JennyMorgan

And also at Acle Bridge & the adjoining marshes. Building in wood does not make a building 'green', just wooden.

Hence both my questions and my suspicions. I'm pretty darned certain that there was a breakdown in the relationship otherwise the agreement, as it has been suggested, would probably still be in situ. Are we criticising, or are we just asking concerned questions at this moment? In the future I suspect that the Trust is going to have to pay its own way so yes, there will be changes. So far there has been a guarded joint statement, probably to avoid any nastiness's, but all things considered I don't think that that is enough.

Exactly right. Personally I'd like to see a sympathetic development as I suspect it will be but I do think that the Authority will have to play this one with scrupulous caution, as I suspect that it sensibility will, I hope.

Definitely not a Hampton. Nice looking boat though, must be worth your asking price, even as a restoration project. Pity she's not Broads based, reckon that she'd sell very quickly if she was.

A very cautious comment from the Trustees as to the future of Whitlingham: https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/whitlingham-country-park-management-change-latest-1-6330189

Some external shots of her out of the water would be useful, and settle the ID question.

Could you post some exterior pictures of her out of the water please.

Well? John personally showed me some of his plans for Acle a year or two back and having sat on the Nav Com for four years I feel that I have a pretty good understanding of what makes the man tick.

BatraBill, regarding hostility, kettles, frying pans and black immediately spring to mind. Despite what Tom has said I do think that there is a public interest on this one. I am quite certain the Authority knows exactly why the management agreement has been terminated and it is only natural us 'little people' are at least curious. I actually messaged Tom, in my own name. I don't see my questions as hostile but yes, I would like to know exactly went wrong, if it did. I'm not convinced that it was entirely an amicable parting of the ways.Time will tell, I have no doubt that the truth will filter down to and along the rhond telegraph sooner or later, it usually does. On a personal level my feeling is that the Authority did a generally good job at Whitlingham, no obvious reason for the parting of the ways.

Thank you, Tom, for your considered response. I asked the question whether Authority members were aware of developments. I note that you have written that it was not a Broads Authority decision, by that I take it that the members were not kept informed of developments. If this is the case then I find that to be regrettable. Authority members might have had relevant and worthwhile advice, even useful friends in high places.

They probably are, thus a public statement should be no problem. The emerging problem does now appear to be as to whether Authority members were kept informed of developments or not. It may well be that members could have advised the executive and perhaps the decision of the Trust might thus have been in favour of retaining the Authority. A small yet important matter of governance.

Marshman, you might be right but nevertheless it was a charitable body's appointment of what is effectively a public body, one that may not be publicly accountable but nevertheless is accountable to Broads Authority members. I may not have worded that as well as I might but I suspect that you will get my drift. Dr Packman is undeniably accountable to the committee that is effectively the Broads Authority. The question is simple, were Authority members kept informed of developments at Whitlingham. Simple answer, yes or no. It was not a personal appointment, the appointment was of the Broads Authority thus surely the members should be aware of developments, should have been made aware of relevant discussions. If all parties are innocent so to speak then an open and frank statement shouldn't present a problem. In a nutshell this all relates to the thorny subject of governance. The charity in question has made a perfectly acceptable statement, I expect nothing more. However Dr Packman is accountable to the Authority thus to stakeholders.

Got to say that the contract has already exceeded 25 years and so far no one else has read things as you have. Not to say that you are wrong, over to Tom on that one. It has been suggested that the BA will hide behind commercial confidentiality but since the Charity Commission has published the Trust's accounts I fail to see how that applies. To be honest, the information that I have asked of Tom has public interest and I'm quite prepared to take the FOI route if my question is not willingly answered. The BA was recently ordered to release information that they claimed was commercially sensitive. I would hope that the BA will have the good grace to release this information and if there is no mystery then there should be no problem. A full statement of fact from Dr Packman would not go amiss.

Tom (BA), could you please help by telling us when Authority members were first informed about emerging disagreements between the Authority and the Trust, were members involved in the negotiations or at least kept updated, and what were the reasons for the Trust wanting to sever relations? I hope that you agree and accept that this information would be in the public interest.

Have had a peep at the Charity Commissioner's page. Considering it is claimed that Whitlingham attracts half a million visitors a year I am nevertheless surprised at the relatively low income. Doesn't bode well for the projected Acle Debacle!

It does appear that Crown Point Estates is taking the lead rather than the Charitable Trust. Probably just as well.

When one goes to Minsmere, as I suspect Marshman has, he'll remember that the visitor centre is also the means by which folk access the reserve. An entrance fee is charged and customers are enticed into becoming RSPB members. This could not possibly apply to Acle. Effectively the RSPB visitor centre is a means of attracting new members and raising funds to pay for the upkeep of the reserve. Any Broads Authority visitor centre will depend on external funding, there is no way that a gift shop and cafe could offset the investment required although immediate running costs might be covered, especially if volunteer staff are used. Unlike the RSPB the BA is not a charity. The RSPB can charge for admission, the BA can't. The 24hr moorings are free so why should the car park be any different? The Broads Museum and How Hill provide education for those that require it. Duplication of that does seem to be pointless. I am at a loss as to what the BA thinks that it will be able offer at the Acle Debacle. I have visited and enjoyed what is on offer at Whitlingham, although I did resent the car parking charge. My wife and I enjoyed poking around the souvenir shop but we weren't tempted into buying anything. We didn't need maps, guide books or tea towels with pictures of windmills on them. At least Whitlingham is an attraction in its own right, I don't see how this could possibly apply at Acle Bridge.

Thank you, Timbo, for those valuable comments re visitor centres which I hope that both Tom and his boss will take on-board and inwardly digest. On a recent trip to the Snowdonia Real National Park my wife and I visited several commercial attractions, but only ones that offered facilities that were of interest to us. We avoided the archetypal NP visitor centres which tend to lack any real, meaningful attraction, apart from the toilets, and nothing about Acle Bridge suggests that it will be otherwise. Why national park authorities, both real and pseudo, feel driven to provide such facilities is one of life's little mysteries. Best leave the provision of attractions to commercial interests where the driver tends to be profit rather than vanity.

So you don't host wedding receptions on Saturdays and wakes on Fridays then?

If it's only as big as Marshman's front room then it is hardly likely to pander to the vainglorious aspirations of the good doctor!

Some fair comment there Marsh but 'hold yew hard Bor'! Whilst I am no great fan of the RSPB I do appreciate what they offer, me being a great fan of Minsmere for example. Their Minsmere visitor centre is a great success, well worth a visit. Plenty of car parking and miles of delightful walks. The shop and the cafe are well run and probably big enough to be sustainable, with a volunteer staff, even I have spent too much money there. Mind you, it is also a great draw for potential new members. So why shouldn't the Authority have its visitor centre? Unlike such as the RSPB, a registered charity, the BA has no willing 'membership' to prop up such ventures, the RSPB is hugely profitable. There is little or no commercial acumen at Yare House, that much must surely be obvious by now. Beyond that there is no great requirement for the Authority to provide such facilities. Comparing Holkham Hall with the potential Acle Debacle, surely you are having a laugh, you have to be!!

Those cuts were clearly felt necessary by HMG in order to curb overspending by such as the Authority. I can only assume that the Authority chose to close those information centres because they were the least necessary service that they offered and therefor an obvious candidate for a cash saving. In the context of the proposed Acle Bridge Information Centre, and now a replacement of Whitlingham, I would have thought that those self same constraints, and the reasons behind them, still applied.

There is a growing list of abandoned or lost for whatever reason BA Tourist Information facilities across Broadland to which Whitlingham is now to be added. With the advent of the World Wide Web I rather suspect that such facilities are now largely redundant. Shared facilities at Carlton Marshes Nature Reserve might be a possibility. As to the future, an ideal opportunity was lost at Yarmouth with the Marina Keys. Could the Authority return to Potter Heigham, that would an ideal hub in my opinion? However it does boil down to actual need. How Hill does a grand job so is there really a need for the BA to have its own, independent facility? As for education, why not have a double decker bus that can visit schools and shopping centre car parks? Now that is a good idea, so long as it doesn't promote the lie that the Broads is a national park!!

If you were to check the Whitlingham Charitable Trust's website, also that of the BA and compare them with the EDP then it becomes pretty obvious that a mutually agreed press release was sent to and regurgitated by the EDP. I don't suppose any of us will ever know what was said and agreed behind closed doors. Whether it was a mutually agreed or a cynically manouvered situation is obviously open to debate. I know where my money is on this one! I also doubt that the 24 hr mooring will be affected, at least until the present lease expires. It does provide a waterborne gateway to Whitlingham so I doubt that a further lease would be agreed but I feel sure that the present one will run its course. Interestingly the Authority wishes to take its staff away with them rather than Whitlingham taking them on. A clean slate job for the Trust perhaps?

Have given this one some serious thought. The otherwise surprising loss of Whitlingham can only strengthen any personal crusade to build the Acle Debacle vanity project. The possibly engineered, certainly convenient loss of Whitlingham couldn't have come at a more opportune moment. Just a mere coincidence? I seriously doubt it.