JennyMorgan

Whilst I personally have a less than zero regard for Gove, hardly the issue, but I do wonder if he can actually afford to ignore his fellow Tories, even mere Norfolk councillors.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/council-leaders-hit-out-at-broads-authority-over-elected-members-proposal-1-5917301?fbclid=IwAR0GVlUFm6xopLi-pc_1SDDWI5GmRWkHy3Fo0EUGghPOaPwnT5UPTJ3FWU8

Lots of Broads sailing boats that use the Broad draw 3'6" even 4'.0 so I'm sure that you'll be fine. Worst scenario is that you could dredge a deep water channel as you go. Don't forget your 'HGB Next' banner!

In the interest of forum harmony I won't rub it in!

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/table

Phoned a good friend of mine, an immigrant from London (I'm not prejudiced) who is a born & bred Millwall supporter. His wife answered the phone, Lee, her husband has gone into hibernation! Must have thought that I was going to wind him up. On the ball, City . . . . . . . . . .

Hope that the City fans get home safely !

https://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/millwall-1-norwich-city-3-championship-report-1-5914820

And who knows, an invite to share a bevy on another member's boat!

Griff, pressing 1 might just have triggered a minor removal of funds, yours! Check your phone bill when it comes in.

There is no doubt that navigation money has been misappropriated but should the Acle Debacle not go ahead, quite likely, then perhaps it will be returned to the navigation account. We can only hope!

Good to see that Suffolk got its fair share of the awards, not least Africa Alive, love that place to bits! https://www.africa-alive.co.uk/

As I understand from the horse's mouth it's 6' for the main rivers and only 4' away from the main channels. Mind you I have allegedly been known to misunderstand said horse!

The whole idea of a mudweight is that does sink into the mud, the deeper the better! You can often break it out of the mud by using the power 0f the boat. Shorten the rope so it's tight between boat and weight and then go backwards to pull the weight out of the mud. Don't forget to pull it up onboard after a few feet's journey to wash the mud off.

From within, at a recent consultation.. As I understand it, since the EA pulled out, the BA has priced up the job but can't negotiate a sufficiently long lease to justify the cost. They aren't giving up hope hence they proceeded with the application. So yes, it is gospel but that is not to say that things won't change.

As I understand it the main navigable areas are supposed to be minimum six feet deep at average low water.

It was already in the pipeline when the EA apparently withdrew.

My understanding is that the EA no longer wishes or intends to reinstate the piling there. Not sure of all the ins and outs of this one but I wouldn't get to excited about the prospects.

I have visions of Marsh's mudweight penetrating twenty feet of silt!

Seemingly 9 out of 10 Australian males will be named 'Bruce', nevertheless not as anchors. Many years ago now I was photographing the Australian Rothmans Porsche team with Verne Schuppen as driver. Unless they were taking the juice, other than Verne, the whole team was called Bruce, and they kept that up for the whole weekend.

A Bruce anchor for me, works well in Broads mud.

Just a thought, some folk have a dedicated mudweight rope, fair play, their choice. but occasionally a spare bow rope that you can use as a spring or breast rope is useful. Keep a rope tied to the mudweight but have it so you can tie the rope, maybe a foot above the weight, to the bow cleat and then you have the other end of that rope that can be used for tying up. With that in mind I'd go for a slightly longer rope, perhaps thirty feet. Hope that that makes sense!

Paul, the above letter states that a number of councils have also submitted their individual responses. That ALL the Norfolk councils have chosen to responded as a group is pretty indicative that JP is widely considered to have overstepped the mark as surely he has.

This combined response from ALL of Norfolk District Councils to the Glover Review makes interesting reading: 19 February 2019 The Rt. Hon Michael Gove MP Secretary of State at the Department of Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square LONDON SW1P 3JR. Dear Minister, Glover Review of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Detailed Representation made on behalf of Norfolk local authorities regarding submission made by The Broads Authority I refer to the above consultation which closed on 18th December 2018 and the holding letter sent to you dated 4th January 2019 from Cllr William Nunn, Chair of the Norfolk Leaders Group, outlining the concerns of Norfolk local authorities over the comments submitted to the consultation by the Broads Authority. The Norfolk Leaders recognise and acknowledge that the Broads Authority has a very direct and legitimate interest in the Glover Review. However, as a group, we are concerned that the Authority’s comments have been submitted without any prior discussion with us, as local authority partners, or indeed local communities across The Broads area. We do not therefore understand the basis on which, or with what mandate, the comments made about changes to the Broads Authority boundary and to reduce the number of members of the Authority through removing local authority representatives, have been made. We are concerned that this lack of engagement at a strategic partner and local community level reflects wider, and long-held, views that the Broads Authority acts independently of and without reference to established democratic structures locally, such that it is detached from the area it serves and operates within. This issue featured prominently in the LGA Peer Review of the Broads Authority conducted in October 2017, when a principal conclusion of the Peer Review was that the Broads Authority should “re-engage with local authority partners to help the leadership of the organisation to navigate the changing local authority landscape and take a more active role in place shaping”. The Peer Review Team also commented:- ? “that the organisation needs to have a greater external focus on its work with partners, in particular local authorities, in a more collaborative and strategic way”; ? “that there is a complex piece of work around stakeholder engagement that needs to be carried out”; and that ? “building on these relationships will also provide both the Broads Authority and the relevant local authority an opportunity to jointly deal with any issues that arise on shared boundaries which will be more effective and efficient for all”. We understood that in response to the Peer Review recommendations, Broads Authority leaders had made a commitment to improve engagement with local communities and partners through more strategic and collaborative working. We are therefore disappointed that the quite radical comments submitted by the Authority to the Glover Review consultation proposing a significant extension of the area covered by the Authority and the removal of local authority appointments to serve on the Broads Authority Board, have not previously been shared with local authority partners or local communities. The first of these proposals, to extend the Broads Authority area, has generated concern and a degree of anger, from a large number of parish councils across the Broads area, and, as local authority leaders, we share the concerns of our local communities in this regard. We are also concerned over the second proposal which suggests a reduction in the size of the Broads Authority Board to “between 9 and 12 Members”, all of whom would be appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their skills and knowledge. We believe that, if this proposal was to be adopted, the Broads Authority would be seen as even more remote and detached from the local communities within its Executive Area and would result in a very serious issue of democratic deficit in terms of how local community interests would be represented in its governance arrangements and issues of policy development and implementation. Whilst a number of our authorities have made independent responses to the formal process of consultation on the Glover review, we have genuine concerns over the lack of engagement by the Broads Authority in discussing what represent quite significant proposals for change in their remit, geography and governance arrangements without prior conversation and discussion with key local stakeholders at a community and strategic level within Norfolk and Suffolk. We therefore ask that this further correspondence be considered by the Review Panel in their work and recommendations to Government on the future of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Yours sincerely Councillor William Nunn Leader, Breckland Council Chairman Norfolk Leaders Group Our Ref:- Glover Review 19 02 19