JennyMorgan

Chris, I have no wish to enter into a protracted argument but when well qualified professionals tell me that the system is being manipulated then I tend to accept their word. How our money (tolls) is spent is subject to a side agreement with various parties including the RYA. The DEFRA (NP) grant never fails to be conditional so wouldn't be able to bail 'navigation' out unless specified for that purpose. As it is about half of our tolls is syphoned off for overheads.

I do , Chris. However I still have reservations regarding money management at Yare House. The boundaries between accounts has purposely been blurred.

JP was cornered on that one. Thanks for confirming it and reminding us all.

Chris, there are several self elected gateways to the Broads, should they all have statement buildings? Strangely enough there were plans for such a statement building at Oulton Broad, Southern Gateway to the Broads. This would also have incorporated an RNLI lifeboat station for the Broads and would have been beside the Lock, couldn't have been better placed. Guess which planning department put a stop to that! Does a statement building have to be gross?

At a guess, Acle 1 1/4 miles?

Solid objects, quite. Marsh, take a peep in the mirror.

Likewise.

I'm not insistent on simple, just more modest and well suited to the location.

Heaven forbid! Why should a more modest structure not fit the needs of 21st century man?

A yard owner at Lowestoft has a Herbert Woods boat which was built with impregnated soft wood such as we might use for fences or piling. She's actually survived very well and is a credit to her owner as she is to her builder.

Perhaps finding funding for what stakeholders need rather than what JP demands would be a much more acceptable way forward.

All a matter of scale, cyclists, walkers, boaters, indeed the vast majority of stakeholders would, I suspect, be quite content with something quite modest, somewhere to sit and watch the world go by, somewhere to moor , somewhere for a pee, a shower perhaps and maybe a snack and a drink. Perhaps the Authority would even receive universal praise for something on those lines.

Loo, tolls revenue provides not less than half of the Broads Authority's income, surely that should count for something?

Are moorings required at Acle? Well, if this visitor centre turns out to be the attraction that I suspect JP has assumed then yes, more moorings and extensive car parking will be needed!!

That makes perfect sense although it would reduce the width of the river. As I said to Fred we shall have to wait and see but the published designs do show the building right on the edge of the river and with no signs of moorings. However we have yet to see the final drawings by which time the requirement for moorings might be well catered for. Anyway, I suppose pontoons could be seen as impinging on the navigation, effectively a 'land grab' but in practical terms a logical idea. I don't know who owns the river bed at that point but some time ago a developer wanted to put pontoons in the river at St Olaves and was prohibited from doing so by The Crown Agents who own much of the land below the low water mark around the coast and in our rivers. An obvious idea, the carrying out of which might not be so simple. Pass it on the JP, you might be rewarded with a BNP t-shirt!

Fred, we shall have to wait and see! My guess is that the building would take up the space of at least three average sized boats. Losing moorings at a visitor centre is akin to losing car parking spaces, hardly logical. Consider that the land cost one hundred & eighty quid, add to that the seventy five thousand, and likely to be more, cost of the building and we are quickly up to a million pound project on top of which will be staffing costs. Value for money?

Because it's shown in BA minutes!

The Broads Authority is indeed the Harbour Authority, their area of responsibility being the rivers and broads of the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads. Not the River Authority, in that I agree, but nevertheless an Authority with designated responsibilities in regard to our rivers. The Broads Authority rather than the River Authority, I suspect that most of us realised what 'dnks ' meant.

Fred the issue re moorings is simply that the 'visitor centre' plans show the proposed building to be right on the water's edge thus depriving boaters from however many mooring spaces that the building takes up. The land was bought under the pretext of providing moorings, the navigation budget paid for it, thus the entire bank should be used for providing necessary moorings, in my honest opinion of course.

Please show me that what I have suggested is not feasible, for example that officer time was not involved. By the way, Paladin, what is highlighted in green is, as I pointed out, a quote from the National Pike him/herself. The second point that you highligted was a question, not a statement of fact.

I have absolutely no objection to health fads, e.g. yoga, being practised at Whitlingham. Indeed public use is a large part of the justification for Whitlingham Country Park and that should be supported. My grouse is the association by the Authority and the probable officer time wasted. A small issue perhaps but nevertheless it suggests a questionable and unhealthy shift away from Broads related issues.

I hardly dare comment, don't want to be seen as anti-BA, but that Pike is, once again, spot on the money. Make your own minds up but is there honestly any real justification for this extravagance?

Lets get one thing straight, once and for all, my cause is NOT anti BA for that would be all inclusive and that is simply not true. My cause is quite simply for the well being of the Broads.

Perhaps we might be permitted to decide for ourselves, please?

Indeed a reality check is needed! I'll quote from the Broads National Pike who states quite rightly that on the BA's events page the event is "Hosted by the Broads Authority" and the description says "Together with the Broads Authority, its time for us to create space in nature and enjoy sunlight painting us gold…". So that looks like the BA is involved with organising it. The article was simply a mild err-hem, naughty word, ****-take that a publicly funded body should be running yoga events instead of doing its statutory duties. We're not anti-yoga here at the Broads National Pike!