Jump to content

JennyMorgan

Full Members
  • Content Count

    11,293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    180

JennyMorgan last won the day on March 15

JennyMorgan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15,158 Excellent

3 Followers

About JennyMorgan

  • Rank
    The Broads is NOT a national park, FACT!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Oulton Broad
  • Interests
    Broads, boats, music, art and angling.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,087 profile views
  1. Can't think why I so rarely go up that way!
  2. I've noticed that a number of canal moorings are cheaper but many are more basic than the Broads ones plus they don't have to allow for the rise and fall of the tides. That said, perhaps supply and demand plus a degree of greed is also a factor on the more expensive Broads ones. Perhaps also a case that if people are prepared to pay it then there are folk who are prepared to charge for it.
  3. The Authority missed the boat so to speak when it updated the Broads Act. In the meantime greater effort with what they have would not go amiss.
  4. Seems to me that reaching a conclusion is no nearer than previously. Reading between the lines there does appear to be a dissatisfaction with the BA in that it does not uphold time limits on 24hr moorings but then that is pretty universal. Perhaps the BA should consider appointing local 'mooring wardens' to keep some form of control?
  5. When in doubt refer to Google so I have, namely tapping in 'UK National Parks Foundation'. I found and was impressed with the American National Parks Foundation but zilch on this latest UK creation. What I did find were the several, existing UK national park's related charities and organisations, all of which the Authority/Packman already appears to be involved with. It would be interesting to find out what Packman's actual involvement has been in the creation of this latest addition to the NP cause.
  6. For the benefit of the Broads or just for Dr Packman. I wouldn't normally recommend visiting the so called 'Darkside' but Paladine's comments on this topic are a real wake-up call.
  7. I don't know that the BA has actually set up another charity but it has certainly agreed to accommodate this new one in its Norwich office. I can only guess at Dr Packman's possible motives and involvement with this one. I am concerned that this new charity's clearly stated purpose is at odds with the legislative duties of the Broads Authority. More than that I rather suspect that this new charity will provide a nice little earner, perhaps to a soon to retire redundant CEO. I do wonder at the need for this new charity. I also accept that there is a need watch progress with a cautious eye. A bit more delving I suspect.
  8. I doubt it. Authority members apparently went to lunch at The Bridge today.
  9. Just in case folk haven't sorted it: https://mailchi.mp/6db4a0203cc0/broads-briefing-march?e=259d8798cf For the rest of you, my appologies. In the meantime I have read the details of the UK National Parks Foundation including their charter & purpose. Wow, hardly compatible with the statutory duties of the Broads Authority. Having said that there is nothing contentious I have to change my mind now, sorry and all that sort of thing, I was wrong. I can not see how the Authority can allie itself to this new charity as its purposes differ quite markedly from the Broads Act. I also question the need for two charities campaigning on behalf of national parks and perhaps the Broads. If there is any wisdom within the Authority membership then perhaps someone might burst JP's bubble.
  10. https://outlook.live.com/mail/inbox/id/AQQkADAwATc3AGZmAGUtODI5Ny1lOTVhLTAwAi0wMAoAEADr%2F7TjqnFbTLj6nSNOlnie Nothing really contentious and actually some very good news! Enjoy! Sorry, but for some strange reason the P in JP in the title insists on reverting to lower case.
  11. A great pity that said filter does not take context into consideration.
  12. And if your boat breaks down whilst out on hire? Call out Boulters? They are busy! Richardsons, your guess is as good as mine. Call in at another hire yard only to be told to sod off? Practicalities apart, NO!
  13. The problem, both perceived and practical, of weighty documents is that the supposed final deciders, Authority & committee members, don't actually read what has been prepared for their enlightenment, preferring to simply abide by officers' recommendations. Indeed I am past despairing at the lamentable lack of knowledge sometimes displayed at meetings. No doubts that the authors have done their research. With regard to residential moorings I well remember a distant cousin, my bloodline is many & varied and not normal for Norfolk in being typically straight, telling me that all he and other showmen/travellers required is a field and to be left alone. Involving local authorities does tend to complicate the issue. There are obvious parallels between those who travel by river with those who travel by water. The final solution, I suspect, often boils down to cost. That boats hop between 24hr moorings is an obvious cost saving and probably the basis of the problem. Roger at Jenners Basin understood both the ethos and the problems and provided accordingly. Having read the report I don't see that as being replicated. Boats are boats, do they really have to meet the criteria for land based dwellings?
  14. Thank you, By the River, and welcome to the forum. Personally I have been involved in the consultation and and have been watching this new local plan with much interest. I am not sure whether the documents are more enlightening than they are confusing or whether it's the other way round! I suspect that most of us would appreciate bullet points that we can relate to. Anyway, good intention on your part and much appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.