Toll Restructure For Broads

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I was about to say something similar.

The trade waste on boatyards argument has been going on ever since the 70s.

The BA may not be directly responsible for the dustbins but they are responsible for tourism on the Broads, and all that that means.

They are obviously not making enough noise about this.

Or any noise?

I don't expect the BA to take on the responsibility but I do expect them to take the lead, after all, they are the Broads Authority, it's happening on their turf, in their manor, within their empire,

[MauriceMynah]

But how do we know they haven't ?????

How do we know that the BA haven't lobbied, or that they haven't made any noise?

How do we know if round table talks have been held.

To the best of my knowledge the BA has held meetings with the councils. With what level of success I cannot know.

Perhaps others have similarly heard of such meetings, but possibly, not being supporters of JP, it didn't impress them enough to mention them. ( I was going to say "it didn't fit their agenda" but thought better of it )

I have asked a question several times or rather raised a point that I feel should be answered.

On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 10:19 AM, MauriceMynah said:

There are certain figures I'd like to see. How much money did the BA receive from tolls in 2016-17 and if as we suspect this move goes through, how much money would the BA receive in tolls if the boating population remained much as it is now?

If the overall increase is not too far out from inflation, we don't really have much of a leg to stand on, and his rhetoric of wanting a fairer distribution of costs amongst boaters will be vindicated. If it can be proven that the overall figure is hugely greater than inflation then we have a fightable case.

This observation/question call it what you will, seems to have been ignored each time I mention it.

[rightsaidfred]

MM

I think you may find what you are looking for here, also I to understand the BA are and have been in talks with the relevant councils over the rubbish problem

Fred

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/805709/Tolls-Review-2016-and-Proposed-Navigation-Charges-for-2016-17.pdf

 

[MauriceMynah]

Thanks RSF, I shall look at the doc later but as I ...

a. am thick and

b. have the attention span of a lethargic gnat...

I hold out no great hopes of disseminating the figures I am after.       

 

[Timbo]

The income from tolls for 2016/2017 is budgeted at £3,119,839. The predicted outrun...or what they think they will actually get in is £3,097,739. In 2017/2018 they expect to collect £3,179,500 in tolls.

At the last audit of accounts for 2016/2017 they have spent  £3,122,233. However they predicted they would spend £3,106,687. They are predicting that in 2017/2018 they will spend  £3,178,333.

They currently have reserves of  £325,695 and by the end of 2016/2017 they predict they will have reserves of  £320,392. In 2017/2018 they are predicting reserves of  £317,809.

[JennyMorgan]

Thanks, Fred, I too had heard that JP had been in what I guess must have been low key talks with local councils and to be fair that needs recognition. That said, I rather suspect that low key is not what many of us on the various forums are expecting. JP has shown himself perfectly capable of taking the lead, even when it's not required, but now a lead is needed, even demanded. JP has shown that he can tackle small fish, like individual houseboat owners and run-down mooring basin owners, but now is surely the time to up the anti. What a feather it could be in his hat, call on his fellow members of the national parks family and present a united front to the relevant government departments. If there was the will then it could be done.

[MauriceMynah]

Now, I could be well wide of the mark here but IF the RSPB is one of the stakeholders, then it would have to count as THE MAJOR stakeholder, and certainly one more likely to get JP the gong he wants.

Now, If JP really wants to achieve all that which he is accused of wanting to achieve then he doesn't need to divide boat owners from hire fleets, just boat owners and hire fleets from the RSPB. set those two against each other and let's see who will win. Which would the British public support, poor little dicky birds or rich bastards who own boats.

Be very very careful before picking THAT fight.

[batrabill]

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/780707/Draft-Policy-on-Waste-Collection-and-Disposal-in-the-Broads-National-Park.pdf

[Oddfellow]

MM is pretty accurate. 

Nobody said that the councils weren't responsible or toe decisions higher-up to reclassify waste. It's just that the BA is in a position to be able to get people together to try and find a workable solution and it has singularly failed to do anything remotely useful despite calls from stakeholders and members for it to do something; ANYTHING!

Taking a responsibility for tourism in an area that survives on tourism means taking responsibility for EVERYTHING. The BA can find money for a nesting box (and convince a Charity to cough up some money for it too) but it can't arrange meetings with stakeholders and councils to find a solution to the hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers not having anywhere to leave their rubbish. It's a disgrace. 

 

 

 

 

[Timbo]

Having read through the document posted by BatraBill it does evidence that a meeting of sorts was held on the subject of refuse disposal and by a convoluted method an action plan proposed.

The document evidences some of my concerns regarding the Authority and its abilities. We needed positive action and we got...a polytechnic grade 'workshop'. What really annoyed me, what really really annoyed me was that not only did the Broads Authority misrepresent themselves as a National Park at every verse end but they had no idea how real National Parks deal with the problem under discussion. This document is a record of 'Amateur Hour'.

Just as an exercise this morning at 8:55 am I rang the various National Parks and asked them how they deal with the problem. By 9:32 am I had matching definitive answers from two head rangers, one legal and one marketing department.

The legal department confirmed the points of law, confirmed that the various councils will work to the letter of the law especially if it meant not spending money and that they were actively lobbying for changes in the 2017 review. The marketing departments explained how they informed local and national press of any actions they take over any public concern so that the public can see exactly how they are dealing with matters. 'Advertising the Park itself is only 2% of our job' the nice lady in marketing tells me. The Rangers tell me how at the sharp end they work closely with the various councils, volunteers and their rangers to clear any refuse dependent upon who controls the land. 'No one wants to live in or visit a rubbish dump' one ranger tells me. 'If there's a mess we clean it up!' says another. 

Its not rocket science. It doesn't need a workshop...or a tent!

[JennyMorgan]

The tent is needed, make no mistake of that, there has to be a repository for visions, unread customer complaints. teddies ejected from prams. redundant brushes and dustpans, staff uniforms without NP branding and similarly unbranded thus redundant notice boards. .

[MauriceMynah]

Boy am I going to get into trouble for this one...

Suppose, just suppose now, that the BA (JP included) want what we want but are trying to work with their hands tied behind their back. They too are worried about the clout the RSPB has and know only too well that if they (RSPB) had their way the broads would turn a very different way.

How could, nay SHOULD, the BA proceed with this particular problem. If I were them I'd be saying publicly that there was no problem, whilst at the same time have talks on the QRT with the other parties to sort it.

On one hand JP has the law stating what the broads are and what they should remain, but on the other he has a pressure group, one of the biggest in this country, saying Sod the public get rid of 'em and give the place over to us. We'll manage it for you.

Businesses could go bust, RSPB wouldn't be bothered

Boating would end, RSPB would cheer.

Angling would be restricted. RSPB would applaud.

OK, so that's a worst case scenario, but if it were complete garbage,. would JP be doing what he is doing ?  

[JennyMorgan]

Would the RSPB encourage rubbish?

[MauriceMynah]

They would effectively control the rubbish by not having anyone there to leave it!"

[kfurbank]

Interesting paragraph from the summary of a report to The Navigation Committee on the 23rd October 2014. I can assure you my toll increase has been a lot more than 1.7% last year and next year if the proposal is accepted. The report also has JPs name on it.

Thus a Baseline Financial Strategy for the next three years demonstrates that an increase in navigation income of 1.7% annually for the next three years would, subject to boat numbers continuing to remain relatively stable, allow the Authority to continue to deliver current levels of service and make provision for the necessary replacement of vehicles, vessels and equipment. It also reflects the proposals set out in the Mooring Strategy Review Update earlier on this agenda.

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Keith. Draw your own conclusions folks. 

[Timbo]

The RSPB are indeed an insidious organisation. Their nickname of 'The Wildlife Gestapo' amongst conservationists is not unwarranted. Some get nervous about dealing with them. After all they are an organisation that buys bullets...environmentally friendly copper ones...but bullets all the same...for shooting deer, foxes and badgers. I've dealt with the RSPB professionally on many occasions over the last twentyfive years both abroad and domestically. 

The degree to which the RSPB is embedded in the Authority is self evident. The one track, ignore everything policy followed by the Authority is almost identical to the RSPB line. The close involvement of the Polytechnic of East Anglia (bought and paid for by the RSPB) in all things Broads Authority is a bit of a give away.

I discovered years ago that although the RSPB have a lot of power, try popping a Freedom of Information Request to the police about criminal investigation of the RSPB or any other organisation regarding the RSPB and it will be denied on the grounds of it being a 'vexatious  request'. 

Anyone spot the news story this last week regarding the veterans charity who have had their accounts frozen for false misrepresentation of what the money they collect is spent on? Well this happened to the RSPB two years ago. They claimed in all of their literature that they spent 90p in every £1 raised directly on the protection of birds. Turns out this was a load of cobblers. In reality for every pound raised they spend 24p on nature reserves, 40p on research, lobbying and education, 10p on administration and 26p on yet more fund raising. Just Google the RSPB and you will notice how much money they spend on Google ranking and advertising. Of course the accounts of the RSPB were not frozen...

But finances are the achilles heel of the organisation. Since being caught dipping into the pension fund they are having to stand by their financial pledges. The main one being other than sufficient money to run the organisation for three weeks, they spend all of their income. There are a lot of people who spend their time watching the RSPB finances, and one day they will slip up.

As the RSPB becomes an increasingly political rather than protection organisation many of their long time supporters are falling away. Even one of their most ardent supporters Chris Packham has criticised them for failing to oppose the badger cull. 

Should we ever get a chance to elect a new Authority CEO...first job clear out all the Polytechnic of East Anglia lecturers!

[grendel]

just wait until they get bread banned from sale to stop it being fed to ducks - good job I can bake my own.

[JennyMorgan]

9 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

They would effectively control the rubbish by not having anyone there to leave it!"

Whilst I accept that the RSPB's influence is far reaching and invasive, allegedly they have paid lobbyists patrolling the corridors of power. However the one to fear by far, in my opinion, is Natural England or whatever today's title is. Indeed there are also one or two in the Environment Agency who I wouldn't trust any further than I can spit. When the BA and the EA were both at Dragonfly House their CEO's offices were conveniently close to each other. A friend of mine did some research into who at the EA, NE & BA had been to particular universities at the same time, a few remarkable coincidences there, as you might expect. I have no doubt that the RSPB has infiltrated these organisations but having sat in at various fisheries meeting where NE representatives have been present, ohhh dear, be wary!

[Timbo]

One small mercy with Natural England is that unlike it's predecessors it does have oversight and controls placed upon it with the Secretary of State able to 'issue guidance'.

[BroadAmbition]

One small mercy with Natural England is that unlike it's predecessors it does have oversight and controls placed upon it with the Secretary of State able to 'issue guidance'.

Mores the pity that DEFRA and the politicians don't seem to be keeping an eye on and issuing advice to our Ba quango set up in tampax towers

Griff

[JennyMorgan]

It wasn't long ago that DEFRA gave Packman free reign to decide whether to rebrand the Broads as a way round the NP issue.

[marshman]

How did waste creep into this??

By all means get the BA involved more (meaning the councils would "dump" responsibility) on the first available hand to be raised but you cannot have it all ways - making the BA responsible would eat up ALL of the increase in any Navigation budget!!

Guys , with respect you cannot have it all ways

1) you all moaned years ago saying that a higher poll on smaller boats including dinghies was driving them off the waterways and discouraging youngsters. I cannot be bothered to find the tirades about that at the time but there were plenty from some posting here! Now your wish has been granted...!!

2) you now seemingly want the BA to take the initiative and to control the waste disposal issue which incidentally is actually legally the responsibility of the councils. From the info already shown, they are talking to councils and trying to do it at minimum cost but have any of YOU tried to talk to councils when all they want to do as a priority, is preserve THEIR pensions and golden handshakes??

3) and now you are saying they are responsible for tourism!!!

And your polls are only going up by around 15/20%????

Please please be careful what you say and wish for!!!!!!  

[MauriceMynah]

Marshman, I tend to agree with much of what you have said there. In my far from humble opinion if they want a fairer rate for dinghies and the like they'd do well to halve the annual toll, and massively increase the fines for Toll evasion. I wouldn't mind betting that if they halved the tolls for boats under five square meters in length they would more than see the shortfall made up with more dinghies brought onto the system. seeing boats towing a tender used to be the norm, now it is the exception.

[BroadAmbition]

If anyone here is intending to be at the meeting tomorrow.  Will you please represent me along with yourself?

A 286 mile round trip to make my point and swell the numbers of protesters in the face of any local media present is of course possible and well worth doing imho.  But I have already squeezed a 4 x day job into 3 x days already this week due to an event I did not want to miss this Tuesday.  Tomorrow is the first day for a new client for me, so on this occasion I can't make the meeting with the Ba

Griff