Soundings

I believe Hickling is a lost cause, that Bridge is a tool for those who want to turn that area over to nature and smaller boats. It will never be a significant cruising ground again and as sea levels rise it will get worse/better dependent upon personal view point. The number/type of boats is a problem and it will be a growing one, yes. There are one or two ways to freeze/reduce numbers I suppose - put a cap on the number of licenses and/or increase the tolls for instance. I can hear the cries of anguish already, and understandably so, but when something is scarce its value goes up and supply and demand is controlled. There are many things I want and cannot afford and I just have to accept that and move on. It just does not make sense to carry on as we are but the delay in taking action has just exacerbated the problem. Here I certainly do think the BA has failed. So, yes, JM we are on the same page. Conservation should try an keep the Broads as a nice cruising area that harmonises well with the natural environment. It should be a shared resource where no single activity damages another. All we need is the right people in the job. I still favour the Broads as a real NP. Maybe it should be a "special" NP with Sandford being tweaked to suite the region and its history (after all the Broads themselves are man made). Or maybe that is what the Broads is supposed to be now, but the BA are seen to be struggling with the management.

That is a valid point of view, JM and I would not argue with it. Save that too much navigation will also kill the Broads. It is about balanced conservation.

We are not far apart, Dave. But at the end of the day my personal take is that if anything HAS to take precedence then it must be conservation for that is the only way to ensure the environment stays available. It is a bit like being a landlord - if you let the building fall down there is nothing to rent out! Now as to the ability of any Authority to discharge that ambition in a way that pleases all is always going to be open to question. What I do believe, though, is that in general terms they try very hard but they are damned if they do an damned if they don't. Look at the BA, there are those who are always ready to jump on them, to encourage the conspiracy theory, to rubbish their sometimes herculean efforts. That does not mean they get it right all the time but I bet they certainly try! I do not believe conservation is messing with evolution (or it should not be). It is the difficult responsibility to try and maintain an ecological balance where everything broadly remains as it should be. I do not necessarily agree with reintroduction of species that are reducing naturally but there-again I do agree with reintroduction where man originated decimation has occurred. You could argue keeping the Broads dredged is interfering with the natural order of things for as we all know the Broads will not be here forever - the sea will attend to that. On the other hand it is conserving what we currently have for as long as we reasonably can. Kids playing with Wolves. Now there is an interesting concept. There are certainly some I would encourage to do that

But is is not an equal view, Dave. Not when you read a lot of the threads on here. There is a leaning towards personal interest taking the lead (I am not saying you are in that camp) when to be frank if anything should take precedence it is conservation - for if it is ignored then the Broads will deteriorate. You have to protect the asset and that is what the NPs are trying to do IMO. I agree there should be a balance but at the end of the day the asset must be preserved or there will be nothing at all . Do you not fear for an environment called the Broads that is full of boats, moorings, more boats and plugin points all over the place! Extreme vision? Well maybe, but listen to some of the wants and look at the way the hire fleets are developing their boats (which all end up private boats in the end). And we must not forget the wild-life (flora and fauna). They are users and part of the character of the area. Thy cannot speak for themselves either. As you say sustainable balance.

I am not entirely wrong, Dave - they are not obliged to implement it UNLESS their is a conflict, but thank you for clarifying. I for one would applaud such a course for to be against it suggests that one cares little about the environment and what their preferred activity might do to damage it. Sort of boating, angling, water skiing (enter preferred activity of your choice) at all costs.

I am a local. There there are those who think profit and money is all there is and they are welcome to it. That said the finances (for the Broads) do have to be managed in a proper and fair manner. Time will tell but I think the Broads will die if they continue as is; they will just become an overcrowed morass of largely unsightly boats. Incidentally, has the Broads always been a commercial highway; a really busy commercial highway? Sure it has has had holiday boats for a number of years but they were not things that were demanding of more and more resources. They were more built to work with the resources available. But you are right smellyloo in that the Broads should be made attractive to a broader spread of holiday maker. It is not the boater who is going to frequent that nice little pub or eatery three or four miles away from the waters edge. That though means redirecting some of the cash away from navigation, or to be correct (as JM will rightly have a dig) divert more of the none navigation budget into broader development. It will also mean working in partnership with other interests parties.

Yes, the BA would have adopt Sandfprd but they will not HAVE to implement it. That is my understanding anyway. Littlesprite makes some fair points re what might go. Personally I have no problem at all with losing some of this activity. Others, of course, will not agree. Most of the arguments on this forum are put forward on the basis of what the boating fraternity (who provide less than 50% of income we now hear) wants - more mooring, more electric points, knocking down of Potter Bridge etc,. etc. All to facilitate more complex and ever larger boats and a lot of which are sadly lacking from the visual appeal perspective. I really do hope there is an even louder voice elsewhere that is balancing the books so to speak. Fishing has been mentioned as it should be. Have you ever tried fishing the Ant on a summers day! It is difficult in the extreme as a boat crashes through one's swim every few minutes (on a good day). Fishing late evening is much better but why should one groups interest be dictated (overpowered) by another. Interesting what has been said re Windermere and Sandford. The Authority says it is not implementing but we know that behind the scenes they are. Do we have categoric evidence of this?

Certainly that is the BA's brief, Littlesprite. Whether or not it achieves that is a matter upon which I am sure others are more qualified to comment than I. I do have views but they are just my opinion of course

Dave, please you are either choosing to misinterpret my posts to somehow prove your point or you have just misunderstood what I am saying. It is not the BA I am accusing of being single interest - they are not and cannot be so. What I am saying is that some of the users of the Broads are single interest and only see the arguments as it affects them and their interest. The picture is far greater. As you say 50% of income comes from Tolls - therefore 50% does not. We agree that it is a watery haven but there is a lot more to it than just on/in water based activities. In fact standing on Ludham Bridge the other day I found the shed loads of boats tied up along with those looking for mooring a huge distraction from the beauty of the Broadland landscape. Balance is required and I think putting conservation before profit MIGHT be the way to go.....with the correct stewardship. And I do not necessarily agree that the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads have less to offer that the big National Parks - it is just different and more gentle. In any event beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore your view or judgement can only be your personal opinion rather than a matter of fact.

Where did I say anything about percentages. What I said was "in any event who said with absolute certainty that NP status means no boats for that is what no tolls infers". You are still banging the same drum Dave; you are still inferring that there will be no Toll income if "real" NP status ever becomes a reality (which I doubt but would prefer). I do not believe that one iota. But that is the single interest vision /ideology that prevails in some quarters.

Well other National Parks survive, Dave. Better than than a linear fish pond full of boats with nowhere to go. And in any event who said with absolute certainty that NP status means no boats for that is what no tolls infers. And that really is just scare mongering in my view - as I have said before there will never be a balanced argument if one listens only to single interest groups. I say that as a boater. In any event as JM has said the cost of running the Broads should be split across all users/beneficiaries. I agree entirely for that will take the spread of those with an interest into account and not just those with a business /single focus. They can put my tax up a couple of pence if they like but not if the focus remains as is.

A sound argument and a two edged sword indeed. Personally ,I am not against the idea off a "real" NP but understand why others with a focus primarily on navigation may no be.

Looks like Norfolk might be better off than most...I hope!

Absolutely

Does that mean Sid has bought it then?

Thanks for that, Dave. Time will tell. Does it still say "sold subject to contract"? The last time I looked that was its status.

That sort of thing should not be allowed. Why should Punch be allowed to strangle communities. That said, Potter won't help itself or try to. It will just accept it.

Quite right JM but as numbers increase the proportion that do go out grows and even 50 boats a mile is significant. Mooring north is a big problem now in busy times. I understand it is better south but have no long term experience. As for the pubs - they all need one thing, all year round custom. That does not happen these days, not universally anyway. That will always hit the PubCo model hard. Potter once had four pubs I believe - how things change! Hopefully the Falgate will re-emerge as a free house. Fingers crossed on that one for nobody really knows yet if it will emerge at all.

The planning is easy - a sign pointing the way. I believe there was one once There are also maps, guide books and Google. Mooring is a completely different issue. There is only so much available land and we do not want it all lined with boats, sorry. The fact does rather remain that there are too many boats up north and not enough moorings. Some of the boats need to move down south for I am certain the BA are not going to bring any sort of balance. They can't really - there are 13000 boats registered on the Broads (probably more now) - that is 100 per mile. But that is another issue. There is a feeling with some, not all by any means, that the Broads infrastructure should be able to cater for whatever is thrown at it. That is unreasonable and impossible. I blame the boating holiday profile for this (and those who encourage it) but the fact remains there is only 130 miles of navigable water and that includes the other side of Potter and Wroxham bridges. It follows that at peak times the infrastructure cannot cope and that will get worse year on year. I do sympathise with the holiday boaters for they pay a lot to get on the rivers of Broadland. It is I think time for some rational thinking. Yes we do need to accommodate both local people and holiday maker interests but not all holiday makers are boaters and the holiday season is only a part of the year.

http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/england/norfolk/potter+heigham#.VcOUEbTBzzI

The problem is that whatever you do local trade is probably not going use it. Most of the houses are the other side of the by-pass. There are some nice places to eat close-ish to Potter but they are not riverside. Locals did use the Falgate as it provided (still does) good value meals, a decent pint and accommodation for those that required it (usually fisherfolk). The Falgate is not that far from the river either. I do not reckon Potter is a good place for a hotel for wherever you site it it will be contaminated by the Latham complex, including car park (is the Latham building monstrosity really listed?). Places like Coltishall and Wroxham are far better suited to that kind of thing. Potter Heigham is a village that has a big boatyard and a quaint bridge. That is probably all it ever was except there was a time where some folk would add Latham's to the list of attractions and we must not forget the long gone railway station. Also, I thought the Broads was about open spaces, nature and tranquility. Or does progress mean it can only survive as a theme park...bring on the big wheel, Macdonalds and a few bucket and spade shops. That way the boats can all thrash along the river so they can get to Potter in time to get a mooring!! On second thoughts perhaps we should leave well alone

That is like saying every quaint village in England needs a Bistro and a gastro pub complete with disco Do you happen to live in a city, Robin? Yes, I see from your profile that you do. Remember, there are more locals here than holiday-makers and some of us want to avoid city life - we have quite a nice place for that; it is called Norwich. A nice village riverside pub will do - in fact I would be happy if the Falgate makes it back on the map.

I loved her dearly as a singer but hated Blind Date. Each to their own of course but she was a great lass and shall be missed. RIP Cilla and thanks for some great songs.

Agree, but it is unlikely to get one any time soon, imho :-( Robin, you have described the riverside pretty well but how much do you really know Potter. Did you know the larger portion of it sits the other side of the by-pass (once the railway line), where there is a very nice church, housing and where there was once yet another pub, the site of which has recently been developed into housing. This side of the village backs onto nice marshes and the back of Hickling Broad. It is very popular with walkers, cyclists, anglers and twitchers alike. That all sort of underlines my view that in the main this is a single interest forum when the Broads are much more than that - any development must take into account all interests and not just boats..please not just boats.

My hope rests with the Falgate.