Soundings

Excellent news, Robin

I'm with JawsOrca on this. Have used Wayford several tims and quite liked it. Cannot stand Acle Bridge though - far too noisy. Not so bad in winter but I remember it in the "old days" and then it was a real pub.

Yes they certainly are. It is only the first season and they are having to compete with Latham's which is not a bad coffee shop/snack bar - but it is Latham's

Yawn...yes indeed Admiral

Its not bad is it - but think I'll pass on the telly idea. After all it is a tea room not a cinema

Yes I have noticed the 1000s of homeless people around the Broads MM.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/property/bid_to_build_homes_on_rollesby_farmland_recommended_for_approval_1_4120230 The Broads will soon be surrounded by building. Is this the beginning of the end :-( It can't be right surely.

Plus 1 to that

You are wrong, Paul. I have just been a party to a will where a deed of variation has been executed by the Executors with the blessing of all beneficiaries. This variation actually "changed" the will significantly and some beneficiaries therefore received less. It can be done where a good case can be put forward and who is going to challenge that variation other than the beneficiaries (and they won't as they agreed to it). What we have to remember re charities is they are not there to look after peoples estates or part thereof (not unless that is the objective in the deed). I doubt if this gift to the RSPB was a legally binding arrangement in perpetuity. To be honest I do not think any charitable trust would accept a gift on that basis for they must remain free to manage that asset in line with their overall objectives. That is why trusts sometimes sell assets off. Sorry Marshman we crossed but this post is more about varying a will.

They might have been able to comply in the first instance but things do change or they might have thought they could comply. That happens, its called life. Equally the land could have been subject to a compulsory purchase order and that would have killed the benefactors wishes as well. These things happen. No need for any conspiracy theories. In any event we do not know all there facts. As Iain says, Matter closed.

At the end of the day the RSPB, indeed any charity, has to manage its assets in a way that meets its overall objectives. The RSPB is not in the business of maintaining non performing assets (in this case presumably maintaining land that has minimal scope in turns of wildlife). It would be wrong to spend cash maintaining land because it might be home to some common wildlife, like ants, spiders, rats, when that money might be better spent on something else. As I understand it the good lady left the RSPB land but not the cash to maintain it. It is not self financing. True it may not cost much to maintain (or it might) but it matters not for the trust is not in business to manage non performing assets no matter how big or small. Its job is to meet its own objectives as set out in its founding documentation and not those of a beneficiary who's well meaning gift has not worked out. I'm sorry but this really is RSPB bashing now. They have done nothing wrong and have manage a tricky situation in a very reasonable manner. The scenario is not unique and is one that has doubtless been faced by many charities large and small.

Being an ex charitable trustee, the charity is acting within its rights and is acting as far as we know with the interests of the charities overall objectives at heart. It would be a significant breach of trust if it were to continue managing the asset in question when it had no chance of making that asset perform. It would just be knowingly wasting money. In this case the charity has gone back to the surviving family and executors and agreed a way forward. I have no problem with that and I doubt that the Charity Commissioners would either.

We all know the Broadshaven pub at Potter has closed yet again. I am however informed by a local that this time it might be terminal as the structure has been condemned! Can anyone categorically confirm or deny this? I agree the place is something of a dump and needs re-building but my fear is that if it is demolished housing of some description will probably take its place. I cannot see another pub being built in this pub hostile business climate.

Johnb, I never accused you of RSPB bashing did I? I said and I quote "RSPB bashing 'cause they seem to be disliked by some on here". It is a case of if the cap fits. Marshman, I agree with you 100%, as can be seen from my earlier post.

That is true, I believe, or at least a majority of them. But the Executors have agreed so presumably all those with an interest have come out on-side. Nothing is forever and I do not necessarily agree with your objections on the grounds of immorality. It may well be that the land is of no real benefit wildlife wise any more and that the asset can be put to better use. It would be foolish (immoral?) in my mind to just let the land sit there doing not a lot. To be honest, we just do not know but as is often the case we are taking up RSPB bashing 'cause they seem to be disliked by some on here. I am sure some think they do a grand job whilst others feel that they do the best they can.

The RSPB have gone back to the executors of the ladies will and if the executors are happy then they (RSPB) have done all they need. The executors have the power to vary the will. If it is a fiddle (which I doubt) then the execs are at fault. It is nothing to do with the council and has no relationship as to whether or not a planning application should be passed - not if the executors have agreed to the variation. Fourteen years is a long time and things can change. For instance a wild life habitat can be devalued by many means , including the usage adjacent land might be put to.

Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

If the land was left to the RSPB with a covenant saying that it can not be built on then that covenant should prevail and the Charity Commissioners should be brought into the loop. Of course, what we do not know is what the transfer documentation actually said. Maybe we should all raise it with the RSPB and force a response from them. We had a similar situation in our village where land had been left in trust with the Parish Council on the basis that it must be used as a village amenity, including playing fields. The PC were thinking of selling a chunk for housing but backed off due to the terms of the trust. I have supported the RSPB for years as I do believe they do a lot of good. Stuff like this though disgusts me and if true I will certainly withdraw my support.

That is my point JM, too much funding comes from boats, it sort of creates a monopoly. It needs to come from elsewhere as well and then the books and the management (of the Broads) can become more balanced. I am no longer North. I tried South but that was pretty bad too. So, gave up the Broads and went elsewhere. I say gave up the Broads, which is not quite correct. I gave up cruising on the Broads but now sail above "that bridge" and thank the Lord for it

Thanks JM, I shall read with interest. I suspect there should be a balance stuck but whilst most on here will probably disagree, I do view boating as having too high a priority in terms of how the Broads is managed. Irrespective of what is was like in the 60s/70s I do believe it is hell out there in peak season.

But is it really worth that price? Is that what our lives have come to - getting everywhere as fast as we can and to hell with the consequences. Perhaps that explains why there are some boaters who only know one speed - flat out (I use boaters as an example for no other reason than boating is supposed to be a leisurely activity.

It is the job thing that really worries me. What will these jobs be? And why is all planning driven by business needs rather that quality of life needs. Clearly the local authority believes Norfolk does not earn enough cash as a holiday area so they intend to change it to a London/home counties lookalike. The building around the Broads is significant already - 1200 houses in Stalham, a load in Martham and Caister. Not to mention the huge development in Hoveton and then Wroxham through to Blueboar - amongst many others. The Stalham bypass will get busier and busier and then they will want to dual it through to Yarmouth!

So it has got past planning. What do you think it will do for Norfolk and in particular the Broads? I note in the press that this approval has been welcomed by business but I do not see many locals applauding the development. More cars. more houses, more people, less space, more pollution and desecration of quiet countryside are the downsides I see. Now what are the upsides - easier access (apparently), more housing, offices and jobs. But who will live in the houses and where are these jobs. Personally I think see have seen the best of it and must now watch Norfolk subside into a replica of the home counties. Sad but that is progress I guess. The Tory's are going building mad with this "presumption that planning will be agreed" (but then all governments use construction as a key ingredient when combating recession). It is strange there was not too much said about it by the electorate it in the run up to the election.

Agree 100% and that means usage/development has to be balanced, must not be skewed either way.

I am a boater but the Broads and the promotion thereof is not just about navigation and extending it. In any event any improvement to the Broads (no matter in which way) requires money. That has to be raised somehow - that is unless you want your toll account to be raided even more with obvious consequences. The Broads are for a cross section of the public and no one part should be more important than the other. Share....please!