Mutford Lock

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/significant_investment_for_mutford_lock_on_the_broads_1_4219938

[Hockham Admiral]

So where will all this money come from, I ask myself?

800 boats @ £10/go doesn't even come near the annual maintenance costs, let alone all the rest.

First it was Breydon and hence SofB,  now Mutford Lock.

Methinks that British Ports and Suffolk CC aren't shy about off-loading cash-costing parts of their businesses.

[JawsOrca]

I know I'll get an eyeroll for saying this. But I've always thought transit through there very very good value... and by being so cheap allows boats to berth the other side and avoid paying annual BA tolls. Also consider the fuel and time cost saved going in and out through there, (if coming from the south).  Strange.  I guess the BA are keen to attract visiting boats but subsidising passage for what would be the most wealthy visitors seems a bit strange.

[LondonRascal]

The fact is the lock has been breaking down and generally not reliable for some time and I am sure over all it has been let go for a number of years so on the one hand it is good to see some committed investment into an important entrance into the Broads river system.

Having said the above look at how much infrastructure is used to pass boats through it – two bridges at the lock site itself (the railway bridge just east of it also) then a 2 sets of lock gates so of course it is expensive to keep going .

Compare that to Yarmouth – most traffic that would use this as an entry or exit point would be coming from the southern rivers and many of the boats would be able to pass under Breydon Bridge without it needing to lift leaving Haven Bridge as the bridge that would be used the most.  Get Haven Bridge working smoothly and allow ‘lift on demand’ and you take must surly cause less disruption and costs.

What is needed is an easy way to charge people to use Haven Bridge/Breydon Bridge and I think it would be fair to split such  fee between the companies that operate the bridges and the Broads Authority which then in turn encourages both parties to keep things well oiled and running.

[JennyMorgan]

I have never understood the BA's desire to take on the burdens of both Breydon & Mutford Lock. In a nutshell legislation requires that both are maintained and navigable so the previous owners had to meet that liability. 

As for Mutford Lock boats go both ways, would have thought it perfectly reasonable for both ABP & the BA to meet the cost 50/50 rather than the cost falling 100% on the toll payers' shoulders.

Another point is that the hire fleets pay a toll, yet hire boats can not use Mutford Lock. 

Alan, I use the lock several times a year, I'm hardly a 'most wealthy visitor'! 

[Hockham Admiral]

The fact is the lock has been breaking down and generally not reliable for some time and I am sure over all it has been let go for a number of years 

What is needed is an easy way to charge people to use Haven Bridge/Breydon Bridge and I think it would be fair to split such  fee between the companies that operate the bridges and the Broads Authority which then in turn encourages both parties to keep things well oiled and running.

 

1. They've just spent weeks and a lotta dosh fixing the lock gates, Robin. 

2. In Holland they just hang a fishing line out with an empty wooden clog on the end of it. You put your Euros into that..... it works!

[Hockham Admiral]

I have never understood the BA's desire to take on the burdens of both Breydon & Mutford Lock. In a nutshell legislation requires that both are maintained and navigable so the previous owners had to meet that liability. 

As for Mutford Lock boats go both ways, would have thought it perfectly reasonable for both ABP & the BA to meet the cost 50/50 rather than the cost falling 100% on the toll payers' shoulders.

 

Exactly what I was alluding to, Peter.   

[Hockham Admiral]

I know I'll get an eyeroll for saying this. But I've always thought transit through there very very good value... and by being so cheap allows boats to berth the other side and avoid paying annual BA tolls. Also consider the fuel and time cost saved going in and out through there, (if coming from the south).  Strange.  I guess the BA are keen to attract visiting boats but subsidising passage for what would be the most wealthy visitors seems a bit strange.

Perhaps BA registered boats might be passage-fee exempt, Alan. Then they can charge as much as they like for visitors?

[JawsOrca]

Perhaps BA registered boats might be passage-fee exempt, Alan. Then they can charge as much as they like for visitors?

Sorry no I disagree (With all respect), if you make use of this to leave the BA tolled area (And use it as a short cut) then you should pay the full operating cost percentage to do so (Obviously I'm guessing here and the cost to transit maybe in line with the costs over time etc) but certainly feel it's cheap and certainly wouldn't like to see anyone not paying to transit as again "use it and pay to use it" and a fair even cost with no discounts (Unless perhaps a 10 passage get one free for the likes of Peter lol!)  

BA money should be spent on the Broads, if they have to pay to maintain this then it should certainly pay for itself by the users of it.

[JennyMorgan]

There is a legal requirement for the Lock to be maintained and it should, like the rest of the Lowestoft to Norwich Navigation, be 'free', the same as the railway bridges. That it was charged for was originally a concession, would you believe, by sympathetic boat-owners. The Lock is outside the BA's executive area otherwise I would argue that it is a part of the Broads & should be paid for entirely by tolls. As it is it is as much a part of Lowestoft Harbour as it is The Broads, Charge too much & perhaps it won't be used.

[Baitrunner]

Or maybe just let it rot away? It does serve a slightly bigger purpose than just allowing boats through.

Without it the Broad will get too shallow, and if it never opened there would be a good chance it would get too stagnant to support much life.

I wasn't going to jump in on this, but I do agree that like the bridges it needs to be supported and maintained by someone - to be fair I don't mind who it is. There are many features provided by the BA that I don't use (leccy posts, The North etc) - do I get a rebate? Maybe lower charges for those of us who cant get North? Higher charges for leccy users as I am sure those posts are not cheap to install or maintain when they get ripped out? Albeit less than a lock maybe.

I actually dont mind if my tolls are used to provide general amenities for all, even if I don't use them, but I do appreciate others may not feel the same..

[JennyMorgan]

Was talking to a relevant person today who has suggested that the BA's estimate for the work to be done is almost certainly well wide of the mark. The BA has yet to become the legal owner of the lock, they should walk away from it whilst they can and leave the costs to ABP who, apparently, still own it.

[Hockham Admiral]

Was talking to a relevant person today who has suggested that the BA's estimate for the work to be done is almost certainly well wide of the mark. The BA has yet to become the legal owner of the lock, they should walk away from it whilst they can and leave the costs to ABP who, apparently, still own it.

Is there anyway that they can be informed of that, Peter? I'm not joking....

[JennyMorgan]

John, I know a well known man on the Nav Com, will suggest that he raises a few questions. A few FOI's wouldn't go amiss either.

[Hockham Admiral]

Quite a few of us might well meet up with James in 3 weeks, I hadn't thought to bring it up with him, if that's who you mean, Peter.

[JennyMorgan]

James is the obvious choice, in my opinion.

[JennyMorgan]

The Authority is determined, for whatever reason, to take on this liability. A liability that the toll payers will end up having to pay for. Interestingly Waveney District and Suffolk County Council are negotiating/consulting over a third crossing across Lake Lothing which, as an election promise by Cameron, is to be constructed by 2020. One proposal for that third crossing includes a new lock and a barrage. If that materialises then it could be argued that Mutford Lock will be redundant.  

[JennyMorgan]

Dave, have raised the issue with relevant friends and associates.

[senator]

I would agree that the BA should be no where near Mutford lock but if they take it on they need to take it on and pay for it to work properly.

IMHO ABP would be far better placed to have bought the lock up to standard although without legal pressure to do so I have no idea why they would. Maybe the BA would have been better off not trying to expand their empire further and instead mounting a proper legal challenge to force ABP to bring the lock back up to standard.

As for the lock being a short cut, where to? if you lock through you need to tie up with the road bridge at Lowestoft and then Haven Bridge to get back in. Running at sea is generally hugely more expensive than on the rivers so going out the lock and up will usually not only take far longer than going round the rivers but will cost far more as well.

Going through the lock has a transit fee of £12 each way and most of the time they can fit in 2 boats, so that is £24 each time the lock is operated. May not cover the cost completely but as most boats that use it can't get under the Yarmouth bridges then the money not spent up North should be more than enough to make up the shortfall.

[Baitrunner]

Any one got an idea how much it has cost to install leccy posts on the public moorings and how revenue they generate after the cost of the leccy?

just being annoying. 

[senator]

As I said, in my opinion the BA should be no where near it, they can't afford to do it properly, but if A quarter of the boats that used it reside on the Broads paying an average of say £450 a year to use half the system then you could argue 50% of their tolls are supporting the rest of the infrastructure so around £90k plus the 10k taken or 12 years to cost neutral.

If those who don't use Mutford Lock feel they shouldn't pay for it,  why should the boats that don't fit under Yarmouth pay to maintain the Northern Broads when they can't use them?

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Senator, a very simple answer to that last point, your toll entitles you to navigate the Broads in their entirety. If your choice of boat prohibits you from doing that then who's fault is that, the BA's?

In the case of Mutford Lock hire-boats can't use it and a number of Broads boats proper can't either, not without loosing their insurance cover. The Lock is, as I have said before, outside the BA's executive area. Why should they take on the responsibility, why should we all pay for it? 

[senator]

They Shouldn't but if a certain person insists on bringing it under the control of the BA then it becomes as much a part of the Broads infrastructure as anything else and the fact that some can't use it is irrelevant in its costings. 

If you wish to use it then get a boat that can, in exactly the same way that if others want to go North they should get a boat that fits under the bridges.

I don't know to anyone with a boat that won't fit under the bridges that moans about paying the whole toll but already have found quite a few who think that they shouldn't pay for the lock if they can't use it.

How can the lock be considered outside of the BA's executive area if it is the responsibility of the BA by choice? Surely it is no less part of the Broads than the rest of the banks to Oulton Broad 

[JennyMorgan]

Senator, in many things in life there are and have to be boundaries. One BA boundary runs right outside my front door meaning that I live within the Broads Authority's area whilst my immediate neighbour doesn't, even though we live in the same street. Of no consequence to you but of great importance to me as I am governed by different planning policies to that of my neighbour.  It is no different for Mutford Lock, it is considered as part of Lake Lothing which is outside of the boundary. I can see the logic of the BA taking on Breydon Water but the Lock has to belong either to ABP or to the Broads Authority, it is either part of the Broads or it is not. Since it is possibly a million pound liability then surely it is better that the BA leaves it where it is, outside its boundary.

http://www.broads-plan.co.uk/appendix-3-map-broads-authority-executive-area

[senator]

I agree they should leave it outside, as long as ABP can be forced to properly maintain it, hence my initial thoughts about the BA being better advised to spend the money on legal proceedings to force ABP to do so.

Boundary wise though what happens if ABP decide to leave it open. Won't make much difference to lake loathing, guessing it will make a hell of a lot of difference to the Broads, for this reason the BA could with possible justification argue it should be under their control. The lock forms one of the banks to Oulton Broad which do come under the BA executive area so at least one set of gates does fall within the area."(b)the banks of the waterways which make up those stretches"

If it is under BA control then whether people like it or not the money must be spent to maintain it.

I know personally to 5 people that have moved from the Broads to the other side of the lock due to unreliability of operation so lets say £2500 per year in tolls, I also know to a number of people who didn't visit the Broads this year for the same reason, resulting in not just loss of visitor tolls but also spend in the local area. If I know to these people personally then how much more money is being lost from the BA pocket?

Dave, my insurance doesn't end at Mutford lock but the map provided to show the executive area By JM appears to run to the road, which crosses after the lock. I'm sure this is just the BA claiming a little bit more.