tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post4259691141127459580..comments2023-05-20T12:12:46.250+01:00Comments on Broads Blog: Adjacent waters - to toll or not to tollJames Knighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11472346086906834079noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-6149061400514461162017-10-07T16:26:45.094+01:002017-10-07T16:26:45.094+01:00That is weird - I remember replying to this and it...That is weird - I remember replying to this and its all disappeared… So I don't know how many there are, but my guess is 10-20. Not very many. I'm perfectly comfortable with boats in adjacent waters paying a toll, as long as they *could* use the navigation. If they can't, well I don't see that they are any different to a riverside cottage. It just so happens that they're floating on the water, rather than sitting beside it.James Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11472346086906834079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-12704413590139849602017-10-07T05:21:58.313+01:002017-10-07T05:21:58.313+01:00Well I don’t know all the ins and outs of Alan’s p...Well I don’t know all the ins and outs of Alan’s personal case, as he has been careful not to involve me in his side of it. But as I understand it, he challenged the first toll but was convicted so he paid it. Then in the second year he challenged that toll too, was convicted and then successfully appealed. He has carried out his own defence so he has no legal fees to meet. Ultimately he believes the charge to be unfair and so he’s chosen to resist it. I believe that this is another case of the BA imposing something because it can, rather than because it should, and that there is no moral justification for it. James Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11472346086906834079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-26778527728231259632017-10-06T22:10:21.067+01:002017-10-06T22:10:21.067+01:00Im in two minds over this so bear with me.
If Ala...Im in two minds over this so bear with me. <br />If Alan had paid his tolls like the rest of us (and he did the first year) the ba wouldn’t have had to spend all this money (our money) chasing him for payment. <br />I don’t think he should have to pay it, but he’s broken the law by not paying it and has somehow managed to drag the appeal on for years to avoid receiving a conviction.<br />I don’t know all the ins and outs but how on earth has he carried this on for so long ? His own legal bills must be astonishing, and surely far far more than the cost of the toll he would have paid if he’d just accepted the charge like the rest of us do. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07522163782376363025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-6880053509991454472017-10-06T18:41:28.087+01:002017-10-06T18:41:28.087+01:00Beginning to warm up nicely! Entirely typical mane...Beginning to warm up nicely! Entirely typical maneuvering of BA committees.Old Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03673381137243040291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-33512792567589480792017-10-06T16:56:25.538+01:002017-10-06T16:56:25.538+01:00It's interesting that you should mention the b...It's interesting that you should mention the barge at Pin Mill, Andy, as this was actually moored at Waveney River Centre beside Alan Fry's barge! Unfortunately, when the BA decided to impose a huge toll on them despite the boat being static and in adjacent waters (2.5 times the normal rate due to being used as a houseboat for hire), the owners decided to move it to Pin Mill who were far more welcoming. The Broads' loss was Pin Mill's gain :-(James Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11472346086906834079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-34170500116698249012017-10-06T16:36:48.153+01:002017-10-06T16:36:48.153+01:00Andy Pandy - you are off the mark with this commen...Andy Pandy - you are off the mark with this comment: Alan Fry has lived aboard his barge at WRC for many years, paying full mooring charges and also council tax. For him it is a simple lifestyle choice, not any kind of boundary testing exercise, and the additional 'tax' BA have in recent years placed upon him is a very unfair imposition. It is BA who drag him into court, year after year, with seemingly limitless funds to pay senior barristers to 'defend the indefensible'. Alan Fry refuses to pay the adjacent waters toll only because he believes it is fundamentally wrong, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for having the tenacity to carry on with his resistance. BA have managed to deprive him, and all of us of our proper legal right to challenge this invidious toll!<br />As regards the static barge on Pin Mill Hard, it trades on the unique character of Pin Mill and it is amazing so many people are willing to pay premium prices for this. In the Broads the situation Andy P envisages was exactly the norm prior to the 2009 Broads Act - houseboats in adjacent waters did indeed pay no toll and indeed there were one or two developments where this was allowed to expand too much with awful results, but those were exactly the eyesores which gave rise to foundation of Broads Authority which has ample planning powers to manage such situations - they have no need of unreasonable, arbitrary and unlawful tolls practices.Mark Wakelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487205561805869883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-75699301938480356182017-10-05T23:43:52.312+01:002017-10-05T23:43:52.312+01:00It sounds to me, as though someone is pushing a &#...It sounds to me, as though someone is pushing a 'test case' through the courts, in the hope that a boatyard/marina/moorings etc. might be filled with non toll-able craft ("no engine, so can't go anywhere, Guv) for residential use or holiday lets... A friend, recently hired a 'static' Dutch Barge at Pin Mill, on the River Orwell (more than £1,000 for five days hire, out of season!). So,I imagine someone could make a lot of money doing similar on the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads... A bit limiting though, for owners or hirers of toll paying craft. As the aforementioned 'adjacent waters' begin to fill up with, very profitable, non toll paying craft. While yet more moorings disappear...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01433525386466224392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-83775659405795134462017-10-05T23:43:42.720+01:002017-10-05T23:43:42.720+01:00Well, No Surprise that I applaud James for his pos...Well, No Surprise that I applaud James for his post: the adjacent waters toll at full rate is disgraceful, and James' post explains how Navigation Committee have been manoeuvred into a profoundly unreasonable, and I believe unlawful position. It is intolerable not only because it is arbitrary and unreasonable to charge full rate, but also because BA have contrived to persuade DfT that the S.31 Harbours Act appeal procedure does not apply to the adjacent waters toll. This means the toll is effectively a tax, non-payment of which is a criminal offence, but where there is no legal process to challenge or review the charge. This is a very unusual, perhaps unique animal in English law - and frankly is abhorrent in a democracy! <br />James makes a very powerful argument that the toll is unfair particularly on static/immovable vessels, but I believe it is unfair also on those boat owners who, for whatever reason choose not to venture into the BA navigation area. For generations no toll was ever collectable in adjacent waters. BA have a force of patrol officers and launches to police the system, and it is a criminal offence to avoid payment - which is the case in very few harbours. BA are more than adequately resourced to manage and enforce the tolls regime and this penal full rate charge in adjacent waters is profoundly unfair and unnecessary. The only reason BA have been able to get away with it so long is that they have been able to hide behind their very questionable argument that the appeal procedure does not apply.<br />I have recently drawn the attention of all Broads area MPs to this scandalous situation, likewise RYA and NSBA although I am appalled to hear informally that NSBA have no appetite to make an argument over it. That in itself is extremely worrying. <br />James has outlined the tortured progress of Allan Fry's persecution by BA - they would say that their toll has been fully considered by the courts. That simply is not the case. I believe it is essential that this toll which is totally out of kilter with established fair harbour practice urgently needs focussed, experienced legal scrutiny, and I have offered my own willingness to contribute to the cost of such advice.<br />Mark WakelinMark Wakelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487205561805869883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-32287459167276215312017-10-05T21:04:59.961+01:002017-10-05T21:04:59.961+01:00Maybe that is the test James, if a floating object...Maybe that is the test James, if a floating object, when placed onshore within TBA's area would not attract a toll, then when afloat it should not be liable either. Tony BennettAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12900347519755108452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-58602075448763557672017-10-05T20:27:03.556+01:002017-10-05T20:27:03.556+01:00This isn't the BA - dissenting comments are we...This isn't the BA - dissenting comments are welcome, although preferably not anonymised please. Generally I would agree - if your boat can access the river, then you should pay a toll. But if it *can't* use the river - by virtue of size, lack of manoeuvrability and lack of engine for example - then I don't believe that there should be a toll, because there the toll is for the use of the navigation. The argument about paying for libraries etc doesn't stack up - he pays his council tax like anyone else. The Broads toll is a separate additional charge for the fact that his house floats. If you picked it up and put it on the land beside then there would be no toll. In terms of how many - well I don't know for sure, but very few. Between 10 and 20, at a guess.James Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11472346086906834079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-32095562421122292942017-10-05T20:11:08.100+01:002017-10-05T20:11:08.100+01:00Addendum. How many other sedentary vessels are the...Addendum. How many other sedentary vessels are there? Have they paid? Or is this a Joan of Arc?. You could finish up with vessels littering the Broads, just moored 'We can't move' Loss of income for the navigation (hopefully) Now going away to don my Tin Helmet. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09439409347607114006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4498344925182992326.post-72236489319702116152017-10-05T20:05:02.817+01:002017-10-05T20:05:02.817+01:00I'm sorry but there are many vessels, moored i...I'm sorry but there are many vessels, moored in similar situations and pay their dues, whether 'Able to go to sea or not' Wherever you live, free accommodation is never an option. I don't use a library but I still pay for its provision for others. I know there are a lot of other issues with T.B.A. Particularly about their authority, accountability, etc. But you put a boat on a Broads, and Waveney Centre is, with access to the river, then you pay your licence fees. Perhaps the BTA could introduce SORN for vessels.<br /><br />The activity of the Broads Authority in administrating the rules is another matter. And should be dealt with separately.<br /><br />But I hope that the BTA are being uniform in their approach and are not just picking on this vessel; and are chasing other water gypsies.<br /><br />Mine are personal comments and not probably wanted to be heard. I've not had a vessel on the Broads for over 5 years, health. Enjoy what we have but pay for it's maintenance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09439409347607114006noreply@blogger.com