batrabill

In a spirit of balance what I see HERE is a lot of moaning here about fairly trivial things. A lot of unbalanced (biased) criticism about things that in the real world are VERY complicated - like moorings, bins, and dredging. A great deal of unnecessary and unpleasant personal abuse towards JP. And great deal of scaremongering - Sandford, closing navigation, NP Park. What I see OUTSIDE my door is, the Broads, a system which appears to be in quite good shape. Where most people come and have a brilliant time unencumbered by the attitudes displayed here. And where the BA do a pretty good job balancing some very diverse and divergent pressure groups.

So we're just back to listing things we don't like about the Broads Authority? Not even "argument for argument's sake". I spose I will be told these are just facts and I'm not listening......

Just a tad patronising?

It’s a mystery to many of us JohnK. Previously the distinction was made that it said “by” not “to”. But that seems to have been abandoned. I think this is the weakest of arguments. Even weaker than the Sandford argument. But what do we know?

Promoting opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public

JM Yes, but the legal position is, and has been, quite clear. I really don't understand the response to this? I think you are quite mistaken if you think anyone claims the Broads are a Full National park. They aren't, and I believe never will be in this life. However, I have attached the 2002 DEFRA review of National Parks where the legal issues around the Broads are discussed at length. Here is one of the recommendations : Recommendation 3: The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 should be amended – when parliamentary time allows – so that the first two purposes of the Broads Authority are made consistent with those of National Parks. The Environment Act 1995 amended the two purposes of the National Parks to give them a wider definition; for example, by making explicit reference to wildlife and cultural heritage. The Broads is an area of international significance both for flora and fauna, and is of historic importance. We therefore propose that the first two purposes of the Broads Authority should be brought into line explicitly to include: i) conservation of the Broads’ wildlife, as part of conservation of the Broads’ natural beauty; ii) conservation of the Broads’ cultural heritage, including built heritage and local traditions; and iii) promoting understanding, as well as enjoyment, of the Broads. We envisage the third purpose “to protect the interests of navigation” remaining unchanged. Implementation of this recommendation would require primary legislation. This could be done either before or in association with action arising from the separate study for the Broads (recommendation 53). So the genesis of the 2009 Act was the desire to more closely align The Norfolk Broads with the other NP's with the addition of Navigation. You might also note, if you read the document, that the funding of the NP's including The Norfolk Broads is discussed as one issue. I have read dozens of times that the DEFRA funding from the NP pot is a "matter of convenience" and "it had to come from somewhere", when in fact the NP funding is considered in the round. So I find that idea, er, not conversant with the facts. One of the things I always find odd about this debate is that The National Park Authority has been listing the Broads as a National Park on its website since 2004. If there really is a problem calling the Broads a NP, shouldn't you start with the National Parks? Although a time machine will be need to shut that stable door. englishnationalparksreview-defra2002.pdf

Are you worried that everyone else can't read?

I was curious what the Campaign for National Parks attitude to the Broads was so I emailed Fiona Howie the Chief Exec, and explained to her that her previous email was being hailed as proof that the Broads is not a National Park. Her response: Thank you for your email and for letting me know people are using my email in the way you mention.As I said in my email to Peter Waller the Broads is designated under different legislation and so I agree with him that it is not legally a National Park. I don't think my email can be considered 'proof' of that - I would say the legislation does that! Campaign for National Parks, however, very much sees the Broads as part of the National Park family, as do others, and we will continue to campaign for it as we do all of the English and Welsh Parks. We also supported the Broads Authority work to allow them to refer to the Broads National Park for marketing and comms purposes.Best wishesFiona

Frankly, if you are obsessed with something you will be the last to see it.

Quite possibly, but it’s not really a fact- based argument is it?

Thought this would be useful for some. It's Sandford in action. If you have a read you will see Sandford invoked several times although not in the conclusions. Its easy to find out what the general issues are, just google Thirlmere Zip Wire. A comparison scheme in the Broads?? Not possible to compare, but perhaps a couple of towers and zip wires across Horsey? The planning application was withdrawn, apparently specifically because the MOD said it would endanger their low flying. Which is highly ironic - its OK to fly a fast jet down the lake but not zip wire.... Make up your own minds Thirlmere.pdf

I absolutely agree with this, and the only vehicle for balancing huge pressures from huge organisations like RSPB NI EA and don’t forget the EU, is the BA.

With some justification I am told off for making sarcastic remarks, but it’s not unreasonable to say I have posted a lot of facts today to correct what I see as misrepresentations of the truth and the upshot is I’m told JP might have his fingers crossed behind his back!

Paladine I think this is both wrong and somethitng it’s impossible to mount a rational defence against. Hasnt this just become the default fall back? Whatever the facts, you can just say “he’s lying” As I pointed out above Sandford doesn’t really exist but I think every person involved in this debate uses it to mean the current principle by which conflicts between conservation and the needs of people are resolved.

Johnb You make a very good point.

As you probably know Sandford actually doesn’t exist any more it was rewritten and has lost the Sandford tag. Although it is a useful shorthand for the principle. This is what it now says: The Environment Act 1995 s62 (1) (2) states: "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."[5] So “greater weight” is the key phrase In Catfield Dyke there would have to be a conflict between ‘conservation’ and public enjoyment. I’m not aware of any so can’t see any issue here. That is twice this morning that misconceptions about NPs and Sandford have been introduced without comment from anyone on that side of the debate. Firstly that The Lake District NP has ‘restricted’ boating beyond the 10mph speed limit which I would argue it would be much more factual to say the Lakes have very successfully managed boating to the wide approval of the public. I don’t ignore or diminish the fact that a whole bunch of people were mightily peed off by the 10mph on Windermere. But it hardly leads one to believe that ‘Sandford’ leads to anything like a wide reduction in boats and boating. Now Vaughan you ask, quite reasonably, would Sandford lead to not dredging Canfield Dyke? I would suggest as above, the answer in ‘absolutely not’ in any conceivable scenario. I keep bring told told that the facts have been presented to me and I am ignoring them, but then if well- informed people like Vaughan are not clear on what Sandford means then plainly the facts are not that clear. What would change what I have written is if there were some specific environmental issue in Catfield Dyke. But it remains really hard to see how the doomsday scenarios can come about when looking at current facts.

This is quite a strong misrepresentation of the facts. There is a lot of boating on Windermere Ullswater Coniston and Derwent water The speed limit is 10mph Its worth noting that Conuston has a speed records week every year - it was on the Grand Tour recently - which seems to happily coexist with local fauna. No blanket ban there You can sail on Bassenthwaite - there’s a very popular sailing club but the only powered boats are the safety boats That is a “restriction” but not one that leads to much objection - rather the opposite Buttermere Crummock and Loweswater you can row and sail with a permit Once again, there is no infrastructure for boating and gas never been Like most people I would be horrified if motor boats were introduced to these lakes It is hard to find the history of these restrictions partly I guess because they are non-controversial So there is a ton of boating going on in the Lake District and while the 10mph speed limit is unpopular with some it is popular with many others I really don’t think the facts support your “has restricted” claim - but as I said I struggled to find the history of the restrictions which at the risk of repeating myself, suggests they are widely supported.

So rather than facts, it comes down to an assertion which is unprovable either way You can’t prove he will and you can’t prove he won’t An opinion on the depth of dishonesty of John Packman and the organisation he represents. Don’t forget they have the statement on their website they won’t seek NP status or apply Sandford. In the real world an organisation that went back on that would quite rightly be ridiculed.

I respectfully refer you to the first sentanc of mine.

So in summary. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are not a Full NP. However, when they were set up under the most recent legislation they took the NP principles and added the need to protect navigation. Currently they are perfectly entitled to use the NP title in Marketing to fulfill their remit of promoting the Broads to the general public. Even the most crazed accept that the very first opportunity for this simple state of affairs to change is 12 years from now. I am tingling with excitement for those12 years to pass. Don’t forget to text me in 2030 Enough facts for you ? You gang up and insult but I don’t really care.

Reason and fact? Oh bless.

Very kind John. I actually just assumed Ms Morgan was just playing “I want the last word” Tedious repetition? Hmmm. What does that make me think of? Ms Pot calling Mr Kettle black? On another note since it’s tediously been brought up. Does anyone really believe the distinction between “to” and “by” is meaningful? Clutching tediously at tedious straws springs to mind Have a lovely weekend

Yes.

It's tricky isn't it? If you challenge the beliefs held by several very busy posters here it usually ends in acrimony. Whose fault is that? The group who are very negative about the BA would blame people like me. But there is also another group who do not agree with the orthodoxy reigning here but cant tolerate the 'group response' if you disagree. So, I see something I think is wrong, I post, everyone knocks it back and forwards a bit, I'm told my problem is I'm not listening/not understanding/head in sand. People get angry. Tell me to go away. So yes, its my fault. But the alternative is a place where the holy writ (JP wants NP status to use Sandford to eliminate boating) can never be challenged. Its very peaceful that place but you have to drink the cool-aid to be happy. All the best all.

Ah... the constituency, not the charming area.