Broads Authority Footing Bill For New Railway Signs?

[Vaughan]

That is a salutary post Paul, and very well put.

For me, it begs one question : would you have seen the Rivers Yare Bure and Waveney Commissioners spending our money on tourist signs on Beccles Station? I think they would have left it to the tourist board to do that, from their own budget.

Ever since the arrival of the BA I have watched the sad decline of the Broads and that has been largely due to not enough money spent on their upkeep.There are several reasons for this which are not all the fault of the BA but the fact remains that not enough - not nearly enough - is being spent on maintaining and indeed improving them.

This simply means that the BA cannot afford to waste public money on self-effacing signage on railway platforms. In view of the bad feeling about river toll increases, I see this as a "shot in the foot".

[JennyMorgan]

Frivolous projects have become something of a feature of the Authority under Dr Packman. The Government gave the Authority a grant of several million pounds to catch up on the backlog of maintenance work. The Authority used that grant to move from Thomas Hardy House to Dragonfly house, subsequent to that the BA then to Yare House,  the first two moves alone have been calculated to have cost well over one million pounds. On top of that the same grant funded the failed Broads National Park Bill and the partially successful Broads Bill. Rather than getting on with the job the Authority has famously wasted bucketfuls of cash on empire building and what are clearly personal 'visions'.

[Vaughan]

51 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Rather than getting on with the job the Authority has famously wasted bucketfuls of cash on empire building and what are clearly personal 'visions'.

So one can see how pushing a non-existent "National Park" on a Broads railway station can be taken as a red rag to a bull!

[JennyMorgan]

A red rag to a bull or a major concern to a Broadlander who just so happens to love his environment, his heritage and his environment.

[Paul]

I'm not sure that a comparison with the River Commissioners is particularly pertinent as they were different authorities, with different responsibilities. The Broads Authority have wider responsibilities and are charged with looking after more than simply navigation such as fostering the social and economic benefits of the area as a whole. On that basis these signs (which I have not seen by the way) are not unreasonable. I accept your point, the Broads are under funded, but then so are our roads, so is the NHS, so are our schools, our police force etc, etc, etc. The reason they are underfunded is two fold. Years of tax cuts by successive governments of both political persuasions in order to buy popularity with a gullible electorate means we do not, as a populace pay enough to maintain the services we expect, and far too much of that money which we do pay is wasted.

That much is not Dr Packman's fault. Just because the navigation is underfunded should not mean other areas of the authority's responsibility can be neglected. Why the navigation is underfunded is a matter for criticism, the waste which Peter refers to above in the charade of musical offices is all but criminal, but that is a different argument, one which is worth fighting.

The fact remains that the use of the words "National Park" have been allowed for use in circumstances such as this, and so I fail to see where there is an argument here. Don't misunderstand me, I am no fan of the Authority and certainly not of it's Chief Executive about whom I concur, largely, with the opinions of many who have been so vociferous on this thread.

The danger is, and this is my opinion only of course, that if you create argument or objection where there should be none then people stop listening to you. Then, when it really matters, when you have a really valid and important point to make your audience consists only of those few who shout alongside you. 

[JennyMorgan]

Paul, by and large I agree with your reasoning if not your conclusion. Do you not think that this latest move in the ongoing NP saga is indicative of the malaise that is Dr Packman? This game has gone on now for more than ten years would you believe!

[MauriceMynah]

40 minutes ago, Paul said:

if you create argument or objection where there should be none then people stop listening to you. Then, when it really matters, when you have a really valid and important point to make your audience consists only of those few who shout alongside you. 

I hate to say this, as it  applies to a highly valued friend, but I have to agree with you Paul. As someone else said a while back... "Best to keep your powder dry."

[marshman]

Vaughan - you said that you would like to see this money spent on "upkeep"?  In 2016 they spent £585k on dredging alone - do you think it would matter too much if they spent £10k less!!

I think your harping back to the old days , with respect, is probably inappropriate. The world has moved on, like it or not and even volunteers have to be issued with , and read, risk assessments and we live in a different environment. People often refer to the good old days but do we really want to go back to the 70's - I recall the "good ol' days" out spent on seeing how many condoms you could count in an hour or turning up towards Bargate and bumping in to the Commissioners launch moored up, with the only sound being that of snoring!

So Vaughan, here is your opportunity to say how you would "improve" the Broads but bear in mind it has to be funded from real money provided by someone - and to be fair I will give you signboards for a starter of £10k!!! And don't say "more moorings" either unless you know of a landowner willing to lease land or at a rent which the BA HAS to pay as agreed by the District Valuer or whatever he is called! If you pay more than that, it would all become pretty noisy with all these dreadfully poor landowners falling over themselves to stuff their pockets with boatowners fivers!

Seriously though its never been easy to manage  such a diverse area as the Broads and whilst I agree there are issues and some, I think they still a lovely place to be!!

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Vaughan - you said that you would like to see this money spent on "upkeep"?  In 2016 they spent £585k on dredging alone - do you think it would matter too much if they spent £10k less!!

I think your harping back to the old days , with respect, is probably inappropriate. The world has moved on, like it or not and even volunteers have to be issued with , and read, risk assessments and we live in a different environment. People often refer to the good old days but do we really want to go back to the 70's - I recall the "good ol' days" out spent on seeing how many condoms you could count in an hour or turning up towards Bargate and bumping in to the Commissioners launch moored up, with the only sound being that of snoring!

So Vaughan, here is your opportunity to say how you would "improve" the Broads but bear in mind it has to be funded from real money provided by someone - and to be fair I will give you signboards for a starter of £10k!!! And don't say "more moorings" either unless you know of a landowner willing to lease land or at a rent which the BA HAS to pay as agreed by the District Valuer or whatever he is called! If you pay more than that, it would all become pretty noisy with all these dreadfully poor landowners falling over themselves to stuff their pockets with boatowners fivers!

Seriously though its never been easy to manage  such a diverse area as the Broads and whilst I agree there are issues and some, I think they still a lovely place to be!!

 

Not sure why I should find myself singled out for this, especially as I have made it clear more than once that I do not attack Dr Packman personally. This is perhaps because I have never met him. I also feel that my posts on this thread have remained on the subject.

If you are happy with the Broads as they are now, then I wish you well of them.

My harping back to the old days, is because I can still see how we can learn from them. After all, the Broads are still there - it is how they are run that has changed. It needs money, indeed it does. And where does that come from? Boating holidays.

Not from cyclists, ramblers, bird watchers, fishermen, pedestrians, canoeists and all that a "National Park" seems to mean to the modern BA.

I am not at all content with the personal attack on me that your post represents, so I shall "sleep on it". I have a feeling that my dreams of the old days will be a lot happier than yours.

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

The more the Authority spends on dredging then the more it has to spend on overheads and the more it charges us boaters. Remember that it milks off 50% of the toll so the higher the toll then the higher that 50% becomes. Consider that dredging also advantages conservation. That aside, consider the content of these letters. They are a few years old now but the logic and principle still apply. Remember that DEFRA is Packman's paymaster:

 

[Timbo]

OMG!  One of the times I am thankful for due parliamentary process. I'm truly shocked and stunned at that letter JM! It says something for the temerity of the bloke in pursuing an agenda he's been effectively instructed to drop. What I'm having trouble choking down is why the bloke has not been replaced. Surely they can't be so short of suitable candidates?

[JennyMorgan]

Why has he not been replaced? Simple, contracts and compensation. He has the Authority nicely stitched up & in his pocket.

I have copies of later letters all saying the same thing, No.

He's just kept on until he's found a way around the dictates. The bloke is nothing if not tenacious! Like a little child determined to get its own way.

[JennyMorgan]

[Vaughan]

Well, I think those letters might be considered something to "shout" about!

We should remember that Peter is not only a passionate Broadsman but an ex member of the Broads Authority, who therefore knows and has experienced its inner working. Perhaps he should be listened to more carefully before being derided out of hand.

Me? I grew up as a boy in the 50s around  a group of great men - boat builders, river commissioners, Norfolkmen from the professions, as well as naturalists, who picked up the Broads from the mess they were in after the War and made them into the holiday paradise that they became. Among those men I include my father, and Peter's father. They all had one thing in common, even the naturalists. They all recognised that the Broads had to be commercial, in order to maintain them. They are not natural; they are re-claimed land and need constant attention. They also understood that they are an area that can only properly be seen by boat. These two reasons alone do not sit well with the ethos of a National Park.

Sorry that there are those who think this irrelevant and I suppose that they could think "what does it matter to me"? I live in France.

I got forced off the Broads by economic recession around 35 years ago now, in the face of a brand new BA who were actively engineering the closing down of boatyards and the removal of their hire fleets. This policy has not only collapsed the tourist revenue from hire boats but has virtually killed off Broads boatbuilding as well, with all the related businesses that depended on it. So now we have very many more private boats than hire and the BA is depending on those for its toll revenue. You only have to read an adjacent thread about those tolls to find that a large number of private owners are getting so fed up with the cost, as well as the ever decreasing facilities on the rivers, where you can't even get a pumpout in a lot of places, that they are thinking of taking their boats elsewhere!

Meantime all the ramblers, bird watchers and canoeists that the National Park thinking seeks to promote by providing expensive but free facilities, are bringing to the Broads a commercial revenue of pretty well zero.

But there's no point in asking me; I am just "shouting". What should I know about how the Broads economy works?

Or doesn't?

[smellyloo]

Just now, Vaughan said:

Meantime all the ramblers, bird watchers and canoeists that the National Park thinking seeks to promote by providing expensive but free facilities, are bringing to the Broads a commercial revenue of pretty well zero.

But there's no point in asking me; I am just "shouting". What should I know about how the Broads economy works?

Or doesn't?

Times change but I am a firm believer that  more activities on the Broads should be welcomed so that a more diverse range of people can enjoy what was and still is a captivating environment.

This forum is biased towards the boating activity of the Broads largely due to the high percentage of hires and boat owners who are members (nothing wrong with this providing people with other interests continue to be welcomed).

It is understandable that people consider their interest to be the most important thing ever but it is fact that we are A National Park (member of the family of National parks but ignoring the naughty bits) so we can expect people other than boaters to be encouraged to visit us.

A non-boater may well find nose to tail bath tubs a huge eyesore at the few publically accessible riverside facilities so maybe a more diverse view of what we are all about might help to protect the environment we all care about.

By the way the Broads is a whole lot better now than it was circa 1970's IMHO.

 

[Bound2Please]

4 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

Times change but I am a firm believer that  more activities on the Broads should be welcomed so that a more diverse range of people can enjoy what was and still is a captivating environment.

 

It is understandable that people consider their interest to be the most important thing ever but it is fact that we are A National Park (member of the family of National parks but ignoring the naughty bits) so we can expect people other than boaters to be encouraged to visit us.

A non-boater may well find nose to tail bath tubs a huge eyesore at the few publically accessible riverside facilities so maybe a more diverse view of what we are all about might help to protect the environment we all care about.

By the way the Broads is a whole lot better now than it was circa 1970's IMHO.

 

Lets not forget here who pays a huge chunk of looking after the broads, the boaters dont we. Anglers also pay for their pleasure on the broads by way of rod licenses (Environment Agency) that helps maintain the water. What do twitchers and walkers bring into the kitty, a big fat ZERO. But who gets looked after as if they were paying the most in ?????????

If a non boater thinks a boat an eyesore they can go else where in broadland away from the water, but a boater can't. Each to thier own, but twitchers should remember they are not the be all and end all.

Dont get me started on push bikers.

Charlie

[vanessan]

"A non-boater may well find nose to tail bath tubs a huge eyesore at the few publically accessible riverside facilities so maybe a more diverse view of what we are all about might help to protect the environment we all care about."

Conversely, they may not! Having moored at Hoveton Viaduct many, many times over the years, I have watched people strolling the footpath looking at the moored boats. Many, of course, would be of the 'bathtub' variety as higher boats cannot generally get under Wroxham bridge. From what I have seen, these walkers have not been looking at the boats in disgust, more in interest and intrigue. Remember, a non-boater probably has no idea about the various types of boat so wouldn't have the blinkered view of  some.

[smellyloo]

Just now, Bound2Please said:

Lets not forget here who pays a huge chunk of looking after the broads, the boaters dont we. Anglers also pay for their pleasure on the broads by way of rod licenses (Environment Agency) that helps maintain the water. What do twitchers and walkers bring into the kitty, a big fat ZERO. But who gets looked after as if they were paying the most in ?????????

If a non boater thinks a boat an eyesore they can go else where in broadland away from the water, but a boater can't. Each to thier own, but twitchers should remember they are not the be all and end all.

Dont get me started on push bikers.

Charlie

It's only natural to defend your particular interest but please try to live and let live.

Fisherman, boaters, ramblers, cyclists etc should all have the right to persue their particular passion.

Even the boating community is divided between sail, motor & oar power and often fires vollies of derision at their opposing camps.

I think we should all learn to tollerate the interest of others.

 

[batrabill]

I'm confused - I thought the BA had recently changed the Tolls structure in a way that was widely seen here as in favour of the hire boat industry? i seem to remember many references to the profits that they are making. But it is the BA's fault that the Hireboat industry and the boatbuilding industry has declined?

So encouraging them is a good thing? No?

There is a always a balance. One that almost NEVER makes all parties happy.

The problem that I and others have is that the dominant voices here use ANY stick to beat the BA so as is pointed out above... "The danger is, and this is my opinion only of course, that if you create argument or objection where there should be none then people stop listening to you. Then, when it really matters, when you have a really valid and important point to make your audience consists only of those few who shout alongside you"

Oh and Vaughan, if you feel "singled out" then try arguing against the orthodoxy here....

 

[smellyloo]

2 minutes ago, batrabill said:

 if you feel "singled out" then try arguing against the orthodoxy here....

 

I think we should all accept that if we join in a debate (heated or otherwise) that some of our views will be picked out for critism.

You mention the orthodoxy here ............. if you are refering to those that I think  I have to say that I always found their arguments well constructed, thoughtout and polite. I may not always agree with their conclusion but have always welcomed their input to the discusssion ...... many of them appear to have considerably more knowledge than me.

I try very hard not to single individuals out for critical comment but accept, in the heat of battle, I might inadvertantly do so.

It would be a very dull world if we all thought the same way.

[JennyMorgan]

Ted Ellis, the naturalist. and Prof Aitkin Clarke, the previous Broads Authority CEO, both incomers, both conservationists, both wise enough to recognise the Broads for what they are and both wise enough to recognise the value of the 'floating' pound, both accepted for the wise men that they were. The same can be said of others, Dr Martin George for example. I have yet to meet anyone who has even hinted let alone suggested the same of Dr Packman.

I have long banged the drum suggesting that Broadland attracts other user groups such as walkers and backpackers. I still think that is a viable addition to the attractions on offer. However, without the rivers and the boats the Broads would not be the Broads.

[Bound2Please]

20 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

 

Fisherman, boaters, ramblers, cyclists etc should all have the right to persue their particular passion.

Even the boating community is divided between sail, motor & oar power and often fires vollies of derision at their opposing camps.

I think we should all learn to tollerate the interest of others.

 

I certainly do tolerate the interests of others, but how about twitchers, ramblers cyclists all putting into the pot that they think should shell out for them (the B A pot) in cycle routes made up paths etc. Then just maybe they would be welcomed not just tolerated.

Charlie

PS thats not just the broads but other areas and it then includes horse riders

[Vaughan]

I am glad to see this has become a lively debate and I just want to clear up one point, as we are talking about "revenue".

I am not speaking against the ramblers, or the cyclists - it is just that they contribute nothing, under the present authority, to the upkeep of the place that they are getting such pleasure out of.

[JennyMorgan]

14 minutes ago, batrabill said:

The problem that I and others have is that the dominant voices here use ANY stick to beat the BA so as is pointed out above...

Perhaps if the BA were to provide rather less sticks with which to beat them?  The BNP lie is continually repeated thus criticism of that lie is also likely to continue.

 

[Bound2Please]

Just now, Vaughan said:

I am glad to see this has become a lively debate and I just want to clear up one point, as we are talking about "revenue".

I am not speaking against the ramblers, or the cyclists - it is just that they contribute nothing, under the present authority, to the upkeep of the place that they are getting such pleasure out of.

Snap Vaughan

Charlie