[Wherries]

On 27/05/2017 at 22:46, JennyMorgan said:

When is a wherry not a wherry? When it's a keel.

JM: I would like to use this image in a report I'm preparing, but of course only with your permission.

[Acle B.N.P.]

37 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I think that it is now well-established that there is no blanket statutory right of navigation on non-tidal rivers. But we are more concerned with the right of navigation on the tidal rivers of the Broads. You may be able to enlighten me, but I have found no statute that awards such a right. It appears to stem from the common law.

Thank you, Paladin, just goes to show a solo effort is littered with man-traps. However, having very recently tried to form a pressure group and failed miserably (for very good reasons), I've gone for this approach.

I'm no lawyer and have nothing like the understanding you clearly do. I've tried to read this paper: http://andybiddulph.co.uk/ESW/Files/Cureent_Case_law.pdf , but my eyes quickly glaze over I'm afraid. However, I think it confirms your assertion and I will edit the section accordingly. In my defence, it does say "how badly intelligent men may be misled by a quick dip in the textbooks and commentaries". That could be interpreted as an assertion I'm intelligent, which I take heart from!

Thank you for being so vigilant.

[Acle B.N.P.]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

It might be a good time to remind people that the Sandford Principle was kicked into touch 25 years ago. The expression is used, often misunderstood and inaccurately, as shorthand for something that doesn’t exist (a bit like BNP).

The original principle, which wasn’t law, but a management tool, said: "Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority.”

This was watered down slightly, when the Principle was enshrined in law, by section 62(1)(2) of the Environment Act 1995, which amended section 11 of the 1949 Act as follows: "In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.”

The original principle gave conservation interest automatic priority – no explanations were necessary. Since 1995, when the purpose of conservation must only be given greater weight, an obligation has been placed on the relevant authority to obtain and weigh up evidence and come to a decision that must be explained, within the context of the Act. This also makes any decision open to challenge.

Paladin, you make a very strong point. However, the Doc isn't famous for providing honest explanations and, even if they were, my position remains one of absolute mistrust that such powers would not be abused, with total impunity.

I've not yet been involved with any such challenges, but it appears to me to be a very painful and exhausting process, falling on the shoulders of a handful of concerned people, due to a comprehensive lack of both accountability and established, effective representation. However, I am totally receptive to an alternative view.

It is for these reasons I believe prevention is better than cure and will continue with my project. I have taken on board some very relevant points of view here, and my thinking, has changed as a result. I shall update this group for further comment when the time is right.

[Acle B.N.P.]

1 hour ago, Woodie said:

Different tangent, the Lake District National Park Authority are facing a legal challenge from a pressure group because they didn’t apply Sandford in reaching a decision. 
 

Really  didn’t want to stop you boating on HIckling, but we were forced  to apply Sandford, even though we had no intention.

Sorry

Honest.......

Spot on Woodie. I believe that is a real risk.

[Acle B.N.P.]

1 minute ago, MauriceMynah said:

The way I see it Batrabill, is that if the interests of navigation are at odds with the interests of conservation, conservation will take precedence. This cannot in any way  be good for boating but could very easily be bad for it.

Further, it is logical to suggest that conservation is, generally speaking, cheaper than maintenance.

Consider those two thoughts and add that the BA is a quango that has tight budgets and I think you have our thoughts in a nutshell.

Do we have proof? No! Can we lay our hands on evidence? No! …  Does that mean we are wrong and are worrying unnecessarily ?

Well you seem to think so, but to be honest I don't 

Guys, we're at risk of replacing the 'B' word with the 'S' word here.

The third purpose is unique to the Broads. While there is a precedent on Windemere, those circumstances are significantly different to ours. My point, therefore, is there will effectively be no evidence either way until after the event, should it ever happen.

There is also the question of what is to be gained or lost. As both a tollpayer and naturalist, I feel there is little to be gained but a great deal to be lost.

My level of mistrust in he-who-shall-not-be-named gives me no confidence whatsoever that such powers would not be abused - after all, so many others already are. I therefore feel any move towards Sandford should be resisted all the way. Which is why I submitted my piece originally.

[Acle B.N.P.]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

arghghh! this sounds like another call for a "democratically elected" Broads Authority.

Be very careful what you wish for, and before you wish for something to be "democratically elected" make sure you know exactly who the electorate is. For the BA, the vague term "Stakeholder" isn't good enough. Are visiting twitchers stakeholders, or would they be covered by an RSPB block vote? Fisermen? They buy rod licences etc? What about the residents of towns and villages in the BA's area?

Minefields are safe areas when compared with "Democracy"

 

Thank you Maurice Mynah.I agree a move towards direct elections has risks. Does it not seem equitable for the power around the table to be allocated in line with sources of income, with appointees from other stakeholders?

It could be argued that a small band of 'warriors' (long may they continue), predominantly acting altruistically, and having to be ever-vigilant of a profoundly-mistrusted CEO, are effectively all that has preserved our rights of navigation?. I can't see that is even close to being acceptable in a democratic society. 

IMHO the current lack of accountability is nothing short of an outrage. There has to be a better way. As JennyMorgan points out, his replacement may be just as bad or even worse. An equitable system of governance should not be dependent on who sits in the CEO's chair. The current system is broken and needs replacing. Quite how that is achieved is something else completely.

[Acle B.N.P.]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

The Glover report seems to be Mr Glover’s Utopian view of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Highly commendable…in a Utopian world.

But I notice that, while he goes on at some length about how these areas should be run, he is rather vague about how they will be funded, referring to the need to keep the current levels of funding. But he thinks that AONBs should have increased funding. He concedes that public budgets are tight and expects the national parks to become entrepreneurial. He also says they must make “efficiencies across the system”, which, to me suggests job cuts. Which is rarely a good policy if public support is required.

So what has been the recent pattern of funding from the public purse?

Since 2010, the Defra Core Grant to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority has fallen from £53.8m in 2010 to £47.9m in 2018, a drop of £5.9m (around -11%). But inflation (cpi) in that time rose by 29%. So in real terms, the reduction has been nearer -31%. (I've used official government figures, but other figures are available, I’m sure.)

How much is currently available each year for the 34 AONBs? £600,000 from central government, with another £150k or so from local authorities. That’s the total, not the amount for each AONB.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the Glover Review train-load of aspirations will run into the buffers of reality, with no cash available to fund them. There may well be some tweaking around the edges and some cherry-picking, so we still need to be wary of threats to the right of navigation, but I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Thank you Paladin. That's a very informative piece.

[Acle B.N.P.]

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

The ability to close the navigation was a control issue, an unnecessary reaction to the speedboat racing that has taken place, quite safely, for several generations. Beyond that it was thought that as the Broad offered good spectator access it would be good for suitable activities, as yet to be decided on but rowing and swimming were mentioned. Part of our objection was that Whitlingham Lakes already fulfilled that purpose. At that point in the Broads Bill's progress there was a clear demand by the BA that broads and rivers could be closed without good reason. It had also become quite clear that by giving an inch we were in danger of losing a mile. In the past the argument that so and so was agreed on at wherever thus we should also agree that the same should apply elsewhere had clearly become a JP tactic, if you get my drift. As for the closure  of the Broad, we have to remember that it is a part of the Lowestoft-Norwich Navigation, it provides access to the sea for the seagoing boats that are moored at Brundall. It is also a fact that Beccles is a port and that the Waveney is basically a natural river. We saw our rights as being gradually nibbled away.  Several hundred boat owners offered their active support should the closure clause not be dropped. A watered down Bill did go to Parliament so a number of us petitioned both Houses of Parliament and the remaining threats to our reasonable rights of navigation were rejected.  This might help explain the rejection by so many to the BNP title. The ONLY way that the control that was sought by the original Broads Bill can now be achieved is with the Sandford Principle that, despite protestations and denials, would come with NP designation under present legislation.  Hope that that helps.

Thanks JennyMorgan. A balanced view.

Straw Poll: Hands up all those who would have trusted JP not to abuse the power in the 2006 Bill had it been enacted. Not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

[Acle B.N.P.]

14 hours ago, grendel said:

it just seems that if this is the case, why the big rush to get the bnp signs up, or is it a case of we ordered them, best get some use out of them before they are redundant.

That decision was taken at the BA board meeting December 18. So hardly a rush!

[Acle B.N.P.]

16 minutes ago, TheQ said:

Welcome to the site.. Big Cheese.

Big cheese there is a minor error in your article.. 

It reports peat cutting went on until the 14th century, I've recently read a book written by someone holidaying in the broads in the late 1800s, early 1900s period and he reports locals still cutting peat then. It was of course for personal, use not the huge scale of the past...

Thank you for your feedback TheQ. I'll carry out some further research and edit appropriately.

[Acle B.N.P.]

17 hours ago, BroadAmbition said:

26 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Welcome BigCheese, Thank you for what seems to be a quite comprehensive study of the history of the area, not only does it reinforce mine and I am sure many others understanding of the local heritage it goes way beyond, good luck with your endeavours as I am sure the finished product will be of great interest and very informative to us all.

Fred

Thank you for your kind comments and encouragement rightsaidfred

 

[Acle B.N.P.]

Many thanks for your kind feedback Broad Ambition

[Acle B.N.P.]

Thank you Polly, I will welcome Timbo's comments.

[Acle B.N.P.]

Good afternoon all. Just joined NBN and I'm fascinated by Speaker's Corner - it is an accurate reflection of comments being made elsewhere.
I feel very strongly that a huge chunk of Broads Heritage has nothing to do with what's ashore - it's about the ,000's of vessels which have been so vital for the area's economy for well over 2,000 years.
I have been working on a report, which articulates some people's concerns about the current 'National Park' execrcise.
I've drafted the following to set the scene for this and would welcome comments on its accuracy and / or whether it entertains. The final version will have some pictures with it.
 

Why is Navigation so important for the Broads? A potted history

Public Rights of Navigation

There is a great deal of evidence of Public Rights of Navigation (PRN) in Britain throughout our recorded history. It was the Romans who first recorded laws granting them. This continued through Saxon charters and the Magna Carta, to the work of the Commissioners for Sewers who were charged with the removal of obstructions to navigation, mostly fish weirs.

Subsequent to Magna Carta in 1215, there were 20 further statutes to define and reinforce those PRN’s, ncluding, in 1708, “An Act for rendering more effectual the Laws concerning Commissions of Sewers”. Of course, legislation has continued evolving ever since.

The statutory right of navigation on all rivers capable of navigation was completely unquestioned for 1800 years. Over the last 200 years a different view has been formed by some lawyers, landowners and other bodies, based on riparian rights (rights associated with property bordering rivers). But it is an accepted principle of English law that such private rights are subservient to public rights.

Origins of the Broads

There is a very good video explaining the rather unusual history which created the waterways we now call the Broads here: https://www.visitnorfolk.co.uk/explore/Broads-history-of-the-Broads.aspx 

In Roman times, the area was a saltwater estuary with ship navigation stretching to Whitlingham up the Yare, Bungay (the Waveney) and Wroxham (the Bure). The Thurne was open to the sea at Horsey, creating Flegg Island (a Viking name) and Great Yarmouth was nothing more than a sand spit at the mouth of the estuary.

As water levels dropped, rivers were formed, and between the 12th and 14th centuries peat digging became a popular and prosperous industry. It is estimated that more than 900 million cubic feet of peat were extracted, and the work was very labour-intensive. During this period, the area of east Norfolk was officially recorded as the most densely populated in England.

Digging took place until the 14th century, when the massive holes that had been created gradually began to fill with water as the sea levels rose again, creating the ‘Broads’, and the rivers were gradually managed to connect them, to create the waterways we know today.

Commerce in the middle ages

Throughout the 16th century. Norwich was the second largest city in England after London and its tradeable goods of wool, weaving, reed (for thatching), sedge (for horse bedding) and agricultural produce were exported throughout Britain, and indeed the world, from the port of Great Yarmouth. The waterways were also used to transport coal, bricks, timber and tiles.

By this time, ships were no longer able to navigate much of the waterways and the much smaller ‘Keels’, direct descendants of Viking long ships and unique to the Broads, were developed for the purpose

These were later replaced by the more efficient ‘Wherry’, a derivative of a Keel, some of which are still sailing today and are icons of Broads navigation.

Leisure

In the 19th century, the arrival of the railways brought about a catastrophic decline in the demand for Wherries to transport goods. However, they also brought holidaymakers and some of the more astute wherry operators seized the opportunity to fit their vessels out with cabins and other accommodation to entertain them. Thus, the Broads boating holiday was born.

From the middle of that century, yacht racing became so popular on the Broads that regattas became like horse racing is today, with crowds of spectators, many yachts and large prize money, funded by betting (a single race prize could be equivalent to £7,000 in today’s money). This in turn funded rapid developments in design, in pursuit of not only the prize money, but the glory of winning races. In a very short space of time, boats morphed from cumbersome, commercial craft to achingly beautiful yachts with long ‘spoon’ bows, counter sterns, enormous bowsprits and massive ‘pot hunter’ rigs, sailed by professional crews. Some of these are still racing today. The legacy of that period is the largest fleet of traditional yachts in Europe and a regatta calendar crammed full for the whole season, encompassing 50 clubs, classes and associations with around 10,000 individual members

Those improvements in design quickly found their way into the holiday industry, and by the end of the century, more adventurous holidaymakers had the privilege of skippering their own (somewhat smaller) vessel. Of course, the arrival of the internal combustion engine made this holiday even more accessible and spawned the hire fleets we see today, although sailing craft, directly descended from those Victorian racers, are still available for hire.

As our affluence grew in the second half of the 20th century, and GRP construction became commonplace, private ownership of both sailing and motor craft grew rapidly, and in 2019, around 10,500 paid tolls to the BA. Add in the hire craft and over 12,000 vessels provided roughly half its annual budget. These numbers exclude canoes which are exempt from tolls.

Commerce now

The volume of goods carried by river today is negligible. However, equally valuable ‘goods’ have replaced them, in the form of holidaymakers and private owners. Despite the BA’s small budget and Executive Area, the region has a huge effect on local communities and commerce. A separate paper “Perceived and Actual” reports the following statistics for water-related tourism and the entirety (private + hire + land-basd) of Broads industry and commerce.

·         Visitors per year: 7.6 million

·         Contribution to local economy: £648M

·         Employment: 13,000 +

·         People directly affected by BA decisions (excluding visitors): ~100,000

·         Toll-paying craft: ~12,000

·         Stakeholder MP’s: 7

·         Parishes wholly or partly within the BE Executive Area: 93

Therefore, any event which puts navigation at risk could have a devastating effect on a very large number of people, jobs, businesses and communities, and potentially destroy a marine heritage dating back over 2 millennia.

This is why so many people are so very concerned about the continued propagation, of the ‘Broads National Park” myth, so relentlessly promoted by the Broads Authority. Not in its own right, but because of the potential for conservation to eventually hold the whip hand in the management of the Broads, putting navigation at risk.