.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Baggywrinkle
-
Posts
12 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Baggywrinkle
-
-
3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:
In round figures half the BA's income is from the tolls and half is from the national parks coffers which in turn comes from us, the tax payer. Of the half that is derived from tolls roughly half goes towards Authority 'overheads', just about anywhere but not on navigation! So, of its annual income only about a quarter actually goes on navigation. Effectively the Authority is dependent on the toll. I don't believe that there will never be boats on the Broads, anymore than is the case on the 'real' national parks, but I do fear unaccountable and draconian restrictions. However, if the Broads became boatless, however unlikely that is, then there would be no need for dredging, no need for 24 hr moorings and so on thus he'd save a wodge but then he would also loose that prop up for his expenses that is hived off from the navigation. Over the years various Authority officers and outside organisations have made it abundantly clear that there is a desire to de-boat the upper Thurne so lets imagine that it did happen, would that many people really object, other than on principle? I'd hate to see that bridge go, but there are no plans to replace or bypass it, read into that what you will, so personally I am not that bothered. Of all the boats on the Broads how many of them can pass under it and of those that can how many do? Perhaps a body like the obscenely well funded RSPB might pick up any loss of income due to the Upper Thurne being lost to us boaters. Remember that 'vision' to open up the coast to salt water incursion and then making Potter the new line of coastal defenses? Not so long ago and it was presented in all seriousness. No mention whatsoever to include boats in that proposal. We'd loose something that is not used by many, the Authority might just get away with it and I doubt that the tolls would drop. Anyway, hypothetical as it may seem, certainly not likely to happen in my lifetime, it has been talked about.
As one of the few who can and does at every opportunity pass under that bridge and enjoy the upper reaches of the Thurne, I would be very saddened if explicit restrictions or poor weed cutting and dredging made it impossible to sail there. As for the bridge itself, William Dutt wrote in 1906 that "The old Waterman's Arms had been pulled down and new inn built and it will not be surprising if before long something is said about building a new bridge. But to remove the old structure wold be a great pity, for Potter Heigham Bridge, with its rounded central arch and pointed flanking ones, is a fine example of mediaeval bridge - building." He goes on to mention that "A little way above the old stone bridge another bridge spans the river - an ugly one, over which runs the coast railway from Yarmouth to Cromer". Well, at least that's gone, but I wonder what he would have thought about its replacement. Not long before those times, Hickling, Whiteslea and Heigham Sounds formed a mainly shallow broad of some 650 acres. No chance of ever getting that back!
-
2
-
2
-
-
Anyone who wishes to complain can do so to the National Parks, particularly those which aren't finalists and so might feel selecting the Broads is unfair on them. A list of contacts can be found on the web site. http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us
-
56 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
It does work and in part the editor is wrong, for one thing the Broads is only branded as a national park and then only for marketing purposes, no other reason.
Thank you for your email. We have had many complaints such as yours and we have looked into this matter in some depth. We have spoken at length to National Parks UK (www.nationalparks.gov.uk) who state categorically that The Broads is a National Park and that it is governed by National Park legislation. I include their statement below. “The Broads is a National Park, albeit designated slightly differently. The Environment Act 1995 revised original National Park legislation from 1949 and set out two statutory purposes for National Parks in England and Wales: - Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage - Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. The Broads is designated under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 due to an additional purpose giving priority to waterway access for boat users. The Broads National Park is funded in the same way as England’s other Parks, by government National Park grant – it collects additional revenue through its waterway tolls. The Scottish National Parks are also designated differently, to accommodate additional purposes for economic development and renewable energy, but are part of the UK’s National Park system. The Broads and our Scottish parks are very much accepted by the other National Parks across England and Wales.” With this in mind, I am completely happy to include The Broads in our annual awards in this category. Please feel free to contact me should you require any further information about this. Kind regards Fergus Collins Editor, BBC Countryfile Magazine
Does Fergus have an e-mail address?
Fergus's email is Fergus.Collins@immediate.co.uk. He also copied his reply to Carys Matthews <Carys.Matthews@immediate.co.uk> and Maria Hodson <Maria.Hodson@immediate.co.uk>
I was directed by the BBC to http://www.immediate.co.uk/contact-us/
-
-
17 hours ago, riverman said:
New to this argument, I mean civilised discussion. So I am just seeking some clarity.
Are we against misrepresenting the broads? Or is it the fear of the Sandford principle?
If it is the latter, then from what I can see, this is all a storm in a tea cup. BA becoming a true NP and imposing the Sandford principle, IMHO greatly neglects the enormity of the task they would then be posed and the backlash it would create.
As someone who is on the river 5 days a week there is no doubt in my mind that boating does conflict with nature, so all the boats would have to go. The loss of employment in boating and related sectors, the removal of thousands of boats, the lack of ability to maintain the waterways, the enormous loss in tourist revenue would cause uproar. Even if they did manage it, practically it would take years to do, not allowing for a heavily tourist reliant area to readjust.
Not gonna happen, don't panic.
If the Broads became a NP, it would be governed by the Sandford Principle which is stated on the government NP site as: “If there is a conflict between protecting the environment and people enjoying the environment, that can't be resolved by management, then protecting the environment is more important”.
There is no mention of keeping water courses navigable, so the BA could close to navigation those environments which it felt it could protect better without boats. This could be for instance Meadow Dyke, Horsey Mere, Waxham Cut, the Thurne from Martham to W Somerton and many other “extremities” which cost a lot to keep weed free, dredged and free of overhanging trees. They would, of course, keep open the main rivers so that all the big boats, which supply the majority of toll revenue could keep cruising and might even argue that more visitors would come to see the “newly protected” areas, where they could provide visitor centres and charge for viewing, bringing in even more revenue.
This is not something I want to see happen and is why I oppose the Broads trying to persuade the public that it is a NP.
-
5
-
2
-
-
I have just complained to the BBC on the grounds that including the Broads as a finalist is unfair on the others as they are governed by the NP legislation whilst the Broads are not.
-
4
-
-
Whilst tacking down the Thurne from West Somerton last week, I overheard part of a conversation between 2 people on the bank: “All the major boatyards have forbidden hirers to go to West Somerton because of the weed.”
Does anyone know if this is true and if so how long it will last and whether it is a regular occurrence? There was evidence of weed cutting and the weed cutter was moored at West Somerton.
If no one goes, the BA may think of withdrawing the free moorings.
Many thanks.
Bruce
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
I agree that a suitcase is utterly useless on a boat but a brolly can be handy. Anglers have also been known to use their large umbrellas to power their rowing dinghies downwind!
-
10 hours ago, Broads01 said:
Yes, but the clearest, most useful signs on the road are the ones so obvious you don't need the Highway Code to look them up.
I see no harm in having some signs on the first set of channel markers saying “Keep between Posts” or something similar, but this thread got me thinking what the process would be if the BA actually wanted to make any changes:
Firstly there would be a committee decision to “do something”. No doubt a sub-committee would be formed with a budget and be asked to come up with a recommendation. This sub-committee would meet and over many months would eventually propose its terms of reference, which it would submit to the main committee for approval. This would be given and the construction of the sub-committee reviewed to ensure that there was a good balance of the necessary experts and interested parties represented. The real work would then begin with ideas being generated perhaps including guano repellent paint, mounting the marker posts on springs so if they are hit by boats no damage to either the post of the boat is done and the post pops back up afterwards, perhaps lights on posts or sound signals, etc.. These are sifted and discussed with other authorities, reviewed and eventually 3 proposals are defined and then a 6 month consultation process ensues where the general public are invited to see models, virtual reality mock-ups and full implementation plans. The results are created and condensed into a 300 page document which is then submitted to the main committee.
The recommendation? Unfortunately, the original budget is now not sufficient to implement any of the three proposals, so the project is scaled back and the decision is to write an advisory letter to the hire companies suggesting they put a note in the cabins of their boats saying “In a marked channel keep between the posts”.
-
6
-
-
Many thanks for your replies - As ChrisB says the dark side thread has all the info. Seems I might have to find another pub!
-
I have heard that the footpath running north from S Walsham Broad along Fleet Dyke is to be closed temporarily, but can't find any details via Google and as I live 300 miles away can't easily verify for myself. I will be visiting in a few weeks' time and would like to know if I will be able to walk from the moorings at the "elbow" to the Ship Inn.
Does anyone have any information?
Many thanks.
Bruce
-
1
-
A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority
in Norfolk Broads News
Posted
I'm with you, Marshman. Mud weight or "wild mooring" for me. Apart from W Somerton, or the "Quiet mooring" at PH in order to catch an early low tide to get through the bridge next morning, I've not spent a night on a "formal mooring" for years.