Jump to content

batrabill

Members
  • Posts

    720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by batrabill

  1. batrabill

    Flooding

    Not sure why you need to be so aggressive. There are silver linings in most things. My garden is currently a vast quagmire and our mooring is underwater. We “Norfolk natives” are perhaps able to have a more nuanced view than you suggest. Having clarity about what is wrong and who can actually do anything about it is really valuable. For donkeys years it has been all John Packmans fault. A bit of grown-up reality is a good thing. I suspect the EA have been rather pleased that BA have caught the flack for everything that has gone wrong for decades If there is to be any serious attempt to reduce flooding in the future it will be EA that will lead. The drainage board have already announced they plan (by 2025?) to replace most of the pumping stations around us. If the creaking sewage system is to be improved it will be Anglian Water. So that’s where the pressure needs to be exerted. We will see what the modelling the EA does this year tells them. If Duncan Baker continues the pressure there may be movement.
  2. batrabill

    Flooding

    Perhaps there’s a silver lining in the current flooding. A little understanding of the reality. It’s starting to appear that the BA are not responsible for all evil throughout history. BTW I thought the guy from the EA wasn’t smug at all, he seemed to be the only one who really knew what he was talking about. We should all worry about his “1953” point. It’s hard to get your point across when much of the audience have already decided the flooding is because the BA haven’t dredged enough between Stokeby and Yarmouth
  3. batrabill

    Flooding

    From The Broads Society Latest rainfall and river flow summary from the Environment Agency paints a astonishing picture of how wet the UK is. Over here in the East of England we have received over 220% of the "normal" rainfall for February with a week still to go. That's an EXTRA 10 tonnes of water per acre per day that our drains, rivers and pumps have had to cope with. Read the full report here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d7657b87005a001a80f85b/Rainfall_and_river_flow_summary_14_February_to_20_February_2024.pdf #broadssociety #wetwinter #broadsflooding
  4. IDB https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24110578.norfolk-broads-pumping-project-begin-amid-flooding-crisis/
  5. So, Ive sat through it. I offer a summary for those that haven't got 3 hours Feel free to argue if you were there or have listened 1. This years flooding is very largely due to unusually high rainfall and higher tides though October - Jan 2. Herring Bridge - there is no evidence that it has been a significant factor 3. We recently missed a massive surge event where there was huge surge which coincided with low tide - if it had coincided with high tide it would have caused a "1953-type" event. Yikes! 4 Things WILL get worse due to Climate Change 5 The Bure is adequately dredged. John Packman says that the most significant pinch point is the bridges just past the yacht station. 6 The sewage systems of several places cannot cope with the flooding that we have now and WILL come, and I didn't hear anyone say there is a plan to deal with that. 7 There seemed very little planning for a worse future, but there is a study being done this year which will model ways of speeding up the outflow from the Bure. 8 Every time the idea of just dredging the Bure deeper was raised everyone from the agencies looked really uncomfortable. The EA say that the amount of dredging to make a difference is huge.They keep pointing out that tides work in both directions, and they always say that the salt incursion problem could be made worse. Killing a lot of fish is plainly a possible consequence.
  6. For those who haven't seen this From Duncan Baker - they're live-streaming the meeting. For those who havent got Facebook, there's lots of parking. LIVESTREAM DETAILS - PUBLIC MEETING ON FLOODING Tomorrow’s public meeting on flooding will be livestreamed to my Facebook. So if you want to keep up with what's going on from the comfort of your home you can. There is no link, simply come onto my Facebook page at 18:45 pm just before the meeting starts and you will see the video appear. My team will be monitoring the comments of the livestream so they can pass on questions to the panel, so if you watch from home you can still contribute. The livestream will then be saved to my Facebook and can be played back. My team will also be taking minutes of the meeting so you can catch up after the event if you miss anything. As a word of warning, we are expecting a huge turnout. We have a hard cap on 150 spaces so I urge you to please only attend personally if you've been affected or have a positive contribution to make. We have several car parks being utilised, including the Barn for disabled and less able people, the Methodist Church, the Windsurf, and the Pleasure Boat. My team, laid out in the picture attached, will be on hand to help everyone on the night. We look forward to an informative and productive meeting.
  7. Bucket, the meeting on Friday at Hickling may shed some light on this. There must be within EA the data on average river heights at all locations - so someone must know the answer to the question if the rise is everywhere or more in the Northern Broads. Re the Bure Hump. The shallows at Stokesby have been there for a long long time. I think there is a hard bottom, so it's not a sediment problem, so I don't think anyone is claiming that is the Bure Hump, or that it has changed in recent times. On a recent thread I posted the depth maps for Yarmouth to Stokesb, from EA and there wasn't a specific area where it was shallower - ie in that data there was no visible hump, other than some shallowing at Stokesby. Recently the problem has been described by those who think there is a Bure hump as something along the lines of " a shallowing from Stokesby to Yarmouth" this is due to lack of dredging in some eyes. Frustratingly, there must be people in the EA and Ba who have the data. I think when a BA hydrologist did come on here some years ago he didn't support the Bure Hump theory. Cant find his contribution. I think he pointed out that shallows stop the incoming tide and specifically salt incursion. So dredging the Stokesby - Yarmouth stretch may have other consequences.... One thing I am absolutely certain of, that river systems are complex and simple solutions are hard to find.
  8. That does seem to be the case. However, it is because the fundamentals have changed. Weather and tide.
  9. Worth a read. https://www.broads-society.org/post/climate-change-and-the-broads-what-s-at-stake
  10. Frankly, you (you know who you are and not just Mr pseudo-scientific), deserved that. You take ideas from people you like without any examination. Show me where you have scrutinised the Bure Hump? But someone you don’t know posts real observations, not conclusions, and you behave like cult members having their faith questioned. Shame on you.
  11. So:Broads-River-Tidal-Gradients-OctDec23-v-10-Year-Averages (2).pdf \https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/659fdb61e96df50014f844a3/East_Anglia_Water_Situation_Report_December_2023.pdf
  12. I think the original FB poster would like to respond - he has some "pseudo-scientific" data.
  13. If it wasn’t for those pesky boaters! You’ve rumbled him. It’s obviously John Packman laying a false trail!
  14. Original Post is a reply to a piece on the bridge on The Broads Society page. https://www.facebook.com/broadssociety
  15. Saw this today on FB. Not definitive proof, but carries more weight with me than what I read in the Daily Mail. Reproduced with permission On January 6th, I visited Great Yarmouth to observe the new bridge and make a report on the demasting stations. Using the advanced sonar imaging equipment on my offshore boat, we were able to capture detailed images of the area beneath all three Great Yarmouth Bridges during the ebb tide. With my experience in offshore navigation, shipwreck diving and sonar imaging for fishing and diving, I have a deep understanding of how tidal flows interact with obstacles and its effect on bottom structure. The findings were quite revealing. Under the Breydon Bridge, the water surface showed distinct creasing near the supports, and the riverbed was eroded to depths of 2 to 3 meters deeper than the surrounding areas. The East section displayed a 1-2 meter scour with a more even bottom. The Haven Bridge, however, presented a different picture. There was a significant crease on the water surface with an accelerated flow between the supports, and a turbulent current that affected the boat's handling when off throttle. The scouring here was about 3-3.5 meters deep with a noticeably uneven riverbed. Near the Haven Bridge seaward side, the riverbed was smooth, a condition that persisted up to the Herring Bridge. At Herring Bridge, the water surface was calm, the tide noticeably slower, and the riverbed flat and uniform at about 20 feet in depth. Based solely on these observations, the Haven Bridge seems to be the primary bottleneck in river flow, not the Herring Bridge. This could indicate that the issues attributed to the Herring Bridge might be a misdirection. Feel free to post your own observations of how the bridge is interacting with the river channel, of course. You are also aware that Oct-Dec the Broads Catchment received 175% of average rainfall. At the same time the North Sea tides have on average been 36% higher since October, reducing a tiny river gradient even further. Keep reposting these unsubstantiated claims really gets in the way of the conversations that are being have trying to help people in the same place as yourself (if indeed YOU are still underwater).
  16. This is like the good old days! In a moment Jenny Morgan will pop up to say John Packman is satan!
  17. It’s a good question. The main reason is that it is frequently said that if the Broads were to become a full National Park then boating would be banned/reduced. Hence a comparison with the other National Park where there is a substantial amount of boating. The incredibly obvious point being that there is lots of boating in the Lake District.
  18. The visitor numbers dropped in 2022. 18 million visitors over a boom year in 2021 of 19 million. With an estimated revenue of £2.1 billion. Its hardly dying is it?
  19. Jokes are always better when they’re scrutinised.
  20. I don’t think your point that the Broads are different from other National Parks is correct. I don’t believe there are any “natural” habitats in Britain. Parts of the highlands probably come closest. But all landscapes are man-influenced. Dartmoor, like pretty much the rest of Britain was wooded at one time. We, humans, cut down the trees. Since all landscapes are human-created, every area has to decide what is the form of ‘naturalness’ they currently support. You are absolutely correct that the BA has to mediate between different, and competing interests. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the 50s were the best time, but also many things have changed considerably since those days.
  21. Why are you Changing the subject? Is it possibly because the point I’m making is simply correct? This is surely a debate about the right to boat. Have they banned boating in the Lake District National Park? Have they? Surely SANDFORD!
  22. For Vaughan, admit I am triggered by his insulting and patronising post To everyone else, I apologise Posted May 11, 2018 As someone who has lived in the Broads for only 4 years I have a different perspective on the ‘political’ landscape of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads than those who have lived here longer. They have a much longer perspective, but sometimes an outsider can see things differently. What I have seen is a very, very vocal minority, who oppose everything the BA do or say, almost without exception, and have a perspective on the Broads which I see as quite false. The boating forums are broadly “anti-BA” (although of course they will say they are just offering constructive criticism - hmm) One of the places this is most focussed is the Facebook Group “Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park” (637 members) Here are some, fairly typical comments from a thread of 24th April 2018 - this is the OP on the BA peer review: OP It seems it is now acknowledged that the Broads Authority has a problem or two. its internal workings are reported by their Peer Group review as hardly fit for purpose, whilst it is now acknowledged the Authority has lost touch and confidence with its stakeholders. As a single and probably minor stakeholder, my view is that they are not going to regain my confidence or indeed get back 'in touch', until they drop this ridiculous National Park pretence. That is my price. Might this meet with general approval and do you think there is any mileage in it? REPLY No, it would take more than just the removal of the BNP tag to regain my confidence. I need to be content that any administration understands the unique community of broadspeople, its ways, its history and its way of doing things. I do not need to see a self promoting, over safety conscious body that calls itself an "authority" that seems to think it can lord it over the very people it is supposed to serve. I could go on but rant over, temporarily. REPLY Too late for me, there will be no return conditional or otherwise. Packman has single handedly destroyed the Broads culture and is well on track to destroy what's left of it's "sustainable" industry. There is greener grass elsewhere. From extensive reading here are my analysis of the core beliefs of this group. 1. Being a full National Park would be very bad for the Broads. 2. Sandford is a mechanism which will be used in a full NP to restrict or reduce boating, and boaters’ rights. 3. That the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads don’t really have any 'real' connection to the National Parks Authority, they were merely ‘associated’ as a political convenience in the past. 4. John Packman (individually and specifically) wants to reduce or restrict boaters’ rights and reduce further the navigable length of river available to boaters. 5. That John Packman is using a “thin end of the wedge” technique to make the Broads a Full NP by the back door. 6. That the BA is mismanaging the Broads and that the situation generally in the Broads is poor and in need of radical change to bring it back to a time when it was better. I find this narrative false on nearly all counts. Why then has a false narrative arisen, and why is it repeated so often? HISTORY I think it has two main sources, firstly a deep-seated personal animosity to John Packman, and secondly but more importantly the echo of the battle over the Broads Bill 2009. The first I find deeply unpleasant and unnecessary. It does nothing to advance the debate, but perhaps it’s much easier for people to hate individuals than an ‘Authority’. A comment from a frequent contributor on the EDP website: Apart from the so called advantages to the tourist trade what actual advantages does the pseudo title of Broads National Park, BNP, actually bring to the Broads? Perhaps Dr Packman could enlighten us and explain honestly his reasons for pursuing the mythical BNP title. Might it be the eventual control that the Sandford Principle would bring, or a gong to accompany his impending retirement? It is my belief that the fight over the Broads Bill is still being fought by the anti-Packman group. That is, they are fighting a 10 year-old battle and that, as U2 say, they are ‘stuck in a moment and can't get out of it.’ Many of the names who crop up in the anti-Packman postings are the same ones who were involved in the 2009 Bill, and if you read the text of their writings then (see Broadly Speaking, the now silent forum that was the site of much of the anti-bill debate) you will see that the rhetoric is identical. However, that was then. If the dire warnings of 10 years ago were correct then surely the Broads must have been ruined over the intervening time? That is a subject for debate…. 1. Being a full National Park would be very bad for the Broads. People like National Parks. We think they’re good things. I haven’t been able to find any polls of public opinion on NPs generally, which I think is in large part to the fact that no one bothers to ask a question to which there is an obvious answer - do you think NPs are a good thing? But crucially, would being a full NP bad for the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads? Firstly, it is totally inconceivable that the Broads could become a Full NP with identical legislation to the others. This would require legislation to pass Parliament in the face of opposition from countless people and organisations. So if the Broads cant be an identical Full NP to the others, there must always be a difference. The difference is the third purpose: 1. Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads; 2. Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and 3. Protecting the interests of navigation. NOTE: the first 2 are the same as the other NPS - someone intended there to be an obvious link perhaps? To imagine that the third purpose could be swept away is taking What if?scenarios to absurd lengths. The Broads Authority is a Navigation Authority, it will remain a Navigation Authority, if those powers and responsibilities were taken away there would be another Navigation Authority who would be responsible for navigation. Those responsibilities will always remain. 2. Sandford is a mechanism which will be used in a full NP to restrict or reduce boating, and boaters’ rights. So if the Navigation responsibilities for the Broads can never be removed, then how is the Broads Authority going to use its impossible-to-achieve “Full NP” status to restrict navigation? The answer is always Sandford. Sandford is the Boogeyman. No one has ever seen him but we all quake in fear! Of course, Sandford doesn’t exist - it was replaced by the 1995 Environment Act: 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 I cant count the number of times I’ve seen Sandford used on the Broads forums, and elsewhere. It’s nearly always used in a way that is, at best, misleading. But lets continue with the simplification that is difficult cases the principle is used to help decide what to do. Firstly Sandford as an idea only comes into play when considering new developments. The recent zip-wire across Thirlmere in the lake district is a good example. The word Sandford was used by a number of people in making an argument against the zip-wire, but it was no part of the actual rejection. There are dozens of reasons why people would object to a development like that, and there are numerous ways for a planning authority to test it - noise, safety, beauty, traffic. To imagine they sat down and judged it on Sandford is just silly. It was the RAF saying it wasn’t safe that was the ultimate reason. I have searched for cases where Sandford has been the direct cause of a restriction. I only have access to what is on the internet, but I can find no reference in the judgement on the 10mph speed limit on Windermere (the antis go-to example of how Sandford is used). If you read back through the history of the 10mph restriction it is quite complicated. There was a growth in high speed boat traffic in the 90s which made some argue for the restriction. The main reason was safety, not environment vs public enjoyment. The 10mph case is relevant, however, as a retro-active judgement - but one that was simply not based on Sandford. It took many years and a public enquiry to bring in the 10mph limit. When the 10mph limit was brought in, Speed week was moved to Coniston (also in the National Park). Hardly the environment being used as an argument to stop boating! Green laning is also mentioned as a Sandford example, but as far as I can see its controlled by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, not Sandford. It's not something many people who done;t do it are very keen on. As a Lake District walker I would be outraged if it was widely allowed - a bit like allowing jet boats on Horsey. (Worth remembering her that boat racing is a big part of the Oulton Broad life) I will be thrilled to see any examples where Sandford has been used in anger. I suspect they do exist, but remember, there are 15 National parks, so there must be lots of conflicts. In summary - Full NP = Sandford = restriction on boating, doesn’t have any evidence to support it as a logical argument. Once again, it might be possible, but doesn’t the evidence say its incredibly unlikely? 3. That the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads don’t really have any connection to the National Parks The Broads and the other NPs have 2 main purposes in common…. If you read the debates in 2008 and what Defra was saying, it was absolutely clear that the Broads were seen as an NP with an extra bit - navigation. The NP grant is an NP grant. Anything else looks like clutching at straws. 4. John Packman (individually and specifically) wants to reduce or restrict boaters’ rights and reduce further the navigable length of river available to boaters. Evidence? The best I’ve seen is a self-reported conversation with a very vocal anti….. 5. That John Packman is using a “thin end of the wedge” technique to make the Broads a Full NP by the back door. This sounds plausible, but in my view is actually ridiculous. Legislation is required to change the status of the Broads. What is the mechanism for this change? Once again, What if? taken to absurd lengths. 6. That the BA is mismanaging the Broads and that the situation generally in the Broads is poor and in need of radical change to bring it back to a time when it was better. This is the reason I argue so vociferously against the antis. In order to prove that John Packman and the BA are wicked and doing a terrible job it must be shown that the Broads are in a terrible state. Because, if everything’s OK then what are they complaining about? So what are the main charges against the BA? Loss of moorings, toll increases, planning, dredging, and money spent unwisely and overheads. There may be others, please add them. I struggle to see moorings as anything other than a really tricky problem that the BA genuinely struggle to get right. Most of the disagreements and issues are with the owner of the land where the moorings are. Like all organisations that buy from a number of providers the BA cant get in a rising cycle of costs, with each seller increasing their price. So they have to manage what they can pay and what benefit the landowner gets. I think there is a lot of evidence that the BA are trying hard to make things better. Read their own documents on their site. Toll increases - on what planet does no one complain about ANY increase? Seem within the sort of bounds we all expect from these things although last years restructure made a few really mad. Planning - tricky one. Everyone loves a planner who lets them do what they want - and everyone hates a planner who stops them, or lets their neighbour do what they don’t want… Not sure there is much evidence that they are any less popular than planning authorities all over the country. Dredging - expensive and very complex in the modern world. Many many people involved. They’ve just started dredging near Horning sailing club - immediate response from a forum - that’s going to be a problem for the 3 rivers. Damned if you do…. (moved on since I wrote - so typical non-starter) Money spent unwisely. It is my experience that all public bodies suffer from a fairly constant drip drip of criticism. None escape this "Why oh Why?" stuff. Are the BA uniquely bad??? Overheads - never understood why the NP grant should pay all the overheads. Overheads are mostly people. Why shouldn’t the toll account pay for half? I see the Broads in great shape. I see the BA doing a fairly decent job. I don’t see a nightmare. I see one of the best areas in the country, perhaps the world I read that it’s awful, the BA have ruined it. That makes me both sad and a little angry. I think some people should get out on the river more.
  23. Before you both patronise and insult me, perhaps you would care to read this thread from 2018. I don’t know how to link to a past post You can use the search function The Sandford Myth By batrabill May 11, 2018 in Broads Chat
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.