Concerned

[Wussername]

Should we be concerned?

The Broads National Park. Not a National Park, but part of the National Park family. A bastard family member. The word has been used not in its rude derogatory sense and should not be construed as such. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that in the informal definition it is a difficult situation or device no longer in its pure original form.

National: Basically common to the Nation. To us all.

The Broads National Park relates to this. It is difficult for me to understand it's ability to address issues which effect us all when it is an organisation which is autocratic amongst a dynasty of autocratic organisations. Organisations which have no elected representatives or indeed accountability to "the little people".

Why am I concerned. I will try , but is a difficult area.

Earlier this week I passed the Woodbastwick mooring opposite The Ferry. A favourite mooring for many. Now, festooned by no mooring signs every ten feet. The board walk from this mooring to Cockshoot broad........now impassable. Once a delightful walk for those with limited mobility, for children to run ahead to enjoy the joy of the dyke which runs from the Bure to the broad. Water lilies, fish,dragonflies, birds.

 With the evening sun setting in the West on a summer evening it has to be one of the most iconic views in broadland. As it was so many generations ago. Now denied.

Great Hoveton Broad. Discussed. But no conclusion. Well not for me, or for many of us. A travesty. For some, a satisfactory conclusion, without much effort, to the exclusion of the majority.

The Thurne Mouth moorings, the Beccles mooring, from the Sailing club to the yacht station. Lost.

Is there no end to this desecration of that which we hold dear. A loss which will be difficult to recover.

 

This forum is unique, in that it has never pretended to be the best, the largest, the foremost, or indeed the official forum. It is what it is. A gathering of people, who collectively, contribute towards perhaps the most intense, concise contribution, of knowledge, experience, within the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.

It has achieved it's position by impartial judgement by its contributors, by a carefully manipulation of humour, opinion, and in many instances controversial matters.

A position of excellence. I can think of no equal or indeed superior media within our community.

We are not an autocratic, or indeed a democratic body, laissez fair perhaps, concerned for the legacy that we leave behind to our grandchildren and their children.

Will it be:

We should

We could

But we didn't.

I hope, I sincerely hope that is not how we will be remembered.

Old Wussername

Andrew

[Gracie]

I know I am not the cleverest of people on here and couldn't possibly explain things how you have just done Old Wusser, but I would just like to say what a fantastic post. In my humble opinion this Forum goes a long way in educating people about Boating and the Broads, long may it continue

I was just talking to my Dad today about the loss of moorings and he said that if it continues the Broads as we know it will be lost to us all, whether it be private owners and hirers alike

This Forum (as far as I am concerned) is the best, we may not have enough clout to change things but we do put it on the map , so to speak

Thank you for such a thought provoking post

Grace

[BroadScot]

Andrew, I cannot shake your hand, just now, but wish I could ! A very thought provoking pm. I personally wish we could do more, but,how? 

We are all Broads lovers, I mentioned moorings in a thread I started a while back, as, like you, I am extremely concerned the way things are going.

Thank you for posting it is a subject discussed often on the NBN Forum. Sadly, so far, no magic wand has been found, ......yet !

Iain

[JennyMorgan]

There is a case of acute myopia at Thorpe House. Those in high places seeing only what they want to see. I won't live to see the Broads being returned to the good folk of Broadland but I firmly believe that my daughters and grandchildren will.

I might be sat in a pub, as I was at lunch time today, a discussion at a nearby table made it abundantly clear that those sat around it considered that the BA's upper echelons are not respected and that things are not as they should be. No, I did not join in!

However, where moorings are concerned I don't entirely blame the Authority for the rash of 'private' notices springing up across the system. No question that some people buying a Broadside property are only too keen to mark their territory and I do know for a fact that one or two owners have been questioned by the BA on this issue in regard to safety. People do sometimes have very pressings needs to moor up. Indeed one landowner on the Lower Bure had put fences along his waterfront, rightly, in my opinion, the BA insisted on these being removed.

Iain, no magic wand and until there is a rethink by DEFRA and the BA I doubt that there will be. However, anno domini is on our side.

[riyadhcrew]

Andrew - one word for that post - BRILLIANT.........

[Timbo]

Well said Andrew!

There are many concerns that groups of all interest have regarding the care and management of the landscape we all love so much. From lack of moorings to tampering with the Navigation committee. Both boaters and ecologists are uncomfortable with the rebranding as a National Park to the point of court action. The dabbling with the lottery heritage fund with the sole aim of promoting National Park status as stated in the documents published for the last meeting of the BA caused some concern. Overall the Authority's inept dabbling in marketing is to be honest a joke. An expensive one, but a joke all the same. The Broads Authority is not marketing the Broads, all they are marketing is the concept of The Broads National Park. Something that will in reality and law...never exist.

You see...I have no confidence in the executive management of the Broads Authority. They are just not up to the job. By their own admission they are incapable of working through the legislative framework put in place in the Broads Act to govern and protect The Broads. I have no confidence. You see there is the nub of the problem. I...have no confidence. But how many others have no confidence in the current management and the lack of oversight and accountability of that management? I have no confidence. What would happen if it became we have no confidence? A defined, statistical quantity that could be held up to scrutiny. 

Call for a motion of no confidence in the executive management of the Broads Authority to effectively carry out its duties under the Broads Act. A further motion requesting the immediate introduction of a democratically elected Broads Authority Executive accountable to resident population, business and toll payers.

Perhaps it could be worded correctly, but perhaps this may give us an idea of how many think this way and a gauge of the depth of feeling?

[grendel]

I too agree with all of the above. some of the comments above have reminded me of an incident that occurred on a river trip on the thames, just before the olympics.

We were heading upriver from Windsor, and passing the venue for the rowing, one whole side of the river had been bouyed off with a string of bouys several miles long. On the bank about 10 foot from the bank a line of fencing had been constructed, and armed soldiers were seen to be patrolling.

Our skipper pointed all this out, while also saying that notices had been posted to all of the river users that approaching the bank at that point would lead to prosecution.

one of the passangers asked what would happen if there was an emergency and someone needed to get to the shore, the skipper replied that in an emergency he would use the bank, and no silly bouys, however well anchored would stop his 40 odd tons of boat from getting passangers safely to shore.

[JennyMorgan]

Even a simple task can be beyond the capability of the Broads Authority. In my garden I have three relatively large oak trees, all of which have wrung branches and broken boughs resting in the crooks of other branches, waiting to fall, so it was time to call in the tree surgeons, I don't do heights!  That was back in May & the company concerned insisted that it inform the BA and apply to do the work. For my sins I live in a conservation area, grrrrrr, so apply they did. The company phoned up last Monday to tell me that they still hadn't heard from the planning department. So I phoned the BA, errr, it's still under consideration, I'll speak to my colleague and call you back. Call me back a rather embarrassed colleague did, to tell me that the application had been overlooked, that the Authority had taken more than six weeks to process the application thus I automatically had consent for the work. Wish now that had applied to built a condominium! I ask you, an underworked, over staffed department and they managed to overlook an application that they insist had to be made! Should I have confidence in a quango that can't even manage a simple thing like consider a request to work on a tree? 

[MauriceMynah]

We know that there are fewer boats out and active on the broads these days than there were say back in the 70s, so where did they all moor back then?  Before the Thurne mouth moorings were nicely piled, did many people moor there? The same question goes for the Woodbastwick moorings. I remember the Horning Ferry moorings when one needed rhond anchors to stay there, fewer spots, but more boats!

Is it possible that the drop in the number of moorings is purely a reflection of the number of boats needing them Vs the cost of leasing them? Is it not just remotely possible that this is a good and valid cost saving excersise?

We are very quick to damn the BA and it's executives, perhaps too quick. Not everything is their fault.

[Poppy]

20 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

We know that there are fewer boats out and active on the broads these days than there were say back in the 70s, so where did they all moor back then?  Before the Thurne mouth moorings were nicely piled, did many people moor there? The same question goes for the Woodbastwick moorings. I remember the Horning Ferry moorings when one needed rhond anchors to stay there, fewer spots, but more boats!

Is it possible that the drop in the number of moorings is purely a reflection of the number of boats needing them Vs the cost of leasing them? Is it not just remotely possible that this is a good and valid cost saving excersise?

We are very quick to damn the BA and it's executives, perhaps too quick. Not everything is their fault.

Knowing just a little about the Thurne Mouth situation ( I am not able to say more I'm afraid)  I can assure you that it is not always 'greedy landowners'  who are at fault, and that BA minions are far from innocent!

[smellyloo]

Although I am on a gap year from posting on the NBF I do frequently view their content.

They have successfully negotiated a question/answer topic with JP from the BA and I believe a second session is iminent.

Perhaps for the sake of the Broads, old rivalries could be put to bed and those who would like to raise questions could do so there?

[JennyMorgan]

Problem is, John. that the reciprocal mooring agreement between hire yards is no longer efficient. Clive & Co have over 700 boats that go out seeking moorings, that they would be able to find 700 reciprocal moorings is unlikely. Then we have several hundred private boats seeking moorings and to which nothing like the hire fleet's reciprocal agreement exists. Effectively every private boat needs two moorings, one to go from and one to go to. To a large extent the same applies to Richardson's extensive fleet. Private boats largely appear to be either unable or unwilling to lend out their mooring spot whilst they are away. Unfortunately it seems that we need more not less moorings in this day and age.

Cost savings by reducing moorings? Let's not kid ourselves, there is tolls income to pay for moorings, as many as we need, unfortunately about 50% of the toll has been hived off for non related overheads, like promoting his national park ambitions. 

[JennyMorgan]

7 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

Although I am on a gap year from posting on the NBF I do frequently view their content.

They have successfully negotiated a question/answer topic with JP from the BA and I believe a second session is iminent.

Perhaps for the sake of the Broads, old rivalries could be put to bed and those who would like to raise questions could do so there?

Lou, whilst I agree with you in principle do you really think that the moderators over there would allow some of the questions that really need to be asked? Last time I did log in to ask one simple yet vitally relevant question, when is Dr Packman going to retire? That was a waste of effort! 

[ranworthbreeze]

Like politicians the executive of the Broads Authority deal with direct questions whilst being civil answer with no relevance to the topic points in the question asked, the result is always we are no wiser and the politician/executive has not offered any promises that can later be quoted.

I caught some the last questions and answer sessions on the NBF and I was not optimistic.

Regards

Alan      

[BroadScot]

The escapade on the NBF with Dr Packman was nothing else but a PR excercise with NO substance whatsoever! He is never going to give you the answers you seek, because if he did,he would possibly/probably have to resign !!!

Iain

[JennyMorgan]

I did recently ask the Doctor that question regarding retirement face to face, don't recollect the exact answer but something on the lines that he felt that he still has work to do. Exactly as Alan has suggested, a civil response whilst retaining control. I doubt that the NBF would want to frighten the good Doctor away by allowing or even encouraging a hard hitting dialogue and who can blame them. Bringing JP onboard is something of a feather in their cap. Personally I rather suspect it will be something of a non event designed to keep the apple cart on an even keel. The gentleman in question is an articulate, highly intelligent man, a past master at digging himself out of a hole, sometimes quite deep, so I hold no great hope of this being anything other than a very civil p.r. exercise. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by JennyMorgan

[MauriceMynah]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Problem is, John. that the reciprocal mooring agreement between hire yards is no longer efficient. Clive & Co have over 700 boats that go out seeking moorings, that they would be able to find 700 reciprocal moorings is unlikely.

I don't think I've ever stayed a night in a hire boatyard in all the years I was on a hirecraft. Very occasionally we moored in Richardsons whilst we went to Stalham high street at lunch time, but that's about it. Nor do I think we were unusual in this! Clive would have a better idea as to the level this reciprical agreement is taken up along with Andy Banner and MBA.

No, sorry Peter, I don't think that works as an argument.

[MauriceMynah]

Re the NBF and the Doctor, again I disagree. (oh what a disagreeable fellow I'm turning out to be )

I'm not at all surprised if such an impertinant question was met with a less than direct answer, I wouldn't have answered it at all! I read the responses on the NBF to that "Ask JP" session and thought it to be far more candid than I'd expected. I think the NBF did well to arrange this, and although I have no intention of returning to that forum, I take my hat off to them for a job well done. Credit where it's due.

Various people have left that forum and come here for a variety of reasons, others (quite a few) are active members of both. Hylander for example is a highly respected active member of both forums. There is no problem with this, far from it.

Smellyloo's sugestion that we bury our differences and join in the "ask JP" whilst fine in theory probably wouldn't happen in practice as those of us with strong personal reasons for leaving wouldn't want to give satisfaction to some there who would most certainly take it.

I wish the session my very best wishes, and will no doubt read some of the responses, but contribute I will not.

[BroadScot]

29 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Re the NBF and the Doctor, again I disagree. (oh what a disagreeable fellow I'm turning out to be )

You are far from disagreeable MM, indeed you are more than entitled to your opinion. Should others disagree is entirely up to them. 

Iain

[JennyMorgan]

Me, impertinent, never! Bare in mind that JP & myself have been on talking terms for many years and that he is of an age when he could quite legitimately do so. A reasonable question in my opinion & one I was often asked of myself at a similar age. P.S. I was invited to ask any question that I wished and it is one being asked along the rhond.

[vanessan]

Then what CAN we do? Andrew has given voice to concerns that many of us have but we seem unable to come to any sort of agreement as to what to do next. Has anybody got any ideas at all? At least the NBF is doing something rather than just talking about the problems. I think it needs a concerted effort by all the forums but it doesn't appear likely that will happen any time soon. 

[Poppy]

22 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Then what CAN we do? Andrew has given voice to concerns that many of us have but we seem unable to come to any sort of agreement as to what to do next. Has anybody got any ideas at all? At least the NBF is doing something rather than just talking about the problems. I think it needs a concerted effort by all the forums but it doesn't appear likely that will happen any time soon. 

In my view we are already doing with threads like this  We need more of them. Do we really need 'JP ' to be 'apparently' involved here ? Does ANYBODY truthfully believe that The Blessed Authority is not looking in here regularly ? Yes, even in 'Members'. I'm sure they have their ways........

They have plenty of knowledge of what 'we', the toll payers think. The trouble is, I believe earnestly that they don't care, being driven by the agenda of a small cohort of the seemingly untouchable. 

We need a strategy to make them care!

[BroadScot]

24 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Then what CAN we do? Andrew has given voice to concerns that many of us have but we seem unable to come to any sort of agreement as to what to do next. Has anybody got any ideas at all? At least the NBF is doing something rather than just talking about the problems. I think it needs a concerted effort by all the forums but it doesn't appear likely that will happen any time soon. 

Its a bit like picking the six winning lottery numbers, once you find them you will hit the jackpot. The same with finding the ultimate question that will force the BA to waken up before its too late ! I would love to ask the CEO to his face, WHY he keeps pushing the NP ticket up our noses. Where instead he should be doing a hellova lot more for Broadland in general. He only appears above the parapit when out on a jolly, from what I have read here, there, and his do as I say, paper,(I use the word paper very loosly !) the EDP !

Iain

[MauriceMynah]

I believe it's also a case of tying down exactly what it is we are all saying we want. Anglers won't be overjoyed with extensive dredging, it must take the fish population quite a while to repopulate a dredged stretch of river. Stinkies prefer tree lined rivers where sailies like the trees to be somewhat shorter and with larger gaps between them.

The twitchers want the boaters to use any other bit of the waterway that the birds don't want, whilst the walkers would prefer the anglers to go where the twitchers sent the boaters. The Hire fleets want the private boats to go south and the private skippers want the hirers to go to the Thames untill they've learned one end of a boat from the other. In short everybody wants everybody else to go elsewhere. The only common ground is that every damned one of us wants Dr Packman to go anywhere that's over 500 miles from anywhere that's wet. It's all very straight forwards really..

[Poppy]

How about The Broads Authority giving equal status to the three elements, Conservation, Recreation and Navigation, as legislated in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

That would at least be a start!