| Posted By |
Discussion Topic: Crome's Dyke
Similar Threads That Might Help :
catfield dyke / Martham Ferry dyke moorings|
Lion Thurne dyke|
Horsey Dyke with 6 alterations...|
Acle Dyke|
Candle or Kendal Dyke?|
Catfield Dyke|
-- Page:
1
2
|
|
Paladine |
|
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 9392
Joined: Jul 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
Crome's dyke leads from the River Ant to Crome’s Broad and was used by wherries collecting produce from Crome’s Farm, so I’ve been told. Part-way along the dyke is Johnny Crowe’s staithe, which, while still visible, is in a very sad and neglected state.
The land to the south of the dyke is owned by the BA (How Hill). The land to the north is common land, managed by Catfield PC. A short distance past the staithe there is a sluice, topped by a locked footbridge, which prevents further navigation. There is a footpath along the northern side of the dyke, which goes to Sharpe Street in one direction and which, in the other direction, carries on along the upstream bank of the Ant, to the parish walk across to Fenside in Catfield.
In 2008, when a planning application was submitted by the EA to carry out flood defence work at How Hill, the Catfield PC’s response to the consultation ended with “As BESL will be building a footbridge here for BA use, it should be built to a specification suitable for public use to avoid the cost of subsequently upgrading the bridge. Crowe’s Staithe Dyke should be dredged within the BESL work programme while they are working on the adjoining bank, an enhancement which would restore Johnny Crowe’s Staithe to use as public mooring.“
I understand that the EA removed some trees from the water and may have done some dredging of the dyke, but nothing sufficient to bring the dyke back into proper navigational use.
The BA have stated “...that the BA is committed to protecting the status of staithes and of vehicular rights of way to staithes. Also that it will encourage the re-use and restoration of derelict and abandoned staithes.”
The water depth is sufficient (at about 4’) to allow most, if not all, Broads boats to use the dyke, but overhanging trees and vegetative encroachment reduce the available width so much as to make it largely impractical, although a Cleopatra 700 (length 22’ 8”, beam 10’, draft 2’), and a smaller boat, were permanently moored there until quite recently.
Has the BA any commitment at all to improving the dyke to a point that navigation is again practical, and even ‘wild’ mooring (both of which the PC is supportive), or is it their intention for the neglect to continue to a point where the dyke is totally overgrown?
"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)
|
|
theartist |
|
Forum Regular
Posts: 160
Joined: Mar 2013
Add To Ignore List
|
interesting. in the early 70s it was impassable. last time i looked it was slightly open.
|
|
ADI |
|
Been Posting For a Long Time
Posts: 2215
Joined: Oct 2009
Add To Ignore List
|
wow always thought that was a private dyke. must have a explore some day. interesting to watch this one,
good one pally 
Regards
Adrian Michelle
Beck Braydon and Mere.
|
|
Paladine |
|
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 9392
Joined: Jul 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
It's most definitely not private! You might like to take a look at some photos I took a couple of years ago http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=48&Topic=39543&srow=0&erow=2
The dyke is wider, and probably deeper, than Waxham Cut and, I suspect, Catfield Dyke. It just needs a bit of a clean-up.
"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)
|
|
simritdave |
|
Knows Their Stuff
Posts: 114
Joined: Aug 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
Pally, I take pride in thinking I know most places on the North side, but this one has me flummoxed.
Are you able to post a Google map with it marked please?
Simritdave
Freeman 26, Piero Gianni
|
|
Paladine |
|
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 9392
Joined: Jul 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
Always happy to oblige
Still can't post photos here, so I've put the location pic here http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=48&Topic=39543&srow=3&erow=3
"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)
|
|
Paladine |
|
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 9392
Joined: Jul 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
Here are more photos http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=48&Topic=39543&srow=4&erow=4 which demonstrate the mooring potential of the dyke, not necessarily as formal mooring, but informal 'wild' mooring, if only the BA would help a little.
"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)
|
|
simritdave |
|
Knows Their Stuff
Posts: 114
Joined: Aug 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
Many thanks, I do know where it is now, I didn't know it as Cromes Dyke. I think we've moored at the mouth of the dyke on a number of occasions.
Thanks for posting the pics.
Simritdave
Freeman 26, Piero Gianni
|
|
Paladine |
|
Mudplug Juggler
Posts: 9392
Joined: Jul 2008
Add To Ignore List
|
Just checking if the bug has been fixed.
edited to add: Yes, it has. Thanks, Richard
"..for the avoidance of any doubt, the broads are not legally a national park and do not come under the national park legislation, and nor will they."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)
This message was edited by Paladine on Oct-14-16 @ 7:42 PM
View Full Size Image
|
|
JP |
|
Forum Regular
Posts: 225
Joined: Dec 2005
Add To Ignore List
|
The staithe and north bank of the dyke are registered common land and consequently have status as open access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The dyke is part of the navigation and is navigable by small boats. The enclosure award of 1802 (NRO C/Sca 2/67) describes the site ‘as a public staithe to be used by the owners and occupiers of Estates in the said parish of Catfield for laying and depositing corn, manure, and other things thereon’. The staithe, which was effectively a mooring basin, still has status as a public staithe but has long been silted up.
Catfield Parish Council registered title to the staithe and the rond to the north of the dyke and as landowner they have not asked the Broads Authority to reinstate the staithe. The reinstatement of the staithe has not therefore been considered or identified as a priority project for the Authority. The costs of a project to reinstate the staithe which would involve major excavation and would, in all likelihood, be extremely expensive. The Authority would have to discuss this with the landowners. Additionally this project would require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations as a plan or project which has the potential to affect a European designated site.
As regards tree clearance on the dyke the management of trees to prevent obstruction of the navigation is the responsibility of the landowners. I believe the majority of the trees on the dyke are on the parish council owned bank and we would have to discuss this with them. While the Authority does carry out tree clearance and work with private landowners to improve navigable width this has to be prioritised. There are many areas where boaters are asking us to carry out tree clearance works and over recent years the amount of tree clearance work we do has increased dramatically but it has to be focused on areas where it will deliver the greatest benefit for navigation. In this case it is unlikely that we would be able to prioritise the work required.
|
Reply to Discussion
Oct-12-2016 @ 12:48 PM
