Topic: Crome's Dyke


Paladine    -- Oct-12-2016 @ 11:48 AM
 
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    -- Oct-12-2016 @ 3:04 PM
  interesting. in the early 70s it was impassable. last time i looked it was slightly open.


ADI    -- Oct-12-2016 @ 7:39 PM
  wow always thought that was a private dyke.  must have a explore some day. interesting to watch this one,

good one pally  Smile

Regards

Adrian  Michelle

Beck  Braydon and Mere.


Paladine    -- Oct-12-2016 @ 9:46 PM
 
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    -- Oct-13-2016 @ 2:11 AM
  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    -- Oct-13-2016 @ 7:30 AM
 
Always happy to oblige  Smile

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    -- Oct-13-2016 @ 8:22 AM
 
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    -- Oct-13-2016 @ 9:42 PM
  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    -- Oct-14-2016 @ 6:41 PM
 
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)
Smile

This message was edited by Paladine on Oct-14-16 @ 7:42 PM


JP    -- Oct-20-2016 @ 5:23 PM
  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.



Paladine    -- Oct-7-2020 @ 9:24 PM
 
I’m resurrecting this old thread, as there is a new development.

The subject of Crome’s Dyke was an agenda item at the Catfield Parish Council meeting tonight, where Paul Savage, of Broad Sword, spoke to the meeting. Broad Sword are volunteers from the Broads Society, who carry out bank maintenance and other work, under the guidance of the BA.

Catfield Parish Council are keen to have the trees on the north side of the dyke, on land to which they have registered the title, cut back to enable more moorings to be established. They are considering having a mix of private moorings and public 24hr moorings.

Paul Savage said that Broad Sword would be happy to carry out the trimming back, hopefully over this coming winter. It is not envisaged that hard quay headings would be installed, as this would be too expensive and probably wouldn’t get planning permission, but soft-edge ‘wild’ moorings would be preferred.

It would, of course, help if the Broads Authority dredged out the reed bed that is currently growing out from their side of the dyke, rapidly choking the navigation. I would like to think that the Authority would give the parish council every assistance with this project and not create obstacles. Moorings are in short supply and I'm sure that location would be very popular.


"..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)


REDKEN    -- Oct-8-2020 @ 3:03 PM
  Thanks for reviving this Paladine.
The proposal is an excellent one in my opinion. If the BA dredged the dyke would it be wide enough for boats to moor without blocking access? There would need to be sufficient width for boats to pass oncoming vessels and those moored.
I also have reservations about new moorings being created that might not meet the BA over the top specfication.
There are a small number of wild moorings on the BA side of the river between Cromes Dyke and the moorings at How Hill that had been used for many years but now have BA No Mooring signs. There appears to be a reluctance on the BA part to allow wild mooring where they have influence.
  


MandA    -- Oct-9-2020 @ 1:42 PM
  How can such a simple job turn into all this ,it would be nice for once to hear - by Jove that’s a good idea we will sort it out, but not possible with autocrats I guess.
I notice European something or other came into the multitude of problems to overcome the mind boggles how anything ever gets done.
Adrian.

MandA


Marshman    -- Oct-9-2020 @ 1:50 PM
  You will be pleased to learn thats its not necessarily the BA that put obstacles in its own way! Landowners, the EA, Natural England and a host of others like to get involved just to justify their roles!

I am sure if you were to spend a day or so at the coalface with those on the ground, you would be horrified!!!


Paladine    -- Oct-9-2020 @ 2:55 PM
 
Marshman, I 'attended' the meeting, via ZOOM, and the need for permissions was discussed fully. Only the Broads Authority was identified as (possibly) having any remit to interfere.
  

"..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    -- Oct-9-2020 @ 3:16 PM
 
I took a walk to the dyke today, to take photos of the current appearance and compare it with my 2014 photos. Despite having copies of my 2014 photos with me, it was difficult to identify most of the locations at which they were taken, because of the overgrowth of vegetation.

This composite picture will give you an idea, though.

"..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    -- Oct-9-2020 @ 3:17 PM
 
This pic shows the location of the old sluice gate

"..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    -- Oct-9-2020 @ 3:19 PM
 
There is (was) a footpath which went from the wild mooring at the mouth of the dyke, alongside the river, towards Mud Point.

See photos

"..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)


The Norfolk Broads Forum : http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk
Topic: http://www.the-norfolk-broads.co.uk/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=57&Topic=39541