Paladin

Thank you for the update. Has this been circulated to all the email recipients of the original Broads Briefing, who may well not look at your boating news page, or this forum?

The wording of the amended ToS might be interesting. What are "illegal activities"? That, surely, would be decided by a court, not the forum moderators. "Potentially illegal activities" might be a better description. A Norfolk police officer has just been acquitted of driving at up to 120mph in a 30mph zone, on a private journey. Something that the majority of people, and even his own Force, would consider to be illegal. He convinced the court otherwise. Would discussing, without expressing an opinion for or against, the illegal activities of others be considered to be condoning or encouraging them? Genuine questions.

You can call them facts, but that doesn't make them facts. From the site to which TheQ linked: "There are a lot of tricks that climate science managers have implemented over the years to fix the temperature record; that is fix it so it shows global warming. “Trick” was the word Phil Jones, a leading United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist, used to explain to his peers that, when constructing very long global temperature series using proxy data based on tree ring measurements that can extend back thousands of years, it was best to substitute thermometer data for this proxy data from about 1960 because the proxy data started to show cooling from about then. Indeed from about 1960 until 2002 the thermometer data mostly did show warming. But now even this instrumental record is starting to show cooling. Enter the relatively new trick of homogenization." Please note Mr Jones' status. He's not someone I would expect to set himself up for ridicule. He called it a trick. Others might call it fiddling the figures,

Having lifted my head out of the sand and waited until all the headless chickens disappeared over the horizon, I have found the following information. I'm sure other data are available. In terms of carbon production, the International Energy Agency figures are: 1. China 9.8 billion metric tons 29% of the total emissions 2. USA 5.3 billion metric tons 16% 3. India 2.5 billion metric tons 7% 4. Russia 1.7 billion metric tons 5% 5. Japan 1.2 billion metric tons 4% ....... 16. UK 0.36 billion metric tons 1% So if the UK became carbon free tomorow it would make diddlysquat difference to the overall total. Now if Miss Thunberg can get to meet the Chinese leaders and persuade them to make the same commitment as the UK government has made, I might start listening to her. But at the moment she is just aiming at the low-hanging fruit.

If you read my post again, you’ll see the answer is there. The answer to your question of who selects them at the moment and the next question of how they could be selected in the future.

As there are elected members already, but one step removed from direct election i.e. elected members of local district councils who are appointed as members of the BA by their council, it's not that much of a leap to allow the electorate of those council areas to directly elect the BA members. Or perhaps, as there seems to be an appetite to swallow up adjacent parish councils, the parish electorate could have a say. There are plenty of ideas around, but no willingness of central government to address the issue.

As the Broads is, mainly, just wetlands, I would think one of the rules would be that you had to have webbed feet.

I shouldn't worry about it too much. Mr Biddulph is a very sincere man, but his ambition is, basically, to establish a right of navigation on all non-tidal rivers, in order to get access for his canoeing and kayaking chums. Nothing wrong in that, but the cases he cites have nothing to do with the rights pertaining to tidal waters. You may find this less-emotive commentary easier to read and digest https://www.ealaw.co.uk/land-law-afloat/

Thank you. I've read it now and the issue relates to the advice given to the committee, rather than the committee's failure correctly to consider Sandford.

I will be interested in your progess, but before you go, I'd like to make a final point. In your first post, you said: "The statutory right of navigation on all rivers capable of navigation was completely unquestioned for 1800 years. Over the last 200 years a different view has been formed by some lawyers, landowners and other bodies, based on riparian rights (rights associated with property bordering rivers). But it is an accepted principle of English law that such private rights are subservient to public rights." I think that it is now well-established that there is no blanket statutory right of navigation on non-tidal rivers. But we are more concerned with the right of navigation on the tidal rivers of the Broads. You may be able to enlighten me, but I have found no statute that awards such a right. It appears to stem from the common law. It is an accepted precept that, when two laws are in conflict, the later law prevails. The Environment Act 1995 does not conflict with any rights of navigation and is, therefore, of little concern to us. However, if new legislation came about along the lines of the proposals in the Glover Review, it is entirely possible that such legislation could over-ride the common law right of navigation that we currently enjoy. I would like to think that, if that was a prospect, the RYA would wake up and smell the coffee (I've given up on the NSBA). Just a thought.

Thank you. The Save the Lake District (different group) website includes this: The Sandford Principle We presented our case again at the last full LDNPA meeting of 2019 emphasising that the Sandford Principle (codified in the 1995 Environment Act) clearly states that where there is a conflict between conservation and enjoyment, then conservation MUST take precedence. That statement is wrong in law, for the reasons I gave earlier. If that is the basis of their case, I think they're wasting their time and money.

That is very subjective, but from a boater's point of view, perhaps the prospect of navigation rights being put at risk is not an attractive option.

Is that a current legal challenge? I would be interested in following its progress. Although the 1995 Act says "shall attach greater weight", the word 'shall' was historically taken to mean 'must'. That situation has changed and the only word now recognised as imposing a legal obligation is 'must'. 'Shall' is one of the most challenged words in litigation (apparently). Several years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that 'shall' in a statute means 'may'. UK courts are entitled to (and do) take note of judicial decisions from all around the World.

It might be a good time to remind people that the Sandford Principle was kicked into touch 25 years ago. The expression is used, often misunderstood and inaccurately, as shorthand for something that doesn’t exist (a bit like BNP). The original principle, which wasn’t law, but a management tool, said: "Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority.” This was watered down slightly, when the Principle was enshrined in law, by section 62(1)(2) of the Environment Act 1995, which amended section 11 of the 1949 Act as follows: "In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.” The original principle gave conservation interest automatic priority – no explanations were necessary. Since 1995, when the purpose of conservation must only be given greater weight, an obligation has been placed on the relevant authority to obtain and weigh up evidence and come to a decision that must be explained, within the context of the Act. This also makes any decision open to challenge.

Now you've really lost me. Where does Sandford mention 'development'?

I don't understand the head-long pursuit of national park status. The Broads has been held up as an example of how things should be done. In 2005, when enforcement of the Windermere speed limit began, a spokesperson for LDNP said " "There was a problem in the 1980s on the lake between people who were sailing and rowing and people who were fast powerboating. A managed approach had failed; we had talked to the speed lobbyists and those discussions had broken down.” So the heavy hand was applied because of a breakdown in discussions. Not Sandford, incidentally, but a conflict between two sides of the leisure users, although the sailors did try to play the Sandford card. But an amendment to an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons the same year read: “That this House notes that the bylaw to introduce a 10 miles per hour speed limit on Lake Windermere comes into force on 29th March 2005; recognises the detrimental effects this will have on tourism, sporting associations and the local economy; and calls on the Government to work with all interested parties to strive to find a managed solution as has proved to be possible on the Norfolk Broads.” Why on earth should we want to lower our standards of conflict management to that of mere national parks?

Not if it came at the expense of the navigation.

Out of the hundreds of applications you mentioned, only these? Since when did the Sandford Principle apply to the Broads? Incidentally, the Welsh Assembly's recent (2017) review of national parks and AONBs didn't even mention Sandford, much to the dismay of the opposition.

Could you please quote some examples?

I must confess that, in my 20 years on the Broads, I haven’t seen many twitchers (a term that some serious birdwatchers might find derogatory) set up on the river banks. Even birdwatchers tend to go to reserves, such as Hickling or Breydon Water, where there are purpose-built hides, more to see and boats causing no disturbance to their quarry. But even along the rivers, the avian wildlife doesn’t seem that bothered by boats. They are more likely to avoid a ‘naked’ human than one concealed in a boat. That’s why wildfowlers used punt-guns. I have only ever had one confrontation with an angler, and he was a private boater who didn’t want to make room for another boat, as he had staked out his fishing spot. Suggesting that there is a natural enmity between the various users of the Broads demeans those users, IMO. We should all be able to get along together and, if Glover results in one duty taking precedence over the other, everyone will lose. That dredging benefits conservation, as well as navigation, but without the tolls there would be no money available to carry it out, is just one example of the law of unintended consequences. There has been a delicate balance, of sorts, maintained on the Broads for a number of decades. I believe that any government would interfere with that balance at their peril.

I don't know about Chedgrave Common, but the path along Fleet Dyke was created in 2016, by the Environment Agency. It runs along the top of the flood bank, so the earth is very stable. I am reliably informed (by someone in the business) that it's made of "Type 1 , crushed limestone / crushed concrete , some of it crushed to dust to help bind it together." Slightly odd, though, that it only runs, from the top of the moorings, downstream to the lower end of the moorings on the bend. The footpath from the top of the moorings to the road is untouched, gets overgrown and very muddy, so there is little, if any, benefit to the village, or people arriving by car. The EA don't own that footpath and, clearly, the owner isn't bothered.

The Glover report seems to be Mr Glover’s Utopian view of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Highly commendable…in a Utopian world. But I notice that, while he goes on at some length about how these areas should be run, he is rather vague about how they will be funded, referring to the need to keep the current levels of funding. But he thinks that AONBs should have increased funding. He concedes that public budgets are tight and expects the national parks to become entrepreneurial. He also says they must make “efficiencies across the system”, which, to me suggests job cuts. Which is rarely a good policy if public support is required. So what has been the recent pattern of funding from the public purse? Since 2010, the Defra Core Grant to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority has fallen from £53.8m in 2010 to £47.9m in 2018, a drop of £5.9m (around -11%). But inflation (cpi) in that time rose by 29%. So in real terms, the reduction has been nearer -31%. (I've used official government figures, but other figures are available, I’m sure.) How much is currently available each year for the 34 AONBs? £600,000 from central government, with another £150k or so from local authorities. That’s the total, not the amount for each AONB. Somehow, I get the feeling that the Glover Review train-load of aspirations will run into the buffers of reality, with no cash available to fund them. There may well be some tweaking around the edges and some cherry-picking, so we still need to be wary of threats to the right of navigation, but I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Sorry, but that's just more fake news http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/ The "bloke who ran" it is now 96 years old. Not surprising he has handed over the reins.

Controls within the BA have been increasingly tightened, until even the pips don't dare to squeak any more. And there seems to be something of a (misplaced) reliance on people outside the organisation not having sufficient knowledge/time/interest to check on what is actually happening.

Just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing I've posted is of any use to 'them'. They already knew it.