JennyMorgan

Weatherspoons and Castle Carveries seem to be able to get it right so why not Ei? Was at Beccles today, the Kings Head, it was absolutely heaving. The food was very good and beer excellent and well priced, seemingly just what us punters want.

I did the House of Lords tour, does that count?

Looks like something is going ahead, will keep you posted. Burgees, on the other hand, have a point and it points the way that the wind is blowing !!!

A fishy friend of mine has asked if I would conduct a straw poll into how many of you would buy an Edwina Burgee? Being serious for a moment, would you?

Put that way I can only agree with you, again! However, as Vaughan has pointed out, access from the City has always been available, for those that want it. What have the Pits provided that wasn't previously available, apart from expensive car parking and a souvenir shop selling BNP flags?

Thank you, Vaughan, for explaining the Authority's involvement. I can't help but think that the gravel pits were foisted onto the Authority rather than be a burden to the previous owners. They had made their money, no more to be made, time to dump it onto someone else.

I agree and enjoy my visits there. However there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Authority to be involved. I have absolutely no knowledge of the financial implications but I doubt that it's profitable, in other words I suspect that it's a burden to us as tax payers and or as toll payers.

I really do not understand the necessity of a link up between the Authority & the Whitlingham Gravel Pits. Were they actually connected to The Broads and navigable, then that might be acceptable but their relevance to the Broads is entirely questionable. I wonder, is the Authority's involvement profitable? The Authority has more than enough on its plate without the added burden of the gravel pits.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-national-park-flag-draws-criticism-but-it-is-selling-well-1-5240906 It is abundantly clear that the Broads is not, in legal terms, a national park. A national treasure, yes, with its industrial and agricultural past and unique heritage. Dr Packman should concentrate on the Broads for what it is, not what it isn't. He has yet to grasp the ethos and character of the Broads. Conservation is of prime importance on the Broads, conserving the Broads for what they are, The Broads. Not Lakes, not the BNP, The Broads.

http://www.broadsnationalpike.com/2017/10/flying-flag.html

Anything or anyone in particular?

These people might also be able to help: https://www.facebook.com/norfolkbottles/

Normally eight glasses to a bottle, that makes it £60.00 for that £7.50 bottle. And such pubs blame the smoking ban!!

There appears to be a great deal that they don't know!

Here we go again! When will the planning officers realise that a pragmatic approach to their duties has a lot to recommend it? http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/broads-authority-launches-new-waveney-river-centre-probe-1-5238913

Regarding planning and residential moorings/house boats James Knight has posted his pragmatic interpretation of the regulations: I think it's quite important to clarify the planning law about living on boats. The BA have planning policies in place which allow them to apply conditions to new moorings. So, for example, if there was to be a new mooring basin then the BA could impose a planning condition which said that there could be no residential use, or no commercial use. The same is not true for pre-existing moorings. You cannot impose a retrospective planning condition on moorings, no matter how much the BA might want to, and no matter how much they repeat the mantra that residential moorings are "unauthorised". If a mooring does not have conditions which restrict its use, then there is nothing to stop someone from living on board if they choose. The reason for this is that planning is about the use of land, not the use of boats. A mooring is a mooring, and what goes on aboard a boat is not relevant to planning, unless the moorings have conditions restricting their use. If, however, the land surrounding the mooring gets strewn with residential 'paraphernalia', then that might well constitute a material change of use of the land. It's all a question of degree. This has been tested several times in the appeal court. The BA lost an enforcement case in 1999 when they attempted to prevent 2 boats in Hoveton from being used for residential purposes. The Inspector found that if he couldn't see the difference between 2 boats - one used residentially and one not - then there was no material change of use of the land and therefore no breach of planning control. Although this case has been dismissed by the BA as an "old decision", another appeal inspector came to the same conclusion in 2010 on the Driffield Canal in Yorkshire. So, although I have no detailed knowledge of the planning conditions in respect of this particular mooring, it is not the case that living on a boat necessarily needs to be expressly authorised by the Broads Authority - or anybody else. If a mooring has no planning conditions restricting its use, then the occupier can feel free to 'live' on board their vessel for as long as he or she chooses.

Would someone PLEASE explain the attraction of Strictly please. Single syllables would be good!

We have, common sense rules!

So here we go again!

My wife and I often visit Minsmere, not that I am anything of a fan of the RSPB, but I have to admit it's a lovely place and it obviously brings in a great deal of money to the local community. Packed pubs and tea-rooms for one thing

Suspect that they are still filtering out all references to the faux BNP, it's taken longer than they thought!!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/weather/red-sky-over-norfolk-caused-by-storm-ophelia-1-5238814 The wife and I had one last quicky in the back garden, both going 'ohhh ahhh', convinced that the end was nigh!

So glad that I gave you lads such pleasure!!