.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
batrabill
-
Posts
724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by batrabill
-
-
10 minutes ago, grendel said:
Sorry you are under a misapprehension there, as we have recently learned, section 62 of the environment act would apply - not sandford and its been that way for 25 years
Exactly!
But I’ve read that a million times on this site!
That is the myth that has been pedalled for donkeys’ years
-
2 hours ago, marshman said:
Apart from the BA is there actually a pro BNP camp??? I know where the centre of the anti one is, but a pro one....????
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)
-
24 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
Perhaps I should clarify that the BNP issue was there before the Broads Authority was invented. In those days it was only a discussion, as almost all local people were strongly against it. It was the BA however (and years before Packman) who picked up the ball and ran with it.
I have working experience of the "before" and after more than 35 years of all this legal wrangling I still don't believe that NP status would be the best thing for the Broads. This is why I am fed up with all this "pushing" and why I see these road signs as deliberate provocation.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
53 minutes ago, oldgregg said:
No, it's quite an undertaking in that respect and I think in reality it would need to change more towards a model of people submitting photos and then having content review for changes.
The immediate challenge is keeping it going.
All the best with that - it would be a tragedy to lose it.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:
Hell hath no fury like snowflake scorned.
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.
-
1 hour ago, SteveP said:
I'm afraid you will search in vain for any argument against man made global warming on the BBC, it's official BBC policy not to give air time to anyone that doesn't agree with their global warming narrative. Despite their charter insisting on impartiality they have made a conscious decision to effectively ban debate on the issue. No wonder people get cynical. The BBC position now seems to be " yes of course you can believe what you want, so long as you agree with me".
PS
I don't claim to know if man made warming is real or not but I do know that where one side of an debate is deliberately quashed, something stinks.
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.
-
1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:
There is NO climate crisis, the only crisis is people NEEDING to have a cause to believe in to give themselves a clear conscience (spelling?) rather than believing in themselves and their ability to think for themselves, rather than be taken in by children falsely believing they know what they are talking about rather than accepting the fact they are only puppets of the prophets of doom and gloom.
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.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:
Let's be clear, we are discussing The Broads, not NPs in general.
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.
-
2
-
-
54 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
One of the things often asked for is evidence of "Sandford" having been invoked.
Would it be totally unreasonable of me to suggest that "Sandford" is shorthand for "The Sandford Principle". One does not have to "invoke" it, just apply it. It follows therefor that any instance where something has happened where greater weight has been given to conservation over another consideration, the Sandford Principle has been applied very probably without Sandford's name being mentioned.
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???
-
1 minute ago, Poppy said:
Indeed all do. Where they differ from the Broads Authority is that they all have a number of directly elected members, whose position can not be challenged, overidden or in any other way influenced by their CEOs.
Do they ? I didn’t know that.
So the Broads would be much better off if it was a full NP then???
-
1
-
1
-
-
I may have mentioned this before....
-
1 minute ago, grendel said:
plus to quote that you have not seen Sandford applied to any planning applications in broadlands is a fallacy, because at present sandford doesnt apply here.
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.
-
19 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
We have "The Broads Authority" does each of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority? or do ANY of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority?
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.
-
1 hour ago, grendel said:
I have seen zero evidence that it would be good for boating either.
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?
-
5 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:
Just curious, how many is many, many? It's just that there aren't that many applications within the Broads area. Anyway, conservation issues seem to apply pretty much wherever, not just in NPs and the Broads.
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?
-
4 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:
Just curious, how many is many, many? It's just that there aren't that many applications within the Broads area. Anyway, conservation issues seem to apply pretty much wherever, not just in NPs and the Broads.
Do you want me to prove that I have read many planning applications ? Bizarre.
I’ve read many even quite a few around Oulton.
-
5 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:
Not sure whether Sanford was directly applied but I know Richardsons were told not to bother applying for planning permision as it involved the removal of peat from what is basically derilict land and would be refused.
Fred
Sandford does not apply here. Neither would it be needed in any other NP
5 hours ago, Paladin said:Out of the hundreds of applications you mentioned, only these?
Since when did the Sandford Principle apply to the Broads?
Incidentally, the Welsh Assembly's recent (2017) review of national parks and AONBs didn't even mention Sandford, much to the dismay of the opposition.
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??
-
3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
Many things happen in life with no paper trail to refer later.
Has the Sandford principal ever been applied without actually having it written down that it was? I would suspect so! When planning consent has been refused for something, is it mandatory that the "Sandford Principle" has to be quoted if it had been applied?
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 ??
-
4 minutes ago, Paladin said:
Could you please quote some examples?
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?
-
2 minutes ago, Ray said:
That's true, I imagine though that there are possibly a number of "projects" that never reach the application stage because they know they will fail Sandford if tested. This would skew the statistics somewhat, although perhaps only a little.
On a wider note, it could seem as though I am against conservation, nothing could be further from the truth but I do want the Norfolk Broads to always be a place for boating (and all the other pastimes associated with it) with the navigation protected.
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.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Ray said:
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.
The Broads Is Not A National Park!
in Norfolk Broads News
Posted
This is from JM in Feb 2018.