft that fall in that category. In any case, it would represent a variation of less than 10%, since the whole system is some 120 miles, and the area above the bridge is less than 10 miles.

 

To be fair, it would also have to assess which higher air draught craft can't get above other bridges, such as Wroxham, Ludham, and Wayford, and adjust their tolls accordingly, so the admin costs may exceed any gain to the tollpayers.

 

In practice though, everyone pays the full toll fee and yet a great many choose to never venture through Yarmouth, so they're only using half the system, they're choice, I agree, but they still don't seek a discount.

 

The desire to keep the upper Thurne and Hickling as unspoilt as it is now would only be NIMBYism if people were being denied access.

 

As has been said many times, anyone, hirer or private, has access in any craft with a suitable air-draught.

 

I've always wanted to cruise that area, so I've always bought or hired suitable craft to enable passage under the bridge.

 

You have the same choice Neil.

[Bonzo]

Perhaps an answer to the problem is for boatyards negotiate a discount for their hirers to rent a dayboat  when visiting. I know it would mean that the hirers would not be able to stay overnight at  Hickling, Horsey and Somerton but at least they could experience the beauty of the area. The dayboat companies may see an increase in trade and perhaps may need to increase their fleets.

[Gracie]

Like Iain I don't get involved in heavy debate/Broads politics, partly because I don't understand the half of it and I'm not as clever as some of you at putting my point across but i would just like to say that in my opinion it would be a tragedy if we were to lose the beautiful, historic Bridge that is Potter.

 

i have no clue to what the answer is but to fork out for a day Boat after spending a lot of money on hiring a Cruiser is a big ask for some people, money isn't everything when you've got a lot of it but everything to folk who haven't

 

My parents always hired in the school holidays and I have some wonderful memories of mooring at Hickling, fishing and sitting at the pub with a lemonade, it being one of our favourite places to moor overnight and I have no memory of it being like the Ant on a Saturday afternoon. Not all Hirers are maniacs going full throttle ,drunk as skunks and just out to spoil the peace and quiet, most of us love the Broads just as much as locals, as has been said already you can't stay overnight on the water in a day boat. We would love to take our children to stay up there, hopefully we will one day but for the time being we will just have to put up with the rest of the Broads, maybe under Wroxham Bridge and the magical Cruise up to Coltishall, now that would be a different story if we couldn't get under Wroxham, I'd blow the bloody thing up myself 

 

Grace

[JawsOrca]

Personally and don't take this the wrong way! But I think it's a bit selfish for a boater to say "Remove the Bridge", although I don't think anyone is actually saying it (My previous comments have always been tongue in cheek!). Potter bridge is lovely and it's a asset to potter and it was be dreadful to see it played around with too much.  This problem isn't limited to the broads and I'm sure the argument is always resolved with an "Oh well" attitude.. There's not much we can do about it .. the bridge was there before us so lets go the pub!  I do suspect we have a slightly unique problem whereas the pesky bridge keeps sinking and arguably something probably should be done about that, either try and restore it to its original draft or at least stop it from sinking any further, but I suspect that would be a very costly and it's probably not the best use of money considering the very few it would affect (It does make me wonder why road traffic is still permitted across considering this and considering it's a nasty bridge to try and cross on foot).   Don't forget also potter new bridge just the other side which is the main A road is only a foot higher so there is no way that will be moved!

 

Thankfully we have had some of the best nights afloat on upstream of the bridge when hiring with Marthams so I do hope at the very least these boats can still get through and all they are IMHO one of the best yards on the broads and well worth looking at when hiring! For me who only started boating in the late 90's it was brilliant to experience a "proper" boating holiday away from the plastic boats!

 

With regards to the broads condition, I don't know enough about it to understand the problems although I hope something can be sorted soon the broad sounds like it needs a helping hand Please keep us updated.

 

[GeoffandWendy]

I tend to agree with Grace, not to get involved with politics as far as the Broads are concerned.  Potter bridge is a grade 2 listed structure, so it isn't going to be tampered with to either raise it, or remove it and replace it with a higher bridge, just for the sake of boaters. It is after all a medieval bridge and should be protected. Hopefully our aim is to visit Hickling Broad in April, as our hire boat will go under PH subject to the water table and the pilot of course, we will have to see.

 

We shall definitely be taking a run up to Coltishall as I believe this is a lovely stretch of river. As far as hiring boats are concerned, if a hirer chooses a boat that will not go under PH or Wroxham bridges, then a reduction of hire cost should be taken into account. (maybe £20 less per week), that is lees than having to hire a day boat, if one wants to visit Hickling.

[smellyloo]

 

 

 

If a hirer chooses a boat that will not go under PH or Wroxham bridges, then a reduction of hire cost should be taken into account. (maybe £20 less per week), that is lees than having to hire a day boat, if one wants to visit Hickling.

 

A nice thought but how would you know if the £20 discount had been applied?

 

As long as the boatyard are up front about where your chosen boat can go then you can make an informed choice.

[Wussername]

Is the Bridge sinking?

Across the bridge is a mettalic road. Connected on both sides of the bridge to the bank. From each bank there is a continuation of the mettalic road. As far as I'm aware mettalic roads are not very flexible, and if they are I would not have thought that the road surface would be flexible enough to compensate for any significant sinking of the bridge.

I would therefore expect to see, as the bridge sinks, regular maintenance on each side of the bridge to repair the gap between the static, stable road and that which is effected by the sinking bridge.

Is anyone aware that this has happened in the past or during the last few years?

If this is an occurring event, then yes, the bridge is sinking.

If not, perhaps other factors need to be taken into consideration.

[Guest]

....... I do suspect we have a slightly unique problem whereas the pesky bridge keeps sinking and arguably something probably should be done about that, either try and restore it to its original draft or at least stop it from sinking any further, but I suspect that would be a very costly and it's probably not the best use of money considering the very few it would affect (It does make me wonder why road traffic is still permitted across considering this and considering it's a nasty bridge to try and cross on foot).   Don't forget also potter new bridge just the other side which is the main A road is only a foot higher so there is no way that will be moved!.......

 

I'm afraid the frequently heard idea that Potter Bridge is sinking relative to land is quite wrong.

 

As someone recently mentioned elsewhere on the internet,  Potter bridge has been standing there since 1385, so how likely is it that it could sunk into the ground a few inches only within the last 50 years ?

 

It would be underwater by now if that sinkage rate was steady, and if not, how could it have started sinking at that rate in only the last few decades ?

 

Isn't it far more reasonable to accept that Potter Bridge is by coincidence the most visible manifestation of rising sea levels and/or land tilting that is already so well proven ?

 

A narrow semi-circular hole with thousands of boats passing through it each year, where the boats were specifically designed to just about get through ?

 

It then shows dramatically what a difference an inch or two makes to rising water levels.

 

With all the other bridges having a safety margin of at least a foot more, the same reduction on those passes unnoticed.

[JawsOrca]

I happily stand corrected. I'm sure I had heard this from boat yards although sounds like a myth