batrabill

This is from JM in Feb 2018.

Exactly! But I’ve read that a million times on this site! That is the myth that has been pedalled for donkeys’ years

Yes, it’s quite infuriating that this is misrepresented. There is no pro “camp”. Personally I don’t care one way or another if the Broads is designated as a de facto NP as it is now, or made a “full” NP. What I insist on, as I believe you Marshman also do, is an element of balance to the relentless negativity and the false logic of, if the Broads was a National Park Sandford would apply and then boating would be ...... (insert ridiculous unproven claim here)

I rather agree with you Vaughan. I believe these signs are both harmless and pointless, and have resulted in focussing opposition. I wish Dr P would just shut up about it.

Are you saying that since 1995 - 25 years - the legal basis of “Sandford” hasn’t been tested? I thought this was the dreaded weapon that Dr Packman was itching to use, but it looks like it isn’t, and has never been very important. The Boogie Man isn’t so scary.

All the best with that - it would be a tragedy to lose it.

Charming.

Ah well. What have we learned? Semantics are what are really important here. The NBN know better than all the "experts". David Attenborough is in it for the money. All climate scientists are conspiring against us all. Greta is a puppet. The BBC are the enemy. As I said, good luck with everything! Chin chin.

But there is a bit of a problem, in that the figure which seems to be universal is 97% of climate scientists believe in man made global warming. That is what is known as a scientific consensus. Or, alternatively, we call this a fact. I know that a measurable proportion of the population believe that vaccination is a bad. But I don't expect the BBC to include their easily disproved views in intelligent debate.

Er, but the prophets of doom are pretty much all the people who have spent their life studying climate. Your case is that you know better? Or that all of them have joined in a conspiracy? Is David Attenborough someone who is part of the conspiracy, or someone who has been taken in by children? I'm properly confused what your argument is.

But we're NOT just discussing the Broads, we are discussing if calling the Broads a National Park matters. It can only matter, if it means that it may become a full NP (although my view is that is completely impossible because it would have to be a full NP PLUS navigation, so little would change) and that would have a negative impact. That means there has to be a reason that being a full NP is BAD! Hence you can't discuss it in isolation.

MM I agree this is possible, but it does ignore the fact that Sandford only kicks in when the needs of development and conservation cannot be resolved. It is to break deadlock. Ergo it is very likely to be invoked publicly. Also, you’re clutching at straws here a bit aren’t you? Now it’s “secret Sandford” we have to worry about???

Do they ? I didn’t know that. So the Broads would be much better off if it was a full NP then???

I may have mentioned this before....

I have never said that Sandford applies here! I am making 2 points 1. It is almost never invoked in the other 14 National Parks. 2. All the 15 National Parks have to take conservation issues into account on every planning application, and have all sorts of powers to rule against things they don’t think are right for the area - exactly as the BA do now. Sandford is a mythical boogie man that has been used by activists here in the Broads to create a myth.

Yes I think they all have an organisation called things like The Cairngorms National Park Authority. I don’t think they have elected members anywhere, which is a reason that there will never be elected members here in my opinion as DEFRA view the 15 NPs as one thing and are very unlikely to do anything different for one area.

True, but there are 2.3 billion posts on the NBN saying it will be bad for boating and zero saying it will be good for boating so that puts the onus on you to find evidence that support that argument doesn’t it ? If people were posting here every day saying “we’ll get Sandford and that will be great for boating” you might ask, where is the evidence for that ? I am asking, where is the evidence that Sandford would be bad for boating? Not an unreasonable question is it?

I looked back at your question and your question was ‘how many is many’ Not sure why I should have to put a number on it and why it would matter? I was thinking of going back through the planning portal and seeing how many of the current ones I’d seen, extrapolating back over time. and then I thought... nah Perhaps you would answer a question? What is it about being a full NP that is an actual threat to the Broads since Sandford is obviously not?

Do you want me to prove that I have read many planning applications ? Bizarre. I’ve read many even quite a few around Oulton.

Sandford does not apply here. Neither would it be needed in any other NP What on earth do you mean “only these” you asked for examples. My point, which perhaps I didn’t make clearly enough is that Sandford is almost never invoked anywhere. In fact the go-to example here on this forum for how NPs were bad for boats was the speed restriction on Windermere. I’ve read the judgements and Sandford is not part of the reasoning for the speed limit. Lets be clear. I have read 100 times here and other places that if the Broads became a full NP then “Sandford would apply”. From that we are supposed to infer that in those circumstance boating would suffer as a result. Sometimes it has been explicitly stated that Sandford would be bad for boating I think that’s backed up by almost zero evidence. But there doesn’t have to be much evidence for the Boogie Man to scare people does there??

I think no, not really. The whole point of Sandford is that it comes into play when there is a clear conflict between conservation and development. It is the final device to decide. I'm sure that thousands of planning applications never get submitted because they seem likely to fail. But, and this is a blood* big but, you don't have to put in a planning application to get in a boat round here. is it zip wires you want ??

OK, but since I see many, many planning applications here in the Broads and pretty much every single one has to consider conservation and the natural environment, I could just glibly say, all off them. Here's a few of the top of my head, some relevant to open water. The Windermere Speed restriction, and the Thirlmere Zip wire. The recent Gentlemens Yachts last Grasmere, and also the passing of the Zip wire at Honister which has now been passed despite there being all sorts of rare plants.... Its not exactly Sandfordaggeddon is it?

I'm completely with you Ray. I toll 3 boats currently and would fight any attempt to curtail my right to sail all over the system. Some would like to give the impression that they are fighting a desperate rearguard against forces that are determined to do just that. I just don't see it that way.

Bizarrely this actually makes my point. There are 15 national parks, every one of them has hundreds (?) of planning applications every year, yet the application of Sandford is incredibly rare. All the national parks have numerous conflicts between conservation and human activity and they resolve them without the need for Sandford.

Oh, and for those recently joining this conversation who are told that if the Broads become a full NP then Sandford will apply, try asking for examples of where Sandford has been invoked in all the other NPs? Usually the speed restriction on Windermere is invoked at this point - but Sandford was never mentioned in the judgements. Sandford is the boogie man. Used to scare but not really real.