JennyMorgan

John K, no arguments from me on that one. However I do accept that reductions on emissions will have an impact on boats types, primarily on sea-going boats that use the Broads.

Indeed about half their income does come from boats, but if there were no boats then there would be no need for moorings or whatever else they do for boaters so perhaps that is somewhat of a fallacious comment! No, I don't think the Authority is hell bent on eliminating boats but I do sometimes wonder at their commitment to boating beyond that of our being their cash cow. Regarding emission control on boats, personally I see this as inevitable, whether by choice or outside intervention I wouldn't wish to hazard a guess. I note that BA has just bought an electric car.

As I read it Hoseasons is still for sale, hardly a confidence builder for their clients.

The Mere is privately owned but there being a staithe there is a right of access. The Authority did try the heavy approach but common sense and co-operation saved the day for both boaters and Horsey. It is a special place and it shows that people can work together without being bullied.

Just for the record I don't see an outright ban on boats on the Broads. Nevertheless I do see draconian controls being inflicted upon us. I am mindful of the RSPB's plan for Broadland, that the Broads Authority sold the land that would have eventually allowed boating up to Bungay, that the Authority had to be pushed kicking and screaming into dredging Heigham Sound, that the Authority has not sought to re-open the closed Broads to navigation, that the Broads Bill contained clauses that would have allowed them unbridled control over whether a water should be closed or not, that the Authority threatened £20,000.00 fines in order to close Horsey Mere, that the BA managed to conveniently lose the moorings at Jenner's Basin, that the BA would, if it could, resort to double yellow lines . However I do see, as does Vaughan, the phasing out of 'dirty' engines. To that I must add exclusion of boats that don't meet various design criteria. Yes, we will be able to go boating, but it will eventually be excessively controlled and you and I won't be able to do a darned thing about it. Not in my lifetime but if the Broads does adopt Sandford then in my children's lifetime, of that I am convinced.

Frying pans, kettles, calling and black are words that immediately spring to mind here.

I just wish that I could like Vaughan's last post several times or more. Re that cesspool allegation, in many respects the Broads is a great deal 'cleaner' than in 1960 but we have little to thank the Authority for in that regard, in truth the Environment Agency and local drainage boards are the folk to praise, 'tis them wot done it!

My previous comment contains the underlined words: Sandford Principle, click on that for further information.

I have just lifted this off the National Park website so it is an exact copy of what is written, no meddling or judicious editing on my part, they are not my words. Amongst others this advice is offered to students. The aims and purposes of national parks are laid out by law. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, was a law made by parliament that set out what our national parks would be like. There are slightly different aims and purposes for the national parks in Scotland and for the Broads National Park, compared to other national parks in England and Wales. When the aims and purposes conflict with each other, then the Sandford Principle should be used to give more weight to conservation of the environment. An interesting comment, especially as the Broads is NOT actually covered by the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, nevertheless the doctrine is clear.

Marsh, I don't lie.

He is charming, always, courteous too. He has never been otherwise to any of my family members. I am not sure that being a town planner was quite what the Broads needed.

Sorry, Duncan, not now however I wish the newly emerging BASG well in its endeavors. Word of advice, be very wary of the Broads Authority.

I get ticked off for saying 'bu**er!'

I've never seen an elephant with antlers before!

Despite being told by DEFRA et al that the Broads could NOT be called an NP the cunning blighter has got away with calling the Broads a NP. He gets 10 out of 10 for tenacity in my book. Any sign of weakness or complacency will be pounced upon with glee for that is the very nature of the man, every trick in the book!

D.Holmes, I was actually a BASG committee member for a number of years.

Greater angling input on this forum would be great!

Carol, is she one of the two, bottom left?

I can't give you any dates, Carol, but I remember her being on the Broad, painted white. I might have an aerial view with her in it, I'll have a look.

The one person who should be promoting the advantages of National Park membership is the Chair Lady of the Broads Authority, or at least the Chief Executive. I am not aware that either has done so or even attempted to. I was a member of the navigation committee when the draft of the Broads National Park Bill was put on the desk before me. I was very clearly told that as a member I was expected to support the Authority Officers. At no point was the matter discussed, it seemingly being regarded as a fait accompli by the CEO. Inspection of the Broads Bill, as well as BA history, clearly indicates that it is all a question of excess control. It would be nice to live and play in a national park, a spot of kudos I suppose. The whole idea of national parks was, as I understand it, to provide access and enjoyment of the countryside to the population, a principle that I wholly endorse, but to-date it has been more a case of conservation by exclusion, witness the attempted closure of Horsey Mere as being one example. Like many I am not opposed to the idea of living in a national park but I am opposed to the planning and development blights that an unwise authority might inflict on the Broads. The Authority that seeks control does itself need controlling. However, to-date the pros and cons have not been presented to the very people who live and work here, where their children grow up, no consultation, no explanation.

I think that you best ask the chief executive of the Broads Authority that one, it seemingly being his unexplained mission in life. My view is that he craves the status of being the CEO of a real national park, agreed that it would be the fulfillment of an otherwise unremarkable career.

National Parks have truly become a world recognised brand, for that reason I find it questionable that our favourite quango can and has muscled in on that and forced themselves upon the brand. It is even more questionable when clearly the pseudo BNP is a park without boundaries. Let me explain, I pick up my i-phone and tap in Carlton Colville, a suberb of Lowestoft, and up pops a map telling me that I'm in the Broads National Park! Ooh err, am I really? Estate agents are selling houses well outside the Broads Authority's executive area as being in the so called Broads national park. Norwich, granted that it is a 'fine city,' has been quoted as being the only city in a national park, once again outside the executive area. Great Yarmouth, probably the complete opposite to what most folk would expect of a national park yet even that town uses the BNP brand, a town that is, once again, largely outside the executive area. All that fine detail aside I share the view that the Broads should be formally recognised as a national park but ONLY if it retains the Broads Act with its three core responsibilities and does not down grade to the National Parks legislation. Access and navigation must be retained for all time. On top of that the Broads Authority has to be reformed and become a democratic authority, responsible to the electorate rather than it being the one man dominated quango that it is. Clive, you say that the Broads is not a brand, on that we must differ. I would suggest that history and literary is very clearly on my side on this one. You say that the NP brand is good for marketing, and probably it is, but I have had a face to face conversation with John Packman when he made it abundantly clear that boaters and anglers would have to accept limitations as to where and when they could roam or navigate the Broads. Would that be good for the hire boat industry?

Apology accepted. It is genuinely nice down there! A few hundred extra tactical votes for Snowdonia might just swing it though.

Some truth in what you say, Clive, but both the long established 'Broads' and 'Broadland' brands, plus the emerging 'The Broads, a National Treasure', are all quite capable of standing on their own two legs without pampering to the misleading 'branding' with its obviously ulterior motives, in my own personal opinion of course!

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/broads-in-bbc-countryfile-s-national-park-of-the-year-awards-1-5361331 Don't forget, Snowdonia