JennyMorgan

Its a very nice backside, I'm quite attached to it.

Bill, you and I both know that the present Broads Bill presents the Broads Authority with three core responsibilities as opposed to the two that national parks proper have on the statute books. It is that third responsibility, navigation, that sets the Broads apart from the Sandford Principle, that being that conservation takes precedent. We both know that, agreed? Now, very clearly, Dr Packman wishes to absorb recreational boating, and its requirements into 'recreation' thus removing navigation as the crucial third requirement. It's how it is in the Lakes District. Take away that third core responsibility and the door is open to the Broads being a National Park with the Sandford Principle. Can't make it any more plain than that, If you can bring yourself to accept that, then ask yourself why would Dr Packman wish to make this change? The answer, to most of us, is abundantly clear, CONTROL. Not only that but he would lose the requirements associated with being a Harbour Authority. Do you really and honestly believe that that would be good for Broadland? Do you not accept that it would bring fundamental changes to the Broads? Dr Packman has very clearly laid his cards on the table, he couldn't make his intentions any more clear if he tried! Is that really what you want for the Broads?

I just hope that we never have the opportunity to say 'I told you so'.

Or even a BA CEO!!

perhaps we should be more concerned about what is actually happening! Exactly.

This would appear to be completely at odds with Press freedoms for one thing, even Mrs May is above & beyond the protection that JP is demanding.

No, although I understand this might not be allowed in the future if JP's proposed draconian controls are introduced.

I previously mentioned a draft document that was circulated within Yare House, it is now in the public domain therefor I feel free to post it: "(b) Comment: The Broads Authority is a navigation and harbour authority with responsibility for maintaining and improving the waterways under Section 10 of the Broads Act. Its third purpose is to manage the Broads for the purpose of ’protecting the interests of navigation’. This purpose was considered essential and appropriate in an era now long gone when coasters brought their commercial cargoes up into Norwich, but the city is no longer a port and now the primary use of the waterways is recreational boating. This could be seen as falling primarily under the second purpose and it may be appropriate to review the wording of the purposes and consider whether the duty to maintain the navigation area should be given greater prominence. For consideration: Whether to review the Authority’s responsibilities in relation to the recreational use of the waterways, protecting the interests of navigation and maintaining the navigation area in a way so the wording of the purposes better serves the modern use of the waterways and interests of all those with a stake in the Broads. This is the section that covers the BA's wish to cease to run a Harbour Authority." Once again I ask why should the Authority wish to cease being a navigation authority? Why should it wish to lose the Authority's third purpose?

https://mailchi.mp/a10c5f0886df/broads-briefing-november?e=259d8798cf If you look carefully at the picture relating to the Broads Engage Workshop then you will see my back side! My front side is intently facing the screen.

Thank you, Paladin, wise and substantiated words, as usual. I keep asking myself, what does the Authority gain by distancing itself from its duties as a harbour authority? Why should they wish to that, what would they gain, why remove that third purpose for which they exist?

Re the navigation to Norwich, it may not be used by coasters and the like but it still exists and it would take an act of Parliament to close it. Remember that the Lowestoft to Norwich Navigation is what keeps the railway bridges from being permanently closed. JP is talking about navigating as opposed to navigation, the navigation being where we can navigate. He's not saying that we can't navigate, just that he wants to lose the legal requirement to maintain the existing navigation. Why else would he wish to abandon the third requirement in the Broads Act? Why else would he want to abandon the legal requirement to maintain our navigable waters?

I was shown the original draft of the document that went round BA HQ for internal comment, I can't post it here as I was sent it in confidence. However you really do need to read that previous draft to get the full drift. The BA clearly wants to stop being a harbour authority, to abolish the third responsibility in the Broads Acts and deal with navigation under conservation. Simple; THEN they can be a proper National Park. Should have seen it coming really. I really don't think that JP ever actually wanted to run the navigation anyway!

This is the Broads Authority's response: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1408260/National-Parks-Review-ba231118.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3DypJHXujr1HkNeXeKwU_3iJyuCxr7JsYdZ8VLBUlK7MabnnJvIj3r1fQ Unacceptable expansionism. To lose the Harbour Authority requirements would mean the loss of the Authority's third requirement, the one that stands in the way of the Sandford Principle thus opening the door to being a national park proper and us good folk losing the protection that we have in regard to navigation. A well worded and crafty move by Dr Packman but the devil is in the detail, between the lines so to speak.. If this 'wish list' were to go ahead we would lose the rights to navigate freely as we do today. A dangerous document.

national parks, areas of outstanding beauty etc. It's all in the accompanying blurb.

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/landscapes-review-call-for-evidence/consultation/intro/?fbclid=IwAR0tg5H80Yno913-q0joy8or8AlZhdMy23lDnSxv-UHqd7uMN55uv1sTg2k

One of my daughters knows Lee, Tim's ex and another knows Tim, both daughters drink in the Triangle and the Stannie, neither has been able to give me an answer worth knowing. We are just going to have to wait and see. My gut feeling is that we might have to wait a long time.

Vaughan, I suspect that you are entirely correct.

If I understand my sources correctly Colin decided that he'd had enough some months ago but agreed to stay until the end of the season. Don't think that his moving had anything to do with Grain, more likely that Grain became involved because he was moving on. Apparently the pub will remain closed until a suitable replacement is found, and that will, I'm sure, be a problem!

Definitely not jesting this time!!

You jest, surely?

Poor taste, have to agree but I doubt that it was intentional so perhaps your comparison is unfair. That aside it's not a groundless comment. I recently disposed of the timber cladding off a redundant chicken shed. Over time it had dried out, had a few coats of creosote and by heck it burnt with a real vengeance. Had it been on a block built building then I suspect that there would have been a membrane behind it, bitumen related perhaps. Any fire in timber cladding could easily run up and into the roof space, not outside the realms of possibility. Thankfully I have concrete hanging tiles for the cladding on my house.

Inevitably we shall have to agree to disagree! Many a true word written in jest! No smoke without fire!

http://www.broadsnationalpike.com/2018/11/blessed-planners-demand-flammable.html#comment-form

What is often not realised is that John was probably one of the finest roach anglers that this country has ever produced. His writing on the subject is as valid today as it ever was and is well worth searching out. Another EDP article: https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/son-of-john-wilson-lee-wilson-pays-tribute-to-his-angler-father-1-5777793

He was 75. Although I've fished alongside John on occasions I never classed him as a close friend, just a friendly fellow angler, he often fished near where I live. On one occasion he'd been after a known 'thirty pounder' when I chanced to paddle past him. He'd decided to pack up and invited me into his swim which I duly moved into, if only for a chat. Within minutes I was into and subsequently landed the pike that he'd been after for two days, she went 34lbs 12oz, my personal best pike to-date. John, bless him, had the good grace to be pleased for me and treat me to his hearty laugh. I have good memories of the man and his brews. I was shocked to hear of his passing, not least because he was not that much older than me! I've lost several similarly aged friends this year, worrying!