Tell The Authority What You Think Of Them.

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads-authority/how-we-work/transparency/consultations/broads-plan

[Timbo]

I've been wading through some of the information contained in the documents...just prising my eyebrows off the ceiling now!

[Vaughan]

I notice this document is attributed to Maria Conti. It says she wrote it. Anyone heard of her? Does she come from the Broads, or from university? Apparently she is the Strategy and Projects Officer. This at least is appropriate as this whole paper seems to me to consist of ideals, "aspirations", projects, discussions, etc : no actual decisions, to do anything, that I can see!

I note a comment from the NSBA that the navigation section says nothing about moorings. The BA's reply to their comment is that they have been included in the recreational section as part of "integrated approach to access to, on and between land and water". In other words they have just been chucked in along with cycle paths,foot paths and causeways. If the BA's mindset is that moorings are not navigation, they are totally wrong and this attitude must be addressed. They are just trying to slip out of the navigational aspect of moorings and bury them under "public access".

So far I have only managed to struggle through about half of the introduction (part 1:2) until I came to this :

"The Authority also has the duty to maintain the navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required and take such steps to develop it as it sees fit."

So here I guess we have hit on the roots of the problem before needing to look further.

Remember what I keep saying about the law of navigation to public staithes? I predict that the continued enforcement of these rights will be the only counter to this BA "aspiration".

[Wussername]

Vaughan.

My dear chap. You forgot to embolden "as it appears to be reasonabley required"

Old Wussername 

Andrew.

 

[Timbo]

32 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

 

"The Authority also has the duty to maintain the navigation to such standard as appears to it to be reasonably required and take such steps to develop it as it sees fit."

So here I guess we have hit on the roots of the problem before needing to look further.

This a quote I've been looking for over the last couple of days, as I wanted to ask Jenny Morgan if he had come across this exact phrase in the Broads Act?

You see this is 'not statutory language' or language highly unlikely to be used in the writing of law and so far I have not found this phrase in the 1988 Act or later adjunct. The only place I've seen this is in the Broads Authority's documents on the Broads Plan past and now this consultation document. The phrase sticks out like a saw thumb bearing in mind that within the legislation there are mentions of other 'sections' and 'subsections' of the 1988 act, the 2009 adjunct and various other acts of parliament just involved in 'lopping an overhanging bough'.

[Vaughan]

Here's another nice quote to help you digest your lunch.

Appendix C

State of the Park Monitoring. (Yes, that is what it says!!)

a). Visitor numbers.          7.8m

b). Visitor spend.              £438m

c). Economic impact.       £594m.

d). Jobs dependant.         7660.

 

The source of this incredible piece of intellectual guesswork is quoted as STEAM.

Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor.

WHAT?

How much money have they spent thinking up stuff like this? Not one of these figures can possibly be quantified in reality.

What about the bloke working the pumps in Batson's garage in Wroxham? Is he "jobs dependant" (whatever that means) or is he just working in a filling station on the Stalham Rd?

What are "visitor" numbers? Do you get scanned by a machine as you come off the A11 in Postwick?

One cannot base serious policies on such nonsense.

 

[Timbo]

54 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

The source of this incredible piece of intellectual guesswork is quoted as STEAM.

Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor.

WHAT?

How much money have they spent thinking up stuff like this? Not one of these figures can possibly be quantified in reality.

STEAM was originally developed for use in Saskatchewan, Canada in the early 1980's. It was adopted by Scarborough Borough Council sometime in the early 1990's when they employed the guy that thought it up.

It is an extremely inaccurate spreadsheet analysis, although the retailer...indeed you buy this nonsense, claims around a 10-15% fluctuation in accuracy in recorded statistics and a plus or minus 5% accuracy in predictions. I had to work with it in the late 90's. It does not measure tourist numbers...it measures supply to 'possible tourists'. It works well for a specific attraction or destination. 'We had so many tickets sold for this and supplied so many cream teas at that...therefore the traffic was this and the future trend is that'.

Where it falls flat on it's face is an area like the Broads where you cannot distinguish between goods and services supplied to tourists or locals.

[JennyMorgan]

Mss Conti always struck me as being nothing other than JP's mouth piece. Nice lady though.

[Vaughan]

Introduction. Page 8, 1:2. Broads National Park.

"To make it clear, the use of the term Broads National Park is for marketing purposes only. It is not, nor has it ever been, the Authority's intention to seek either a change to its statutory purposes or the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads."

Un-quote.

They state their revenue as £3.2 million from National Park Grants and £3m from river tolls. There appears to be no other regular income, so boats are paying half of it all. Hoveton Great Broad, however, has attracted a £4m grant although there seems no intention to open it to the navigation.

Part 2:1 Vision statement for the BNP to 2030. This reads just like a Guardian job advert and appears to say effectively nothing. I also don't take it kindly that they finish with a quote from Ted Ellis. Not sure he would be happy about that!

Part 2:2 Fundamental Principles. Again, this is just a whole lot of executive speak! This whole paper is all about targets, policies, measures, aspirations, schemes, strategies, water bodies, audits, partnerships, etc. I have not found anywhere where they actually state what they intend to DO!

While we are at it, can anyone help me with the following, as I don't speak American?

Overarched

Spatial planning

A living document

Dynamic landscape

Climate smart society

Tailored schemes (does this means others are exempt?)

See also - tailored stewardship agreements, management prescriptions and "best practice in place"

Priority species? 

And also Part 6:1 :-

"Develop and promote tailored climate-smart mitigation and adaptation measures, guidance and support".

At this point I give up on it. If any others of you want to wade your way through the rest of this indecisive, over-educated waffle, you are welcome.

I wonder what Alan Sugar would say, if presented with this stuff, as a business plan? "You're fired!"

 

[BroadScot]

The word that comes to mind for all of this ....is Codswallop !!!

 

[JennyMorgan]

Introduction. Page 8, 1:2. Broads National Park.

"To make it clear, the use of the term Broads National Park is for marketing purposes only. It is not, nor has it ever been, the Authority's intention to seek either a change to its statutory purposes or the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads."

To make it absolutely clear, The Broads Authority, not many years ago, presented the Broads National Park Bill to parliament with the wish that it became the Broads National Park Authority and that the Broads would become, legally, a national park. This is a fact of history so why the denial?

The Authority then went back to Parliament with the Broads Bill, with clauses giving them the power to prevent access by boats to chosen waters, just as draconian as Sandford, but Parliament threw that out after several of us petitioned the House of Lords. It's all there in Hansard, for those who have the inclination. 

I stand by my contention that the Authority, under the leadership of Dr Packman, has sought for the Broads to be a national park otherwise why the Broads National Park Bill?

http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/CARMS/meetings/cab2006-06-19ag16.pdf

Seemingly the Authority has a very short memory.

[JennyMorgan]

More on the mythical, ho ho ho, Broads National Park Bill that never, allegedly, took place:

http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/speeches/broads_bill.htm

[BroadScot]

Quote

I fear that the authority’s approach has not enabled the House to give it the warm cross-party endorsement that it might otherwise have had, and serious concerns among our constituents remain. That said, there will be further opportunities in the other place. As the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, the ultimate test will be the behaviour of the authority in interpreting and using its powers in the years ahead. 

Nothing has changed for the better then, in eight years !