Cockshoot

[TrevorAndDeirdre]

If there is not much there then people will stop using the place. I can remember in summers when the icecream van parked at the car park and walking down to get one. In the part about this it does say that cockshoot will be handed back as well.

"Maintenance Operatives and volunteers have been carrying out repairs to Cockshoot Boardwalk, as part of a partnership deal with Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT). The section from the car park to the 24hr mooring is no longer leased by the Broads Authority and has already been handed back to the land owner. The second part of the walk, from the mooring, around the loop and to the bird hide is also being made ready to hand back to the land owner, as per the existing lease agreement. The Broads Authority has provided the eight weeks of labour required bringing this section up to a reasonable standard and NWT has paid for the materials. Once completed this part of the walk will also be handed back to the landowner." 

[Viking23]

Let me get this right, if you are a road traveller, or what ever is the politically correct term, and gain acess to a field, drive around it, set up caravans etc leave litter and gas bottles, like has been done on the odd encampment,  the land owner can't move you on, you have to apply to the council and get some eviction order, that takes weeks, then what is the brief if a group of "travellers" without those vehicles cross a given area without leaving litter, and do not damage the land and only cross there and back in a day? either to fish, or to visit the pub.

The police can't get involved as it's a civil matter, the Council will take too long to get there...

I am not up on the laws of trespass, or rights of access, but I can see a few disputes starting. More especially when the public have been blessed with access for all these years. 

So a big thank you to all the land owners who have granted us the access to these areas, long may it continue.

Maybe the negotiation skills of the BA need to be reviewed, negotiation isn't all about financial arrangements. But it does help lol.

Every year I negotiate my car insurance, house insurance, even the AA, and this year I am paying less than last year, and still have the same, or even better cover. Mind you, there are plenty of suppliers that want my business.  However, since this is a Monopoly, then maybe, BA should look further afield for land owners that will allow access and mooring.

There are 250 miles of riverbank on the Broads, a lot, if not all, of it is owned by someone.

 

 

[ExMemberBobdog]

A lot is owned by the same very few people!

[marshman]

And yes a very large proportion of it is in the hands of a fairly small number of landowners - the bigger the landowner it seems, the less access is likely!! But I do not see how you can "negotiate" when you have no cards in your hand - seems more likely to be about being dictated to..

 

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, marshman said:

........ 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 !!...........

I agree completely with your posts on most of these closures not being the BA's fault Marshman.

In the case of the Ludham Bridge to St Benets floodbank walk however, it does now appear to be the BA dragging their heels.

LBBY denied access to the existing riverside path at the Ludham Bridge end around five years ago, and Ludham Parish Council later announced a new very short link to re-open it, bypassing the boatyard.

According to the the Parish Council, permission from the landowners was obtained years ago, and the very small amount of groundwork, (fencing etc.) has been promised each year by the BA, and yet has still not even been started.

...and I normally defend the BA.....

[Soundings]

I believe LBBY stopped access for safety reasons?

[ExMemberBobdog]

And I believe the new owner is a bit more laid back about this?

[Soundings]

No idea, Bobdog,. Certainly the current owner was working there when LBBY took access away. It could be that he is less concerned about the associated risks - whatever they were/are.

[Guest]

This was exhaustively debated at the time, but years can sometimes blur the facts.

The riverside walk existed for many years while the boatyard was owned and run by Robert Paul.

When LBBY took it over, they stopped the public from gaining access to the half mile riverside footpath by closing the 100 yard link to it down the outside of their boatshed.

This they explained as being due to safety and security concerns.

The same unlocked open footpath is the only access for boatyard customers and boat mooring renters, both before and since the closure.

If indeed the denial of access has now been relaxed, it's rather too late I'm afraid, since Ludham Parish Council Funds and BA Toll Payers money has now been spent on lengthy legal negotiations to bypass the yard, and hopefully actually carry out the ground work, when they eventually make a start.

[Soundings]

Thanks Strowager. It all comes flooding back - I can remember some of the conversations and debates prior to the restriction being implemented. It is so annoying when public/toll payer funds are used to bankroll what turns out to be a needless alternative (if indeed the restriction has been relaxed).

Fashions can be costly!

[marshman]

Hi Strow - something in what you say but according to what I hear, they are still waiting for the documents to be signed - not telling where t he hold up is purported to be!!!!!  Quite quite extraordinary how these things can be dragged out if  you want to!!!!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Hi Strow - something in what you say but according to what I hear, they are still waiting for the documents to be signed - not telling where t he hold up is purported to be!!!!!  Quite quite extraordinary how these things can be dragged out if  you want to!!!!

That's quite depressing then Marshman.

I have it on very good authority from several personally involved sources that all of the documents have been signed, several months ago. It was even published in official emails.

If  BA sources are now lying about it to cover their delays in starting the work, then that is a very poor state of affairs. One could even believe that they may be hoping to avoid carrying out the work altogether.

 

 

[SteveO]

Am I right in thinking that Woodbastwick Estates has considerable interests in boating, via various moorings and Horning Marine Services? Strange that they should be upsetting  their existing and potential customers by denying access to this stretch of footpath, which represents a significant and well used amenity for both boaters and others arriving by road.  Unless there is something we can't see going on between Woodbastwick Estates and the BA, I struggle to understand any valid rationale for their action .

We are seeing more and more instances of access for the many being denied by a small number of very wealthy and locally powerful landowners and very little by way of new access being created. Unless we find effective strategies for pushing back against this, things will only get worse and we will be in a situation where the banks are either private or the domain of angling clubs and there will literally be nowhere to go other than a few very overcrowded public moorings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheQ]

What one forgets  is that the maintenance of the board walk track and paths would fall on the land owner, for no benefit to him / herself. They also become liable if someone sues should someone trip or fall while one their land who would pay for all the insurance to cover For this?

 Finally wasn't Cockshoot broad temporariily closed to navigation BY BA, for some reason, if they've handed it back shouldn't it be reopened?

Should it have been reopened by now anyway?

[ExMemberBobdog]

The BA I'm sure would happily continue to maintain the boardwalk and paths at no cost to the landowner if the landowner were willing to continue the lease arrangement at a reasonable price.  The problem here (as at some other sites) is greedy individuals and groups trying to extort higher sums from the BA.  The BA, quite rightly, are refusing these demands.

[MauriceMynah]

Bobdog, How do we know it's the greedy land owner (everybody boo) who is the provervial in the works? Are we privvy to the negotiations between those theiving, money grabbing, capitalist scumbags (everybody boo again) and that Cinderella of government quangos (everybody say "ahhhh") the BA?

Sorry all, but I can't help but feel that there's a lot more to this.

[JennyMorgan]

I also, predictably some might say, suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye. 

Back in my time with the Nav Com it was admitted that the BA has power of purchase yet in recent months I have also seen BA blurb contradicting that. I had personally raised this in regard to disposal of dredging spoil at Hickling. My thought was that the BA would only have to do this once and the landowners would be a tad more receptive to requests for co-operation. Draconian, especially from an unelected quango, but it seems to me that either co-operation is lacking, or that there is insufficient interest by some of those good folk within those hallowed walls.  We'll just have to guess!

[JennyMorgan]

Just a couple of thoughts on this one. The BA do take professional advice on valuations, as is right and proper. I also understand that the BA receives a raft load of complaints from landowners about people's dogs being off their leads. No doubt that landowners with livestock have good reason to complain. Was talking to a Seal Warden down at Horsey yesterday, apparently every year one or two 'mummy' seals abort or abandon young due to being pestered by dogs. 

[TheQ]

2 hours ago, Bobdog said:

The BA I'm sure would happily continue to maintain the boardwalk and paths at no cost to the landowner if the landowner were willing to continue the lease arrangement at a reasonable price.  The problem here (as at some other sites) is greedy individuals and groups trying to extort higher sums from the BA.  The BA, quite rightly, are refusing these demands.

You are making huge assumptions about the price BA pay and what Landowners  ask, I have a feeling the close down of the board walk has more to do with cutting costs at The BA than increased demands for Money from private owners.

[JennyMorgan]

Jozo, it is a fact that the BA is and has been looking for both savings and possible income streams. Can't knock them for that but I would rather that they leased mooring facilities rather than chasing the mythical National Park label.

[MauriceMynah]

Oh come come Peter... That WAS predictable :)

[Guest]

The actual amount being asked for renewal of the boardwalk lease is an unknown quantity to everyone who has posted on this thread so far.

It could indeed be a small increase, which the BA would be quite wrong to not renew, if they were just wanting to preserve their budget to waste on less important overheads.

It could however be a large enough amount to make their refusal justified.

We just don't know, until someone can discover the actual truth.

That won't stop the current assumed situation being another club to beat them with though....

[marshman]

Hi Strow - it may well just be the repairing option that is causing the sticking point. Reading the thread, it seems it currently comes with a full repairing option which is currently being fulfilled but extend that on perhaps another 15/20 years, perhaps that is a liability they no longer wish to carry for that length of boardwalk. Cannot guess how much that would cost even at current prices, let alone at some indeterminate time in the future.

 

As you say all speculation until facts are known and they will come out - will have a sniff around and about and ask a few questions here and there to get some bones on it!!!

[MauriceMynah]

Strow & MM, Not having all (or indeed any) of the facts is rather what I was getting at. I can think of many reasons for certain things happening, and that's before I start on conspiracy theorys.

What I do suspect and will do so publicly is that there is far more to this situation than meets the eye.

Not money grabbing greedy land owners, not tight fisted BA and not gong hunting CEOs but a number of circumstances of which we are unaware... and probably will always be so.

[marshman]

Yep you are probably right but I am intrigued and will sniff around - might take some time though!!!