Cockshoot

[ChrisB]

I have just been reading (in another place) That the boardwalk between the car park opposite the Ferry and Cockshoot dyke are no longer leased by the BA, have been handed back to the owner and are closed.

Furthermore the repairs to the boardwalk in the NWT area are in preparation for handing back (one assumes a full repairing lease).

With Thurne moorings gone and now these landlocked, what will be next to go?

[Soundings]

The water! Actually the trend seems to be to destroy moorings so they can either remove the water or the river beds - either way it will make mooring difficult

Seriously though, what is going on here? Increasing boat traffic, more larger boats and less moorings. Add to that the fact that everybody seems to want leccie points and you have a recipe for a somewhat less than relaxing Broads experience.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

more wild moorings?.

 

Seriously though, i totally agree, where on earth are we all going to moor?. It`s getting to the point where the BA will have done away with the vast majority of 24 hour moorings, so where will everybody moor?.  With fleets like Richardsons investing very heavily on a larger newer fleet, with the loss of many moorings, people won`t be able to moor, so what effect will it have on any fleets buisness?. If somebody wastes half of their fuel, and their week trying to find one of fewer and fewer moorings, they will more than likely give up on hiring on the Broads. I did say tongue in cheek some time ago that it would`nt surprise me to find out the BA are trying to push boating away from the broads, so they can have a much cheaper policy on maintaining the rivers to a non navigable standard, Maybe that really IS their ultimate goal, and doing away with moorings and failure to maintain river depths is certainly a way to do just that.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

m........ it wouldn't surprise me to find out the BA are trying to push boating away from the broads, so they can have a much cheaper policy on maintaining the rivers to a non navigable standard,.......

They'd have to have a much cheaper policy if you really think they want to lose all that toll money....

[andyhesford]

the best moorings are the wild ones down the ant and top of fleet dyke , thats all i need.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

2 hours ago, Strowager said:

They'd have to have a much cheaper policy if you really think they want to lose all that toll money....

The problem is Strow, if the management of the BA follow the same lack of foresight as the company i work for, logic will not come into it, and when everything is gone, they`ll wonder why and blame everybody else for not going along with their much flawed  plan.

The simple logic is, more, and bigger boats, with fewer moorings just does`nt add up, and never will, but will they listen to those in the know?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, No, because they adopt the attitude, it does`nt matter how many of you are right, we don`t like it, so it won`t work.  Pretty typical of British university bred management.

[Guest]

My reply was purely focused on your theory that the BA was trying to drive all the boats off the Broads Neil, so that they could save money on keeping the rivers navigable.

Not a very likely ambition for them, since it would remove most of their income, (in the form of their toll money).

...and  "university breeding" isn't always a handicap.

[JennyMorgan]

The Authority needs the tolls, remember that about 50% of the toll goes to Authority overheads.

Regarding lack of foresight, can't argue with that.

Regarding driving boats away, both the biggest and the smallest private motor craft, statistically provable and totally illogical, I really don't understand why this is happening. That people in these sectors have left the Broads or are planning to go is an inescapable fact.  As Strow has highlighted, the Authority needs our money.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Authority needs the tolls, remember that about 50% of the toll goes to Authority overheads.................  As Strow has highlighted, the Authority needs our money.

So it's very unlikely that they will ever want to close the navigation then.

[JennyMorgan]

Strow, I have no doubts whatsoever that there are those within the BA hierarchy who would dearly like to exclude boats from what they regard as sensitive or unsuitable areas. Equally I also have absolutely no doubts that navigation on the chosen majority of the Broads is in safe and in reasonably, but not always, competent hands. I am not convinced, for example, that there is not a conservation agenda behind the loss of some 24hr moorings. I really would like to have the confidence in the Authority that you have but history doesn't allow for that. There is more to boating than just going from A to B, a point made in regard to dredging Hickling, the navigation is the whole Broad, not just the marked channel.

[Viking23]

So am I right in thinking, that the option of walking from the mooring at Cockshoot Dyke to the Fur and Feathers is no longer an option...?

We had thought about it... but never did it, but I would be disappointed if that option has been taken away lol.

Equally well, would the option of getting medical support to Cockshoot Dyke not be achievable?

The reason I say this, there are many people on the broads that might need urgent medical support at some point, clearly those people at risk won't moor on a mud weight, or on secluded islands. The number of moorings with reasonable road access is getting less this last year.

Maybe a subject that the Broads Authority haven't thought about.

[JennyMorgan]

Medical access reared its head over the issue of water-skiing areas. The Authority was certainly made aware of the issues regarding access at remote moorings.

[ChrisB]

Boat owners moored at Cockshoot may no longer walk to the car park or up the lane past the stables to woodbastwick.

Likewise NWT members may no longer park at the car park and walk to the reserve.

 

[LizG]

Surely the road from the Ferry to Woodbastwick is a public road or it is according to the OS Maps?

[Wussername]

I hate all this with a passion. I despise those who decide where I moor, where I walk, where I wish to enjoy, explore, share with grandchildren.  

My grandfathers , were born here, my parents, my children, my grandchildren. Who are these people who decide. I am an insignificant Norfolk Man, a Broadsman. Off little signifence, so it would seem.  

I tell you what. I will moor where I wish. (I will respect personal private property)

If you have an issue. Go for it. I suspect few people care. 

Do it! Enjoy. Real Norfolk people don't give a hoot. And knowbody else does.!

[JennyMorgan]

Wussername, RESPECT!

[ChrisB]

8 hours ago, w-album said:

Surely the road from the Ferry to Woodbastwick is a public road or it is according to the OS Maps?

Yes the road is public. That is not the issue. For the sake of any misunderstanding:

THE BOARDWALK BETWEEN THE CAR PARK OPPOSITE THE FERRY INN AND THE MOORINGS AND NATURE RESERVE AT COOKSHOOT ARE CLOSED.

Of course you can walk up the road but if you are moored at cockshoot you can't get to it anymore.

[ChrisB]

Just as an aside for anyone mooring by the car park, opposite the Ferry Inn. At this time of year and given the tides at present, the lane is pretty much permanently under water. 

[ChrisB]

You are right, not a problem by car, I mean't if you moor there and wish to walk to the Fur and Feather you will need your wellies and don't stray off the edge. Walk down the middle of the road.

As for the closure, NWT have a lot of influence and they have now changed their web site to say only accessable by boat.

[Guest]

The boardwalk linking the Cockshoot and Woodbastwick moorings has always been shown on the Ordnance Survey as only a "permitted" footpath, rather than a full right of way (unfortunately).

The single track road linking the Woodbastwick moorings to Woodbastwick village is a public road, with full right of way. It would be rather surprising if it wasn't, because after crossing on Horning Ferry it was the only way that people could then continue their journey onwards.

I think it will still be well used, and not just by anglers, because it's a very popular picnic spot for people to park right next to the river (free)  and watch the boats go past. It also has a pretty good free slipway for dinghies and canoes.

I ride down there quite often on my bikes, even when it's sometimes flooded ....

[marshman]

As I posted elsewhere, please do not totally blame the BA but rather the landowners. Perhaps Woodbastwick Estates would allow all to continue to enjoy this wonderful boardwalk but instead of presumably demanding a cost, they could offer this facility free so we can continue to enjoy this beautiful area. i wish landowners could just see they are custodians of this land for everyone and why should access be denied? Its a real shame ,but not the fault of the BA.

And for those who know the full details, it is again the attitude of the OWNERS who are responsible for the situation at Thurne. What is it with landowners who deny access constantly - I really do pity the individuals at the BA responsible for negotiating with these blinkered owners - how many years have those individuals in Ludham stood in the way of persons enjoying the walk to St Benets along the flood wall?? I have just lost count but negotiations are ongoing still after over 5 years or so!!!

Whats even more infuriating is that this is not NEW access such as HGB but access being taken away and back into the hands of the few who in reality give not a t**s !!

Phew I am angry about all of this but divert your anger to the real root of the matter and not automatically to the BA who may not warrant it.!!

And oh, the Fleet Dyke situation could easily be resolved with a determined individual with a brush cutter!!!

 

[ExMemberBobdog]

Absolutely right Marshman.  So many of these cases are about the greed of landowners, who try to hold the BA to ransom by demanding large payments to keep facilities open.

[LizG]

And who are in receipt of large sums of taxpayers money in the form of farming subsidies etc. Sadly the link I had to the Rural Payments agency list of beneficiaries has been changed - it was quite shocking. A large estate in Suffolk was in receipt of more money than Sandringham but still denied access to anyone to survey the wildlife on their estate!

[Viking23]

So in effect, the only people that can use the bird hide on the board walk to Cockshoot broad, will be the crews from a few boats that have moored up in Cockshoot dyke.  To be honest, I have moored our boat in better locations around the Broads and seen and heard more wildlife than I have in the 10 minutes we have spent looking in at the Bird Hide. So why have the BA spent £££ on the upkeep of the board walk to the hide, if the general public can't access it?

So who owns Cockshoot Broad and it's access,  why not open it up to general navigation, then someone can make use of it...?  Not much use as it is ! lol.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

I have to admit to being in total disagreement in the past with Marshman, but your post above is very enlightening. I know the BA lease land for 24 hour moorings, but did`nt realise why some of these moorings have been withdrawn, so thanks Marshman for bringing this to our attention.  As for landowners who refuse access to their land, although i think it`s not exactly the right thing to do, i do respect the fact that it IS their land, much like i would`nt like anybody walking around our garden. It`s a real double edged sword this one, and others in the same vein, but now after reading Mm`s post, i will not be so keen to critsize the BA.