The Broads Is Not A National Park!

[JennyMorgan]

I have been in correspondence with the Council For National Parks. I won't bother you with the debate but I have now received confirmation that the Broads is NOT a national park!!!!

Dear Mr Waller

 

You are of course right, it isn’t a Park but for shorthand we, and others, refer to it as being part of the National Parks family. Apologies. I appreciate the decision by the Broads Authority to refer to it as a Park was and is controversial.

 

As you say, there is no legal boundary of the Broads NP as it isn’t a National Park as set out in the 1949 Act. But there is a legal boundary to the Broads and the protections set out in the 1988 legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework apply to it.

 

 

Best wishes

Fiona

 

 

[grendel]

Thank you for clarifying this JM, are they likely to amend their web page to include this, or are you happy to have received this acknowledgement from them?

[JohnK]

Would that be the group that’s now called the campaign for national parks that lists this as one of their achievements?

 

1988: Hurrah! We were involved in the Broads Bill which gave the Broads National Park equivalent status.

 

Or a different group?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Paladin]

It's the same group. They changed their name from the Council for National Parks to the Campaign for National Parks in 2008.

JM, please try to keep up

[JohnK]

Well they seem fairly sure the Broads is a National Park:

When were the National Parks created?

The first National Parks were created in 1951, the latest addition to the National Park family was the South Downs in 2010.

1951: The Lake District, Dartmoor, The Peak District, Snowdonia.
1952: The North York Moors, Pembrokeshire Coast
1954: Exmoor, The Yorkshire Dales
1955: Northumberland
1957: The Brecon Beacons
1989: The Broads (designated under its Act of Parliament)
2005: The New Forest
2010: South Downs

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

John K, having now received an admission that the Broads is not a national park I shall now request that they amend their website accordingly. However your list is worded quite cleverly, ergo 'the latest addition to the National Park family' with no mention that it is the Broads that is the odd one out.

[JohnK]

John K, having now received an admission that the Broads is not a national park I shall now request that they amend their website accordingly. However your list is worded quite cleverly, ergo 'the latest addition to the National Park family' with no mention that it is the Broads that is the odd one out.

Are you hoping they will also stop supporting the broads?

Their tag line is

Fighting for National Parks for over 80 years

So isn’t there a danger that you force them into a corner where their only option is to drop support for the Broads?

Is that a price worth paying for a label?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnK]

I’ll open that question up a bit ....
Those of you that would like to see BA stop referring to the Broads as a National Park: Would you be happy to remove any link with national parks along with the funding that entails and the promotion / marketing that goes with it?
It’s a genuine question that I’m really interested in hearing your answer to, I’m not trying to make a point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

21 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Are you hoping they will also stop supporting the broads?

Their tag line is

So isn’t there a danger that you force them into a corner where their only option is to drop support for the Broads?

Is that a price worth paying for a label?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

John, DEFRA, not the CNP pays grants to the BA.

[JohnK]

John, DEFRA, not the CNP pays grants to the BA.

 

I understand that but CNP supports national parks doesn’t it?

[edit] by support I don’t mean financially.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[batrabill]

22 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I’ll open that question up a bit ....
Those of you that would like to see BA stop referring to the Broads as a National Park: Would you be happy to remove any link with national parks along with the funding that entails and the promotion / marketing that goes with it?
It’s a genuine question that I’m really interested in hearing your answer to, I’m not trying to make a point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Any answers?

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, batrabill said:

Any answers?

 

 

Keep up, Bill, tis DEFRA who hands out the dosh, not the CNP. 

[JohnK]

The Broads funding comes from the same pot as National Parks doesn’t it?
What if all this talk of “the broads isn’t a National Park” ends up with a civil servant somewhere saying “excuse me minister, I have a plan to save you three million pounds a year and get a lot of people off your back. We stop calling the broads a National Park and withdraw funding”
Would that be ok?

[Paladin]

Why would the funding be withdrawn? What is so glibly referred to as the National Park Grant is actually authorised by the 1988 Broads Act. It's got sweet nothing to do with designation as a national park, equivalent status or anything else. It's been referred to as the National Park Grant for so long, that people (well, a lot of them) think that that is what it is. A clear demonstration of the reason the Broads should not be called a national park.

[JennyMorgan]

John, that just won't happen.

[batrabill]

But the Broads does share a great deal, like the first 2 primary purposes. It’s almost like the Government of the time felt it had equivalent status. Just like a National Park. 

So if it isn’t the same, then surely the boaters can pay!

This idea has exactly equivalent status to the nonsense that is posted here about NP=Sandford=boats removed from the Broads. 

[johnb]

The government in its wisdom pays me a magnificent pension every month. It chooses, with my agreement, to channel this money every month to me, via a bank account. The fact that I receive the credit via my bank, does not make me a "member" of the bank, the bank may pretend to love me and get me involved in all kinds of other stuff, we may even have interests in common, but they are really just the conduit through which I receive the means to own my boat! DEFRA uses the National Park system in order to channel its grant to BA.

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, you have already conceded that the battle has been won yet now you are engaging in a rearguard engagement. Please get over it, the CNP has confirmed what we already know. Good, innit?

[JohnK]

I just had a quick scan through Hansard and whilst I agree 100% the 1988 Broads act didn’t make the Broads a National Park it links it very closely to them.
Personally, I’d be extremely worried that the outcome of the “its not a National Park” chant is complete disassociation from National Parks and the support they get including funding. In a couple of places in Hansard they even talk about Broads funding being the same as National Parks funding.
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Perhaps the outcome of this is in ten years time nobody calls the Broads a National Park because it isn’t fit to be called a National Park. Would that be a win?
You can’t use the “that won’t happen” argument unless I’m allowed to use it for Sanford

[Paladin]

13 minutes ago, batrabill said:

But the Broads does share a great deal, like the first 2 primary purposes. It’s almost like the Government of the time felt it had equivalent status. Just like a National Park. 

So if it isn’t the same, then surely the boaters can pay!

This idea has exactly equivalent status to the nonsense that is posted here about NP=Sandford=boats removed from the Broads. 

The government of the day felt the 1988 Act gave the Broads "status equivalent to a national park " (Hansard). That doesn't mean it's the same as a national park, it means that it has the same level of protection as a national park (that's also in Hansard).

If the Broads were the same as a national park, I would expect they would get the same level of funding as the national parks. But we have to pay tolls to make up the diference.

[batrabill]

12 minutes ago, johnb said:

The government in its wisdom pays me a magnificent pension every month. It chooses, with my agreement, to channel this money every month to me, via a bank account. The fact that I receive the credit via my bank, does not make me a "member" of the bank, the bank may pretend to love me and get me involved in all kinds of other stuff, we may even have interests in common, but they are really just the conduit through which I receive the means to own my boat! DEFRA uses the National Park system in order to channel its grant to BA.

Paladine, after proving that Marketing and Promotion are not related even though they are, you are now proving that The Broads National Park Grant isn’t a National Park Grant? 

Next prove that the Minister responsible for the 1988 legislation didn’t say in the house The Broads had equivalent status to the other NPs when he commended the legislation to the house. 

[johnb]

Batrabill, I think you may be accusing Paladin for posting my post! I am sure it doesn't have his usual erudition and clarity, it was just a point that occurred to simple me!

I am a pensioner, I have equivalent status with other pensioners. I. however I am myself,  I have somethings in common with some other pensioners, but my each of us has our own priorities and responsibilities. That which I receive is still my pension, even though I spend some of the largess on my boats, whereas others spend theirs on other things.

[batrabill]

13 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Bill, you have already conceded that the battle has been won yet now you are engaging in a rearguard engagement. Please get over it, the CNP has confirmed what we already know. Good, innit?

I didn’t realise the CNP was in charge? I’ve read the response and it says nothing new. But there’s nothing new to say is there?

im with JohnK, by removing the link to the NPs you are likely to lead a cash strapped post Brexit government to conclude that the boaters should pay. Is that what you want ?

[JennyMorgan]

It would take an Act of Parliament to undo the Broads Act. There is no evidence  whatsoever to suggest that this on the agenda, unlike the Doctor's well documented quest for the Broads to be designated as a national park which would inevitably include  the Sandford burden.

[batrabill]

Just now, johnb said:

Batrabill, I think you may be accusing Paladin for posting my post! I am sure it doesn't have his usual erudition and clarity, it was just a point that occurred to simple me!

You’re quite right. Poor eyesight and tiny phone.