.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
batrabill
-
Posts
724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by batrabill
-
-
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; andiii) 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.
-
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 wishes
Fiona -
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
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
If you are happy about it, I am glad for you.
Unfortunately I still don't think you got my main and general point, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned a specific one? The rights that we enjoy, to cruise the Broads, are under constant pressure from various different factions these days, most of whom defend their own interests as natural beauty, preservation of the natural habitat of little curly snails, etc., and if we don't defend our rights then we shall continue to have them eroded (or silted up) as we have for hundreds of years.
It's a bit like the BA planning dept trying to suggest to Roger Wood that Thorpe Island must not be used for moorings as it is a conservation area of natural beauty.
It is not, at all. It is an overgrown railway embankment.
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.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:
Hello John,
The qango (yet again another unelected administration) that governs the Lake District has restricted access to many of its lakes, we tend to only hear of Lake Windermere with its speed ban.
Regards
Alan
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.
-
4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
John, I really can't be asked to go through it all again, surely!?
I shall resort to opinion and speculation and end with some questions.
I take it that you accept that Dr John has repeatedly sought national park status in the past but that you now accept his word that he no longer seeks it.
I would suggest that that withdrawal of intent was simply expedient to being able to use the BNP term for marketing, that being a step in the desired direction. I can not prove that but past behavioural patterns suggest that he is playing it like a game of chess, so to speak, thus we need to stay one step ahead. I've used the phrase before, gently, gently, catch the monkey, I stand by that.
Dr John has changed Broads Plan policy in the past, might he not change it again, if the opportunity arises?
At every given opportunity Dr John rams home the BNP catch phrase, why? He doesn't justify it, he just does it, an opportunity to educate the unquestioning masses perhaps?
I'll remind you that you have accepted that Dr John has sought NP designation in the past. He has done so with great tenacity, I'm sure that you will agree. There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package. There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill. John, I ask you one final, pertinent question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal?
Grendel, no problem with the 'crazed' accolade, provided I can refer to clowns!!
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.
-
1
-
-
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
-
-
15 hours ago, marshman said:
John - I am glad to see you are being told you are wrong because you do not listen - I too "listen" but just don't believe this squit put about by the vociferous minority under the guise that they are the only ones who are right!!
I will withdraw for a bit and let you bicker amongst yourselves, as its all getting a little silly and in some cases personal, and that is not the role of a Forum.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Paladin said:
"I am a little suspicious about the words "promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public". We want the public to enjoy themselves, but I hope that those words will not result in the Broads Authority being turned into a publicity agency for an already very well-known area. "
(Nigel Spearing MP - 1987 Commons debate on Norfolk & Suffolk Broads Bill)
What “the” Nigel Spearing? The MP for Newham South?
That was in East London. Don’t think it exists now
I’m sure he was a very wise man, but I’m not sure that a comment in the house a long time ago by a former MP carries much weight in 2018. But each to his own.
-
31 minutes ago, Paladin said:
b)promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public;
rightsaidfred
Don’t want to distract you from digging around in my “public profile” but what exactly do you understand by the words above?
BA Positives
in Broads Chat
Posted
Just a tad patronising?