Two more Moorings to be lost

[ChrisB]

Woodbastwick (opp Ferry Inn) and Perci's Island (opp Horning Staithe)

The above are part of the Cockshoot family!

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads-authority/committees/navigation-committee/navigation-committee-10-december-2015?SQ_CALENDAR_DATE=2015-12-10

What is worrying is there are a number of other moorings where the lease will shortly be up.

[ChrisB]

Sorry should have said it is item 12. Please page down to last table.

[JawsOrca]

Whoops...

This is probably the interesting article:

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/663122/Mooring-Action-Plan-Update-nc101215.pdf 

[ChrisB]

Thanks, made a bit of a mess of that.

[BroadScot]

4 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Thanks, made a bit of a mess of that.

I removed the other topic Chris.

Iain

[ChrisB]

I am also not sure if I like the sound of "Cockshoot" does it mean the after all the work that the BA have done, that too could go? it says renegotiate, fine but they are all owned by the same estate who has shut the boardwalk and given notice to terminate the other aforementioned two moorings. 

 

[BroadScot]

All very worrying indeed. Where next? Mudweights anyone!

Iain.

[JawsOrca]

I think Cockshoot is owned by the wildlife trust there and I suspect they will want to keep the moorings otherwise no one can access it.  That report does go on to explain the BA are focused on not reducing the amount of moorings and are looking for new spots.. In some way that maybe nice as it will give us new places to visit. They are also trying to renegotiate the moorings at thurne. But certainly agree at present it's not looking good.. At least we should get a reduction on our tolls as there will be less facilities! 

[BroadScot]

12 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

At least we should get a reduction on our tolls as there will be less facilities! 

Errr Alan, do you believe in Fairy's and Elfs? Toll reduction? You have more chance of a win on a Lottery Scratchcard!

Iain.

[JawsOrca]

1 minute ago, BroadScot said:

Errr Alan, do you believe in Fairy's and Elfs? Toll reduction? You have more chance of a win on a Lottery Scratchcard!

Iain.

Nothing wrong with dreaming Iain! 

Although I think they would struggle to continue to do 4% above inflation rises if the number of free moorings shrink for whatever reason. 

[marshman]

Certainly the boardwalk is owned by the Wildlife Trust and it was part of the lease that it was to be repaired before handing back - don't mind that as responsibility for maintenance will revert to the NWT - from the said schedule it looks like the moorings might be owned by them too. Thankfully!!!!

But why am i surprised by the other news?? it is really so sad that to those to whom we accord guardianship of their lands for others, take the view profit is the key, and if that involves telling you to b****r off, so be it. What with that lot and the other on the other side further upstream, we seem to surrounded by those who put themselves first and s*d the rest of you. But they care not what others think, thinking only of their already bulging pockets. A sad reflection on our society methinks but rather than a reduction in tolls , my guess is that as more and more landowners demand their "share," the BA will be hard pressed to keep within their moorings budget as shown.

[BroadScot]

3 minutes ago, marshman said:

my guess is that as more and more landowners demand their "share," the BA will be hard pressed to keep within their moorings budget as shown.

Does the BA own any land Marshy? Or is it all on a contract lease? I really find all of this most disconcerting!!!

Iain.

[marshman]

Hardly any at all - they own some of the How Hill Reserve i believe and odd bits here and there usually left over as a result of some scheme or other.

A few years ago they had an asset review and they did sell off some bits not needed but probably more importantly I do not think they own many moorings - from the schedule you will see a lot are on long lease. Thankfully!!

[LondonRascal]

Well, all rather confusing - lots of words and reports and so on but for me what sums everything up is this in the PDF that Alan kindly provided a link to:

"the Authority should not seek to acquire sites for the development of new moorings that would add to its asset management liabilities."

So - basically on the one hand if a Lease is in place it is not a good idea to pay 'over and above' on an annual basis as per:

"Authority should not considered entering leases that required the payment of annual fees higher than those recommended by our property advisers and this clear advice is informing our negotiations on those leases"

It is all doomed to failure as far as I can see. 

The landowners will clearly want to charge more for the use of their land for moorings through Leases - because, and rightly I can see, the value of their land increases over time.  This is much like a Landlord saying to a Tenant who wishes to extend their Lease that the value of such is x amount and the Tenant can pay it or put in a counter offer. The Tenant then can have such valued and come back with another figure and then it may be accepted, but usual is not and one enters into more negotiations.  In the end it may be a Court/Tribunal who will have the final say on a what they deem the value should be.  It however possible that a case can be settled without such costs and the involvement of a Court - after all, not harm in trying.  

The Broads Authority  seem to say though, that should a landowner want to charge more for the Lease on some moorings to the Broads Authority, then the Broads Authority will not enter into negotiations.  A bit like 'shrug our shoulders and give up the Lease'. 

However, they counter this by talking about new moorings. That sounds good until the point is made "the Authority should not seek to acquire sites for the development of new moorings that would add to its asset management liabilities." crops up.  

In my mind they cannot have their cake and eat it! You can’t surly have formal, maintained moorings with quay heading and mooring posts etc and not have a liability over such.  It is going to need to be maintained and that is going to have to be paid for.

Unless I am not reading things correctly, it is a sorry state of affairs where Leases of moorings are being lost and there is little willingness to find new sites and new moorings because in so doing they will burden the Broads Authority with new ‘asset liabilities’ be that ongoing Lease costs or simple maintenance costs. 

How can this not result in the simple unavoidable outcome that we are loosing moorings just as the Broads Authority is pushing the area as a ‘National Park’ to encourage ever more visitor numbers is beyond me - what a sad state of affairs.

[BroadAmbition]

2 hours ago, LondonRascal said:

How can this not result in the simple unavoidable outcome that we are loosing moorings just as the Broads Authority is pushing the area as a ‘National Park’ to encourage ever more visitor numbers is beyond me - what a sad state of affairs.

 

Aye and on top of that B.A encouraging more visitors, we have public conveniences closing (Acle to name but one)  and the comical situation (If it wasn't true) of waste compounds been closed too.

You couldn't make it up

Griff

[marshman]

Robin - I think you are wrong to an extent. Whilst I accept that Percis island is slightly different as it will increase the revenue to Horning Village Marina by 3 boats full time mooring - perhaps £4500 p. a.,( huge! ) the same cannot probably be said for the one opposite the Ferry unless they plan to collect mooring charges.

With the lease probably came a repairing clause too and the BA has to do that, and has done - without the quay heading its worthless marsh for just a few boats to moor up against a marsh bank - an appreciating asset??

Or you could do what others have done. Negotiate a Lease , get the BA to put in nice new quay heading and then turn around, renege on the deal for spurious reasons, and end up with  no boats mooring, and nice new quay heading!!! Thats a way to add value and doesn't Thurne mouth now look nice!!!

So whats the alternative - use tolls to pay for the freehold or substantially increased leasing costs? Great - lets all suggest we put more money in to already overloaded pockets at the expense of the users? In almost all cases, the land has little or no value as a grassy / reed bank, and neither is its potential enormous for appreciation. The BA could try to buy it, but given the tendencies of those involved, don't hold your breath for a bargain price!!

i am afraid this kind of action by those landowners  reprehensible, but seriously, should i be surprised???

Edited December 10, 2015 by marshman
Misspelling!!

[BroadAmbition]

No and neither am I sadly

Griff

[LizG]

It is conceivable that said landowner will simply keep the moorings there and take mooring fees for himself? Neither locations would be suitable for long term moorings? (Edited to say just read an earlier post)

[SteveO]

Only speculating, but I wonder if there has been some friction between Woodbastwick Estates and the BA over the "improvement" work that WE has been doing over the other side of the river. 

Pity no-one is public spirited any more. Not much good news for boaters about at the moment.

Grrrrrrrr

 

Steve

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Steve, there might be some truth in your speculation. If it is so then I doubt it is down to a reduction of public spirited support, more a loss of patience & trust along the rond. 

[zacthedog]

Not the BA's fault, but this is getting silly now! would not be so bad if they become private moorings with a reasonable overnight charge, but some one will be making a mint by selling mudweights soon...

[JennyMorgan]

It does seem that some, if not many, riverside riparian owners are less than willing to co-operate as they have done in the past, for whatever reason/s. Great shame.

Another problem, or so it seems to me, is the weekend rush by privateers to grab a mooring. Not so much that they are 'boating' as such, their boat being used as a weekend cottage. It's often been said that sailing is about the journey and motor-boating is about the arrival, some truth in that I suppose. I sometimes pass a twenty-four hour mooring on a Saturday lunch-time to see the same boats moored there as were there last week, that is the pattern of their usage. It does seem to be a developing trend to not go very far, can't help feeling that it's one that is upping the pressure on what moorings there are. Boats effectively need two moorings, one to come from and one to go to. As ever I don't know the answer and it is only my opinion!

[ChrisB]

I think you have a point Peter. Because how far can you get in a weekend if you arrive late Friday and go home Sunday afternoon. However some moorings in the season are very much the preserve of the hire fleets, at Ludham Bridge and Potter Heigham private boats are very thin on the ground for example. If you take the loss of 24 hour moorings and add the wild ones lost like Fleet Dyke everyone is fighting for fewer overnight spots. Soon as a boat makes it's 10.00 am move people will be grabbing that spot for the night as I have witnessed on many occasions at Ranworth.

[LondonRascal]

Jonzo...

[ChrisB]

I already do believe in flying pigs! And so would you if you saw the mess on my canopy when I visited to check my boat this morning.