Paul

I have made this point before but will do so again. Of those people I know personally, or through this forum who are outspoken in their criticism of the Broads Authority none of them have a PERSONAL complaint against it's CEO. In fact many of them respect him as a polite, personable and educated individual and some have posted that on this forum. What they do, quite rightly, is hold him PROFESSIONALLY responsible for the performance of the Authority which he leads and it's failings. I wonder sometimes if the Broads Authorty Cheerleaders Society are not creating this so called "personalisation" to detract from the real issue, that the Authority is failing the Navigation and the CEO must take responsibility for that. With regard to flooding and water levels I have no doubt that excuses are being used by the Authority to avoid proper dredging. Weasel words such as "incomplete model", "inconclusive" and "insufficient evidence" are the salvation of those determined to do nothing, or the bare minimum. On this occasion I'm not buying it. As proper dredging was in place prior to the formation of the BA then information must be available, or at least should be calculable to sufficient extent to allow a proper model to be created. As for thie issue of flooding, and whether proper dredging might increase the ingress of salt water surges and flooding upstream of Three Mile House then again, that information is available, simply refer to data from years when proper dredging was inplace. If, as had been suggested there are concerns that flood alleviation work and loss of flood plain might exacerbate flooding then that is an issue that the Environment Agency should address directly. It should not be used as an excuse by the Authority not to dredge properly. It's difficult to respond to the statement issued by Dr Packman (based on BESL's Hydrological Model) as it does nothing to answer the questions asked. It's a piece of work that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of. The question is "would dredging the Lower Bure reduce water levels and restore clearance at Potter Heigham bridge". That question is not answered. The model confirms what we all know, that the Lower Bure is silting up and that it is being allowed to do so to prevent salt water ingress and flooding. Dredging work, we learned earlier, has been undertaken but only to allow passage of boats through that area, not to maintain the navigation upstream which may be effected by this constriction. The reference to dredging above Three Mile House having little effect on water levels at Potter is, quite simply irrelevant and a smoke screen included to defer proper debate.

Many condolences Alan, Such sad news.

That's good, it still leaves room for my urinating sea monsters! Re Beccles bridge, it is not square as suggested, it does have an arch and clearance is measured to the centre, or always used to be. Clearance there is decreasing too. We used to take Pacific Princess under which required 8 foot 3 and 3/4 inches (by the measure on the upstream side) every year, though I haven't seen that sort of clearance in a long time. I don't think that proves much though as the lower reaches of the Waveney are just as silted in places as the Bure.

The impact of global warming on sea levels is not so much down to thermal expansion but the melt of (previously) permanant ice. Something like 2% of the worlds water is stored in icecaps and glaciers. The continuing rise of sea levels must impact on water levels in tidal ranges. I'm sure it's not just the BA who hide behind this fact as an excuse not to maintain dredging, as noted above with the Somerset Levels. Other factors are involved. Flood defence works have an obvious impact as does lack of dredging. There is greater outflow of water in a tidal range than inflow. That is why the ebb tide runs faster, and longer than the the flood. By restricting the channel through which this outlfow runs to the sea causes it to back up, raising water levels upstream of the constriction. The River Bure drains much of North East Norfolk. It's not just the water that comes in on the flood that needs to return to the sea, it's land drainage too. The Chief Executive has published figures for dredging on the lower Bure and stated that it has not impacted water levels in the upper Thurne. Of course it hasn't. 36000 m3 in four years? It's simply not enough. Nowhere near enough. I wonder how that compares to the performance of the Port Authority in it's day? Of course, all the dredging in the world will not counteract the effect of flood alleviation works.

There is an assumption in these posts that the rise of 5 inches in fifty years has been gradual. I think if you look deeper you will find that is not the case, and that the rate of annual sea level rise in the North Sea is increasing. I'm interested in what people see as the cause for this rise in sea level, if climate change / global warming is not the cause. Perhaps the rate of kelpie mituration is to blame?

I don't think you're going mad. During the time we used to do lads week which was early to mid 1990s we encountered the said coaster on Saturday afternoon as we reached the end of the Chet leaving the boatyard. The patrol boat signalled us to hold in the mouth of the Chet. That was easier said than done with the tide running full tilt creating eddies galore in the river mouth. This was in the days before Princess was fitted with bow thrusters so it was constant twitches of forward and reverse gear, lots of steering to try and keep the boat in the middle of the Chet. The coaster passed, IIRC heading upstream and we turned downstream to our favoured first night at Geldeston. As we went through Reedham there was a bit of a kerfuffle going on but we didn't learn that a boat had been damaged by the coaster until we stopped At Castle Craft at St Olaves a couple of days later. Whether it was by contact, which I find unlikely, or by wash I'm not sure. To add the final touch, that was the week when the short lived TV series "An Inspector Calls" featured the Broads Inspectors. There was a great clip of the inspector telling us to stay where we were, and a few seconds of us sitting serenely in the Chet Mouth. We were not aware we were being filmed and sadly I had no time to visit make up but it looked quite impressive the way the boat sat, apparently stock still in the end of the river as the coaster passed. Thankfully the camera was too far away to pick up all the shuffling about, and one or two of the expletives that may have been heard on the not infrequent occasion the boat didn't quite do what I wanted. As to time of year, lads week was usually August bank holiday, but was October half term on a couple of occasions. By that time coasters were quite rare, I doubt that there would have been another.

Hogs of War was PS1, though early PS2's are backwards compatible to all games. Some Later PS2, especially PS2 slims have limited compatibility. I believe it is also available (or was) on the Steam platform for PC which might be an option? Hogs of War II was planned for PS2 but Infogrammes went bust before it was released. Atari aquired all their software rights but canned HOW II before it ever released. For the same reason it never (to the best of my knowledge) reach the PS2 online store.

That was the Peach House Most large homes of that era would have had a hot house for growing exotic fruit. No nipping down to Sainsbugs for a bag of bananas

Given the diatribe we had on another thread earlier I was waiting for comments regarding his tax exile in Thailand ..... Not a fisherman, catching fish always seemed to get in the way of reading a good book on the river bank for me. Still I enjoyed watching his programmes. The likes of Matt Hayes could learn a lot from his delivery style. RIP Mr Wilson.

My view from "work" yesterday morning. Slow drive around the estate with the roof down, still some autumn colour to the trees glowing a bright gold in the sunshine. Stopped at the Garden Centre for lunch and to feed Bartticus Segunda. Then home to remove the mud splashes from the motor and a quick polish. Sadly not quite so nice a day today. Jetting the drains! I'll spare you the pictures.

I have to agree with that. We recently flattened and burnt an old shed at my Aunts which had stood since Noah ran aground. Years of drying our and biannual applications of oil based creosote left it highly flammable. We put a match to it and within just a few seconds her garden reminiscent of a scene from Backdraft. Of course the counter argument is that modern creosote is no longer oil based.

Soon to be available from the Broads Authority, £6.95 for a pack of six with proceeds to the CEO's Golden Handshake. I expect huge demand.

more like this maybe .....

I've always had great respect for the National Pike but as ECIPA says he has to be careful in choosing his targets. The Authority supplies sufficient legitimate ammunition for his ascerbic discourse but this latest harangue suggests that he might simply be resolved to attacking them regardless of the subject or it's validity. Once you do that your comment and opinion becomes worthless.

And let's not forget something not highlighted so far in this thread. The Authority has already been quite adaptable in this planning case, permitting a development that it would not normally in order that the applicant can raise revenue to restore the Ice House (and then line his own pockets for years afterwards, a better pension than Index Linked these days!). The least the applicant could do was stick to the permission as granted. I think I'm going to have to back off this thread soon. I might start being tagged a BA supporter. Rumour has it I'm even close to Marshy's Christmas card list.

I couldn't agree more. What's next? So I buy my house by the river, and obtain planning permission to build a single story garage to store my nice new soft top out of the weather. 8m by 4.5m should suffice. It will be timber framed with larch clapboard cladding and thatched roof in keeping with the house. So I build my garage, but I make it a metre and a half bigger all around for a bit of extra space, and decide to build a granny flat in the roof space for when the kids come to visit. What's the problem. I built it out of the meterials stated, it looks like a garage and I keep my car in it. Would that be acceptable?

I too share the concerns regarding "retrospective" planning applications voiced by many others on this forum. They exist to correct genuine oversights where no significant effect on the original decision is made. All too often they are used to by unsrupulous developers to obtain what they intended from the outset but knew would not be approved. IMHO all such breaches should be required to be made correct to the original grant and only then should a retrospective application be permitted. It would stop such "oversights" instantly.

Personally I think that's back to front. I think it is the applicant that has put the Authority into a no win situation and I doubt that it was accidental. Anyone who has spent more than three and a half seconds reading this forum will know that I am no supporter of "the Blessed Authority", but on this occasion it appears to me that they have been backed into a corner quite deliberately. Just to clarify. Cement bonded boards are not environmentally freindly. They take great amounts of power to produce, they are not maintenance free and they are very difficult to dispose of when there not infinite life comes to an end. Add to that they they look as much like real timber as a B&Q "Oak Effect" kitchen and I think the BA are right to stick to their guns.

no! 75m is 82 yards

Surely the issue is what the original planning consent specified. If it required real wood cladding then that is what should have been used. If it didn't then the applicant should appeal against the notice. The EDP report suggests "the authority expected real wood to be used". Did it specify that? If not then hard luck.

Does it have connection for an external attenna? They can make a huge difference to connection speed in low signal areas.

Not a pay driver quite, but you would have to put Jenson Button into that category. Much as I like him and am very pleased for him that he finally hung up his boots with a world title to his name he won courtesy of being in the right place at the right time. He had some ability certainly, especially in wet or drying conditions but he was never in the class of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Raikonnen etc. Ross Brawn stole a lead on the rest of the field with car upgrades making his one and only season as team owner very much of a cake walk. A clearly superior car can make an average driver a world champion. Sadly, the best driver in the world has no chance in a poor car. On the subject of winning in multiple teams, the only three drivers to have won five or more titles all did so in different teams. Schumacher with Benetton and Ferrari, Hamilton with McLaren and Mercedes and Fangio with no less than four teams (who can name them without having to google it I wonder?). I'll put you out of your misery ... Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Mercedes and Ferrari. Schumacher's five titles for Ferrari came in a clearly superior car, but don't discount them because of that. The car was only so good because of his ability to work with the mechanics to make it so. When he moved to Ferrari they had not won a title for nearly twenty years, going back to the days of Jody Scheckter in the 70's. His two titles for Benetton came in a car which was not in the class of the Williams and McLarens of the day. The Ford engine in his '94 title winning car (Ford's last title winning engine) was way behind the competition. It is impossible to compare drivers of different eras. The sport changes so rapidly and the demands on drivers likewise. Firstly you have to manouver yourself into a competitive car. Take Alonso as an antithesis of that. He was (is) a superb driver but burnt a lot of bridges which on more than one occasion cost him drives at top teams. Everyone raised an eyebrow when Hamilton moved from McLaren to Mercedes, but it turned out he knew what he was doing. A modern driver has more to think about than jumping into a car and driving fast. He has to be able to work with the mechanics to maximise the car. In that respect, in my opinion at least, Schumacher was peerless on that front. Once you've got yourself in a competitive car and made sure it's the very best it can be you then need to produce in qualifying which is so important in the modern era when overtaking on track is so difficult. Nobody can match Hamilton in that respect. When the chips are down time after time he aces the perfect lap just when he needs it. Vettel on the other hand has made at least five errors in final qualifying this year which have cost him grid places. And when you have your car at, or near the front of the grid you need to manage the race. Sadly, Grands Prix are no longer about pressing the loud pedal and going as fast as you can. Fuel restrictions, engine management and mickey mouse tyres are just a few of the things that team and driver have to manage during a race. For much of a modern race drivers will not be flat out but driving to "vector times", time set by the team to ensure that everything lasts as long as it needs to in order to produce the best race time. Again nobody comes close to Hamilton's ability to do that. He can produce lap after lap after lap within a few thousandths of a second of his target times. It might sound unimportant but that ability means he avoids having to turn down his engine mode late in races to eek out his fuel, or give him the ability to boost it a little when he needs to overtake. It means his engines last the required number of races without gird penalties for extra components. This season for me has answered a lot of questions. It is highly unlikely that you will ever see Hamilton and Vettel race alongside each other in the same team. The Alonso / Hamilton experiment at McLaren (2007) proved the folly of two "alpha males" in the same team. It doesn't work. They fought each other all season and because of that both missed out on the title by 1 point to Raikonnen whose team mate (Massa) was ordered to defer to him in later races. So 2018 May well be the best comparison between the two. Statistically, the Ferrari has been the faster car in at least 11 of the 19 races to date, but with three races to go it is Hamilton in a Mercedes who is already holding the drivers title, and barring a miracle Mercedes will add the constructers title in Mexico this weekend. Why? Because when the chips were down Hamilton took everything he could from every race. Mercedes even learned to play the team game, much to the dislike of both drivers. Vettel on the other hand has made mistake after mistake after mistake costing him serious points. Is Hamilton one of the greatest. Easily. Is he the greatest ever, it is impossible to compare. Is he the greatest of the post Schumacher era? Easily. Head, shoulders and any other body part you care to mention above anyone else on the grid today.

I used to love Hamilton's as it named all the reaches.

It's a bit like the Harbour at Seahouses up in Northumberland, which everyone calls Seahouses Harbour, but it is not. It is actually North Sunderland Harbour. The name Seahouses originally referred to the houses that grew up around the smokeries and eventually the town that grew from them.

Ditto that I'll take local knowledge anyday.