The Broads Is Not A National Park!

[batrabill]

With some justification I am told off for making sarcastic remarks, but it’s not unreasonable to say I have posted a lot of facts today to correct what I see as misrepresentations of the truth and the upshot is I’m told JP might have his fingers crossed behind his back! 

[batrabill]

3 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

If you are happy about it, I am glad for you. 

Unfortunately I still don't think you got my main and general point, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned a specific one? The rights that we enjoy, to cruise the Broads, are under constant pressure from various different factions these days, most of whom defend their own interests as natural beauty, preservation of the natural habitat of little curly snails, etc., and if we don't defend our rights then we shall continue to have them eroded (or silted up) as we have for hundreds of years.

It's a bit like the BA planning dept trying to suggest to Roger Wood that Thorpe Island must not be used for moorings as it is a conservation area of natural beauty. 

It is not, at all. It is an overgrown railway embankment.

I absolutely agree with this, and the only vehicle for balancing huge pressures from huge organisations like RSPB NI EA and don’t forget the EU, is the BA. 

 

[johnb]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Perhaps if you give members an idea of what sort of vessel can easily use the Cut, more might make the effort. I'm not sure I would attempt it in my Bounty 30, with its 12' beam.

We have an Elysian 27 and there are few similar size boats moored in the Dyke. The Nature Tour boat makes occasional visits to the bridge just before the end of navigation, and I would imagine its beam would be about the same as the Bounty. I know not everyone wants to do every mile of the Broads, and the size of boat is  naturally limited by PH Bridge anyway. There are a few wild moorings before the mill, a footpath from Horsey goes along the side of the Cut and back onto the road, across which you can get to the sea and the seals!  At the  Mill there is a basin where I would think a 35' could turn easily. Beyond the Mill, the Cut is quite wide, although if you go to the very end, turning is limited, although possible (we and the trip boat manage it!)  although as I have  stated, there are no public moorings here. One problem is that weeds do grow in the cut and lack of use contributes to this. I have been told in the past that hire fleets and days boats have been told not to venture up the Cut. We do see a few visiting boats. if weeds become a problem, it's reverse gear to clear them. It is about 30 yards before the Mill where the reeds by the bank sometimes narrow the river, but it's just a matter of keeping going!

[Paladin]

Thank you for the info., johnb.

[johnb]

If anyone wants to venture up the Cut, sometimes the entrance from the Mere can be a little shallow, I always approach diagonally from the middle of the Mere and leave in the same way-from the middle of the exit aiming  across the Mere. I know it all sounds like a lot of bother but those who know about these things talk about the wildlife. 

[batrabill]

Thought this would be useful for some. 

It's Sandford in action. If you have a read you will see Sandford invoked several times although not in the conclusions.

Its easy to find out what the general issues are, just google Thirlmere Zip Wire.

A comparison scheme in the Broads?? Not possible to compare, but perhaps a couple of towers and zip wires across Horsey?

The planning application was withdrawn, apparently specifically because the MOD said it would endanger their low flying. Which is highly ironic - its OK to fly a fast jet down the lake but not zip wire....

Make up your own minds

Thirlmere.pdf

[JennyMorgan]

What has to be remembered is that the Broads is the Broads. It doesn't easily adapt to the one size fits all National Parks Act. Whilst some English national parks have some boating I think I am right in suggesting that the Broads is basically a waterway with a relatively narrow corridor of land surrounding the navigable waters and, as such, is a unique member of the NP family. As Bill quite rightly says, 'Not possible to compare'. Other members of the parks family are largely land with perhaps some boating. The Broads are largely wet stuff with a lot of boating. It might be more apt to name the Broads as the national inland waterway, such is its importance to the boating community. 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

What has to be remembered is that the Broads is the Broads. It doesn't easily adapt to the one size fits all National Parks Act. Whilst some English national parks have some boating I think I am right in suggesting that the Broads is basically a waterway with a relatively narrow corridor of land surrounding the navigable waters and, as such, is a unique member of the NP family. As Bill quite rightly says, 'Not possible to compare'. Other members of the parks family are largely land with perhaps some boating. The Broads are largely wet stuff with a lot of boating. It might be more apt to name the Broads as the national inland waterway, such is its importance to the boating community. 

JM I think the clue is in the name Broads Authority, I would say it has more in common with the Lea Valley Regional Park including Bitterns than a National Park.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Thanks, Fred, I do appreciate what you are saying. My feeling is that, for example, we are actually closer to Chichester Harbour Conservancy which, like the Broads, is subject to the Harbours Act. 

[JennyMorgan]

On 2/24/2018 at 16:42, batrabill said:

With some justification I am told off for making sarcastic remarks, but it’s not unreasonable to say I have posted a lot of facts today to correct what I see as misrepresentations of the truth and the upshot is I’m told JP might have his fingers crossed behind his back! 

Are you suggesting that he hasn't crossed his fingers behind his back? I wish that I could trust the man as you appear to!

[batrabill]

Quite possibly, but it’s not really a fact- based argument is it?

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Thanks, Fred, I do appreciate what you are saying. My feeling is that, for example, we are actually closer to Chichester Harbour Conservancy which, like the Broads, is subject to the Harbours Act. 

The true picture is it probably incorporates the best of both, there is no one cap fits all and the big attraction is that the Broads are unique in their own special way.

Fred

[Guest]

Seams as though they are using the vehicles for marketing now having seen a new broads authority 4x4 this afternoon with " Broads National Park " in huge letters down the side of it and no reference to the authority on it at all where as the others present have .

 

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

Seams as though they are using the vehicles for marketing now having seen a new broads authority 4x4 this afternoon with " Broads National Park " in huge letters down the side of it and no reference to the authority on it at all where as the others present have .

 

Maybe this will be the next move, start losing the ‘Broads Authority’ tag. Everything will state ‘Broads National Park’ then in a few years time everybody will have forgotten there ever was a BA.

Oh no they won’t!!

[batrabill]

I was curious what the Campaign for National Parks attitude to the Broads was so I emailed Fiona Howie the Chief Exec, and explained to her that her previous email was being hailed as proof that the Broads is not a National Park.

Her response:

 

Thank you for your email and for letting me know people are using my email in the way you mention.

As I said in my email to Peter Waller the Broads is designated under different legislation and so I agree with him that it is not legally a National Park. I don't think my email can be considered 'proof' of that - I would say the legislation does that! 

Campaign for National Parks, however, very much sees the Broads as part of the National Park family, as do others, and we will continue to campaign for it as we do all of the English and Welsh Parks.

We also supported the Broads Authority work to allow them to refer to the Broads National Park for marketing and comms purposes.

Best wishes
Fiona

[marshman]

'Bout sums it up really!!

[rightsaidfred]

15 minutes ago, marshman said:

'Bout sums it up really!!

Does it ? I would have thought there might be a clue in the name of the organisation, campaigns set out with one objective in mind to justify themselves and what they are campaigning for and as the saying goes why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Fred

[marshman]

or as another goes - a load of 'ol squit about bu***r all!!

Just depends on your standpoint Fred - I know mine, you know yours!! And thereby hangs a Forum!!

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

I was curious what the Campaign for National Parks attitude to the Broads was so I emailed Fiona Howie the Chief Exec, and explained to her that her previous email was being hailed as proof that the Broads is not a National Park.

Her response:

 

Thank you for your email and for letting me know people are using my email in the way you mention.

As I said in my email to Peter Waller the Broads is designated under different legislation and so I agree with him that it is not legally a National Park. I don't think my email can be considered 'proof' of that - I would say the legislation does that! 

Campaign for National Parks, however, very much sees the Broads as part of the National Park family, as do others, and we will continue to campaign for it as we do all of the English and Welsh Parks.

We also supported the Broads Authority work to allow them to refer to the Broads National Park for marketing and comms purposes.

Best wishes
Fiona

Thank you batrabill. Fiona's email to you confirms exactly what JennyMorgan, I and others have been saying. The Broads is not legally a national park, and is regarded as a member of the national parks family.

She has taken the BNP a stage further though. Comms purposes? No, I don't recall the Authority's decision mentioning that.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

 

Just depends on your standpoint Fred - I know mine, you know yours!! And thereby hangs a Forum!!

Agreed and long may it stay so

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

5 hours ago, batrabill said:

I was curious what the Campaign for National Parks attitude to the Broads was so I emailed Fiona Howie the Chief Exec, and explained to her that her previous email was being hailed as proof that the Broads is not a National Park.

Her response:

 

Thank you for your email and for letting me know people are using my email in the way you mention.

As I said in my email to Peter Waller the Broads is designated under different legislation and so I agree with him that it is not legally a National Park. I don't think my email can be considered 'proof' of that - I would say the legislation does that! 

Campaign for National Parks, however, very much sees the Broads as part of the National Park family, as do others, and we will continue to campaign for it as we do all of the English and Welsh Parks.

We also supported the Broads Authority work to allow them to refer to the Broads National Park for marketing and comms purposes.

Best wishes
Fiona

Thank you, Fiona, for confirming exactly what I have been saying all along. Thank you, Bill, for reconfirming the legal position. Fiona can't make it much clearer, the doubting Bill that you are!

[batrabill]

Are you worried that everyone else can't read?

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

3 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Are you worried that everyone else can't read?

 

 

Just making it crystal clear to those who won't see. Thanks again for the opportunity to yet again stress the legal reality, that is very fair minded of you and genuinely appreciated. 

[marshman]

Pete - everyone knows it is not a National Park!!!  Even JP.

Thats not what you lot bang on about all the time - I actually don't care whether or not they and the rest of the country, or 99% of the country, call it one either!!

But it bothers you and a fairly small minority that these "others" call it one - when it isn't!! But as I say not me and many others.

[BroadAmbition]

Many of us do mind that it is wrongly called a national park.  However those that do mind - not all of them post saying so let alone those that don’t read the NBN. 

Without you or me conducting a poll I don’t really think you can state those that do mind are in a minority just as I couldn’t say they are a majority 

Griff