Jump to content

Toll Restructure For Broads


Boaters

Recommended Posts

JP has the Broads (soon to be National Park) and its users licked. In this thread you can read how hire is needed, big boats are no good for the broads 50' Broom, small boats are better. Big boats will leave but others will come.

Have a look at Oulton Broad to see the effect, then give Brundal Bay a ring to see if you can get a mooring. 

The big boats pay the most and use the Broads the least. Every one that leaves is going to need 3 or 4 little ones to generate the same income. the more big boats leave (and they will) the more the little boats will have to pay and it is those boats owners that are more likely to be crippled by the tolls doubling as a proportion of their boating costs it is going to be a lot higher. 

Once the big boats have gone there will only be one place the toll money can come from, at the point the tolls rise high enough to cover the exodus JP will get his way.

Unless those that are left start to pull together everyone better start looking for a berth as thames beths are going to be in short supply very soon.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us consider, Senator,  that in the majority of cases folk have boats that reflect their income thus small boat owners tend not to have limitless cash. Three small boats won't replace one big one, that's obvious and it must surely be obvious to Dr Packman. If many big boats go, as we both suspect, then I agree that the burden will increasingly fall onto the shoulders of us small boat men, only many of us won't be able to afford it and so we shall have to go too. The BA needs boats, boats equal income to the BA, so I really don't understand the rationale behind the proposed increase. Enough is enough, year on year above inflation toll increases are no longer acceptable, no matter how you dress them up. I think this, and the way the NBF has been abused by JP, simply drives an ever widening wedge between the Authority and the boating community. It's a gamble for the BA, one that they have normally won. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter that all depends on what the end game is.

If JP is to realise his dream of being the CEO of a National Park then he needs to remove navigation from his list of equals, The easiest way to do this is to get rid of the boats. 

If this is the aim then knocking out the bigger boats will mean the burden on the smaller boats will become so great that they will leave, making the burden on any boats left even greater.

Maybe I watch too many conspiracy theory's, or maybe I give JP too much credit and he is actually loosing it with age but if anyone was to sit down and plot a way to get rid of boats from the navigation they were in charge of I have a feeling it would look a bit like the BA tolls rethink.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no boats ... no dredging burden on the BA.

no boats ... no need to pay for upkeep of banks and public moorings etc.

no boats ... fewer wage bills.

national park status ... loads of funding dosh.

twitching walkways through the bogs and car parks that charge even the disabled,

with nice cafes and nik nak shops.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder if they have a strategy document - you would hope so really?

Because it would be interesting to see what the Packmans end game is (apart from driving out boats)?

I am wondering if JillR has seen this strategy document, or if the Packman reads her post then I suspect he might just use it:facepalm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no!

I'm sorry but I now think this thread has just fallen through the rabbit hole and gone to Lala land. The RSPB might like the idea of 'no boats' but that certainly wouldn't suit Packman's agenda. The broads is full of small businesses that rely on boating for their trade. Take those away and Packman is left with muddy fields and bugger all else. This will not get him his gong (and I'm sure that the gong is what is driving him, or at least the potential; 'Lady Packman' is)

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.

We can all come up with ideas for the fairer tolls system, but I'll bet anything from a pound to a pinch of **** that not one of the ideas will have 50% or more support.

How about..    All boats on the broads have to be fully insured (to replacement value), and that the toll is based on a percentage of the premium before any NCB is applied? That's fair!!! Now, how much would a brand new 45ft Broom cost, and how much would Broad Ambition cost to replace?... Hmmm, that doesn't work does it? You see my point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

No no no!

I'm sorry but I now think this thread has just fallen through the rabbit hole and gone to Lala land. The RSPB might like the idea of 'no boats' but that certainly wouldn't suit Packman's agenda.

I wish I could believe that this is just packmans agenda and not from higher up.

I often hear about the governments battle with the erosion and flooding of our coast and the lack

of funds to deal with it.

I can imaging the money from tolls mean nothing compared with the money needed

to protect the broads and this coast against bad floods and silting.

the demise of the hire fleets e.g. oulton broad ... 11 yards to 0 etc, and commercial ships that

helped keep the silt on the move and the end of the bure unplugged, is now all on the shoulders of the

BA to dredge.

I hope I am wrong and can return and stay in la la land.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do often wonder if it could improve things in the long term for the Broads Authority to be scrapped altogether and the responsibility falling to the various local councils in the Norfolk/Suffolk area.

Rightly or wrongly I look upon the BA as another local authority "council" so why have more than one operating in the same overall area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dnks34 said:

I do often wonder if it could improve things in the long term for the Broads Authority to be scrapped altogether and the responsibility falling to the various local councils in the Norfolk/Suffolk area.

Rightly or wrongly I look upon the BA as another local authority "council" so why have more than one operating in the same overall area. 

That would be to recommend a return to how it was pre BA days, not sure that that would be a move in the right direction. The original concept of the Broads Authority was, in my honest opinion, right. In it's formative years, under Prof Aitkin Clarke, the embryo Authority was less than perfect but it did some sterling work and it largely deserved the public support & trust that it embraced. So no, I wouldn't wish to see it disbanded. However I do think that it urgently needs reviewing, that it should be wholly accountable to its customers. Timbo was spot on the other day when he suggested that we need someone at the sharp end that accepts the Broads for what it is rather than seeking to fulfill his own 'vision' as to what the Broads should be. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea only came to mind as it occured to me that for whatever reason the Broads Authority and the local councils dont seem to work well together, I would say it appears they seek to work against eachother what with the rubbish disposal fiasco etc.  

Surely local tourism and boating is in the interests of the local economy therefore why do they seek to cut back on all the essential services that should be part and parcel of it.  

There is to much penny pinching, organisations driven to make savings down to a sheet of toilet roll but the people at the top are getting paid ever more. 

But I can agree in reality it would be a complicated way of running things with the probability of even more visionaries adding to the wanton destruction. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Timbo was spot on the other day when he suggested that we need someone at the sharp end that accepts the Broads for what it is rather than seeking to fulfill his own 'vision' as to what the Broads should be. 

That then would become someone else's vision. Packman's vision differs from your vision Peter, but they are all visions. The one I fear most is the RSPB's vision, and that's the one I honestly believe we should all fear as that's an organisation with cash and clout.

There are several things where I feel this thread and others of a similar type have lost their way. The tendency for them to become Packman bashing at all costs, weaken the real arguments we have against the man. He is not in any way responsible for the fiasco regarding waste from boats. That is councils saving money, not the BA.

I have absolutely no wish to see the broads turn into a National Park, but I have to say I have no great objection to any other aspects of his work. If he can prove that this change in the tolls is purely a redistribution of the charges, then I'd just have to take it on the chin. Only if it proves to be a stealth rise in the overall monies collected will I object.

His wages are in line with other civil servants of that rank. It is not 'obscene' it is not 'outrageous' and most importantly it is not his decision. It's what it is. It's the wages of a quango's CEO. If I were offered the job tomorrow, I'd not be demanding a pay cut!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MM, how many civil servants across the country are being overpaid from public money?

Pay should reflect duties and responsibility, some people are getting away with being on an incredibley "good screw" and I am not only referring to the BA.  Who does decide his salary? I thought the BA are answerable to nobody.

When they are potentially having to ask me for a toll increase of possibly up to £70 It is obscene.  

Name me another organisation could get away with such a price hike without public uproar. 

The only difference is this isnt council tax or a tv licence its for a Toll on a boat seen as a luxury item that we must all have endless pots of cash to fund. 

Im not bashing JP personally but I do question his agenda

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whose round is it? Must be mine...

As I said on the other thread I had an uncle who had visions and threw his money away...nut house etc...I don't think we need another 'person' with a VISION. We don't need visions, agreed goals and objectives or any of the rest of the clap trap. The way forward has already been laid out in black and white in the Broads Act...just follow the instructions.

Having said that, what the Broads Authority needs now is someone who can unify the stakeholders, lead the committee (not control it) as we work together towards an equitable approach to funding. The kind of person who can appreciate the bloody bins need emptying, and although it's not the Authorities place to fund it, it's certainly their role to drag all parties around the table to come up with a workable solution.

Pork scratchings anyone?

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dnks, The committee that is the Broads Authority, normally referred to as 'the members', actually decides JP's remuneration. As I understand it it is the result of a consultation between the CEO & the Chairlady of the Authority. Targets are also set and salaries reflect on how those targets are met. Personally I think that the CEO & the Chairlady are too close but there we go, that's the system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Who was it who said "A camel is just a horse designed by a committee."?

If the authority is going to work at all, it has to be one man's vision. We just need someone who has the RIGHT vision.

Perhaps it needs to be the vision of the Broads Authority members, not the CEO. We need to ask ourselves who is the servant of who? Is the CEO the tool of the Authority, or the Authority the tool of the CEO. Who actually calls the tune?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Timbo said:

Whose round is it? Must be mine...

As I said on the other thread I had an uncle who had visions and threw his money away...nut house etc...I don't think we need another 'person' with a VISION. We don't need visions, agreed goals and objectives or any of the rest of the clap trap. The way forward has already been laid out in black and white in the Broads Act...just follow the instructions.

Having said that, what the Broads Authority needs now is someone who can unify the stakeholders, lead the committee (not control it) as we work together towards an equitable approach to funding. The kind of person who can appreciate the bloody bins need emptying, and although it's not the Authorities place to fund it, it's certainly their role to drag all parties around the table to come up with a workable solution.

Pork scratchings anyone?

Pork scratchings & a pint of Broadside, bliss!

There are times when I would like to double like a posting, such as the above. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Visions, goals, mission statements and 'bullet point decisions'. These are all "business speak" terms, and it doesn't matter from which decade your pick your phrases, we are all getting at the same thing.

When it comes to John Packman, he's the boss, the CEO, the big cheese. Is he accountable to anyone? Yes of course he is! Granted I don't know to whom but he is accountable to someone. Many here say he should be sacked . Fine! As soon as you've found out who can sack him you will know to whom he is accountable.

I hear people say (Ok, I read people write) that he should do what the stakeholders require. Who are the stakeholders? Or, if you prefer, Who are not stakeholders? Are the stakeholders a definable group? if not, how can he listen to them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the man, but nor do I see him as the number one villain in this. That accolade I give to the RSPB, who can only really be described as "A major stakeholder".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theoretically JP is directly accountable to the members of the Broads Authority. The Authority itself is accountable to the stakeholders, or so the story goes. Whilst it is easy to see JP as the boss there are those that tell me that he fiddles the tune that others call. Apparently the RSPB has its own lobbyists in Parliament, as it's been suggested to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/11/2016 at 9:34 PM, dnks34 said:

There is to much penny pinching, organisations driven to make savings down to a sheet of toilet roll but the people at the top are getting paid ever more. 

And wasting more. The amount spent pursuing legal challenges to recover tolls money from static houseboats in adjacent waters is a prime example. The legal costs are likely to be so high that recovery of these from any Tolls gained will be a long-term payback and hardly in the interests of the BA's finance requirements. 

On 13/11/2016 at 9:37 PM, MauriceMynah said:

There are several things where I feel this thread and others of a similar type have lost their way. The tendency for them to become Packman bashing at all costs, weaken the real arguments we have against the man. He is not in any way responsible for the fiasco regarding waste from boats. That is councils saving money, not the BA.

The BA, lead by JP in every conceivable direction, is 100% responsible for not dealing with the fiasco of waste. The problem started with the reclassification of waste from hire boats (whilst ignioring the thousands of private boats, the waste from which is not commercial). This gradually filtered though to Councils having to pay more to empty the bins and stopping doing so because of the cost. This lead to major waste build-ups in places and associated clean-up costs. And, all the while, the BA sat back and took a "let's observe" stance rather than try to work with the councils and stakeholders to find a solution that wasn't sticking two fingers up at the tourist industry - the very industry that the councils and BA relies upon for income. The is an a unique position to act here and work to find a solution; it has chosen not to. 

On 13/11/2016 at 10:23 PM, Timbo said:

Having said that, what the Broads Authority needs now is someone who can unify the stakeholders, lead the committee (not control it) as we work together towards an equitable approach to funding. The kind of person who can appreciate the bloody bins need emptying, and although it's not the Authorities place to fund it, it's certainly their role to drag all parties around the table to come up with a workable solution.

Unification of outside persons is beyond JP's control. He can control members (and does), but he isn't able to control those outside of the BA. The simplest method of control therefore is division. 

 

The BA is a difficult thing to run, I am sure. Balancing human interests with the needs of the environment is never going to be easy. But I suspect you can choose the hard way or an easier way.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

The BA, lead by JP in every conceivable direction, is 100% responsible for not dealing with the fiasco of waste

100% = ALL so you are saying that the councils have no responsibility for this fiasco. ?

23 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

The problem started with the reclassification of waste from hire boats

Who was responsible for this? Do they not hold any responsibility for the fiasco.?

25 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

(whilst ignioring the thousands of private boats, the waste from which is not commercial)

Who ignored that? Again another area where responsibility lies. Not the BA for sure!

 

27 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

This gradually filtered though to Councils having to pay more to empty the bins and stopping doing so because of the cost.

Not the BA's fault.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

100% = ALL so you are saying that the councils have no responsibility for this fiasco. ?

Who was responsible for this? Do they not hold any responsibility for the fiasco.?

Who ignored that? Again another area where responsibility lies. Not the BA for sure!

 

Not the BA's fault.

 

For once, I'm in FULL agreement with MM.  Whilst I'm far from the BA's greatest fan the real responsibility for this fiasco is central Government  and it's agenda of cuts in services!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

100% = ALL so you are saying that the councils have no responsibility for this fiasco. ?

Who was responsible for this? Do they not hold any responsibility for the fiasco.?

Who ignored that? Again another area where responsibility lies. Not the BA for sure!

 

Not the BA's fault.

 

I haven't noticed the BA taking any lead or initiative on this issue. Surely it was not beyond the wit of any man for the BA to lobby their master, DEFRA, or to call for round the table talks both with relevant councils and the holiday industry. In the interests of both conservation and us mere humans I would have quite reasonably expected the BA, under Dr Packman, to take the lead. It does appear that they/he has just sat back and let it happen, hardly a wise move by a man determined to market the Broads as a NP. Not directly the BA's fault, agreed, but have they lobbied central government?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I haven't noticed the BA taking any lead or initiative on this issue. Surely it was not beyond the wit of any man for the BA to lobby their master, DEFRA, or to call for round the table talks both with relevant councils and the holiday industry. In the interests of both conservation and us mere humans I would have quite reasonably expected the BA, under Dr Packman, to take the lead. It does appear that they/he has just sat back and let it happen, hardly a wise move by a man determined to market the Broads as a NP. Not directly the BA's fault, agreed, but have they lobbied central government?

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.