Jump to content

Broads Authority Footing Bill For New Railway Signs?


ranworthbreeze

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bound2Please said:

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

It has been argued that 'others' contribute via their taxes and the NP grants. Well, as a boater I contribute both ways so that negates that argument! Dare I mention it again, a visitor tax? No, perhaps not :naughty:!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, smellyloo said:

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.

 

How very true, I really do find it hard to believe that someone who calls a certain type of boat an 'eyesore' now asks everybody else to 'live and let live'! Yes, let's tolerate the interests of others and try and understand that we all like different things for different reasons. That's how to live and let live. :kiss

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vanessan said:

How very true, I really do find it hard to believe that someone who calls a certain type of boat an 'eyesore' now asks everybody else to 'live and let live'!

Sigh. I think I said a non boater might find them an eyesore but maybe the words I wrote suggest otherwise?

But as you have questioned my opinion let me share it.

I am currently without boat but have always loved them.

Although I prefer sail I would buy a bath tub if I wanted to spend a lot of time on the Broads .... something that I am currently uncertain that I want to do.

However when I have been enjoying a pint by the riverside I occasionally find the line of motor boats strung out along the bank to be not a pleasant view ....... particularly at high tide.

So I can see both sides of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaughan - that was NOT a personal attack on you at all but merely an attempt to try to show the objectives, and purpose of the BA is entirely different to the old P & H Commrs. Indeed if you go back to the original Broads Act, the BA was set up simply because the former bodies were just too narrow to accept the responsibilities of the new era. Its no longer just about the navigation, but the fauna and flora ( margerine?? ) and providing access to all - or thats how i see it!!

Not meant personally - not my style!!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that Vaughan, what you have said about cyclists is just not true!! You may not like the interference of non boating organisations or projects backed by cyclist organisations , but possibly like railway signs, often there are more than just the BA contributing. Remember the BA's legal responsibility is NOT just about boats and navigation but others to, which is just why we moved on from the old regime, and why funding in the form of the NP Grant from DEFRA is just one of the sources of BA cash other than tolls.

But I still think you are a nice bloke and read your posts so don't despair!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has turned into an amazing debate on most aspects of the broads and access to them by whatever means and whoever for.

It has shown the differing views, opinions, experiences, history, the future - you name it - it is in here.

All I ask is that we don't get too personal peeps and we keep the thermostat at a reasonable level, so we can all continue to enjoy A GOOD ARGUMENT (tongue in cheek).

I am enjoying this and I want it to continue in the same way.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure it's helpful to artificially divide people up into boaters, cyclists, conservationists etc, because many of us are all of those things and more.  I keep and sail a small yacht on the Broads (and yes my tolls have risen a little because the discount I got for my electric engine has been cancelled, but the increase makes me wince rather less than my mooring fees and insurance), I use my three canoes/kayaks, paying my BCU dues and thus not having to pay a toll direct to the BA (the BCU make a bulk payment on behalf of members).  I have the regular use of a motor launch because of a generous friend who cannot use it as often as he would wish.  I cycle the Broadland lanes, and pay my Council Tax which helps pay for their upkeep, and which also helps pay to maintain the footpaths such as the Weaver's Way which I enjoy walking with my dog.  The taxes I pay such as income tax, VAT, NI (which is not hypothecated to pay for pensions etc) and excise duties on my beer and other fuels contribute towards the 'National Park' grant the BA receives from DEFRA. Oh, and I regularly chip in over the winter, and do my bit, volunteering to clear scrub and trees from the fen, helping to manage this man made landscape so those of you who come here just in summer can enjoy the place even more.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not my intention to start an argument, this really is a genuine question and something that puzzles me. What does the BA actually get financially from non-boating anglers? The majority of the 24 hour BA moorings welcome anglers albeit they are asked to move for a boat wishing to moor. There are umpteen angling banks/platforms, mostly on the southern rivers, and I guess these are financed from angling club fees and the EA rod licences etc. It seems to me that anglers contribute nothing to the BA coffers but I may be totally wrong and income comes from elsewhere. Can anyone enlighten me?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, vanessan said:

It is not my intention to start an argument, this really is a genuine question and something that puzzles me. What does the BA actually get financially from non-boating anglers? The majority of the 24 hour BA moorings welcome anglers albeit they are asked to move for a boat wishing to moor. There are umpteen angling banks/platforms, mostly on the southern rivers, and I guess these are financed from angling club fees and the EA rod licences etc. It seems to me that anglers contribute nothing to the BA coffers but I may be totally wrong and income comes from elsewhere. Can anyone enlighten me?

I completely agree with this view in theory.  

I posted recently about the 24hr moorings before Beccles road bridge and how it appeared they were being used by match fisherman in albeit off season.  I drive that way a lot and almost every day i go that way there are fisherman set up on that stretch of 24hr moorings.  You can usually tell by the number of vehicles in the 2 laybys on opposite sides of the bypass that there are fisherman there.  Im not anti anglers but for those moorings to be being used almost everyday by fisherman in my opinion its an abuse, especially if fishing a match.  Personally I cant see any match fisherman happily packing up and moving on in the case a few boats turned up and wanted to moor as they are entitled to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless a boater us anglers pay nothing towards the Broads Authority. We do pay for our fishing licences, that goes to the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is responsible for water quality and the Flood Alleviation Scheme. In my honest opinion the Environment Agency far does more for the Broads, the environment and water quality, than ever does the Broads Authority. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although a boat owner I am also an angler, while non boat owning anglers don't make a direct contribution they do contribute to the economy, those land based ones that hire fishing punts contribute towards the tolls as do groups of  anglers that hire cruisers, they also contribute to the local businesses and many are locals who have as much right to the waterways as boaters, a bit of give and take goes a long way and while I agree 24hr moorings give precedence to boats I see no reason to prevent anglers using them especially during quiet times, after all we can use the waterway 12 months of the year they are restricted to 9 months.

Fred

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PW is exactly right - the money from fishermen goes to the EA but to say that they are responsible for water quality ALONE is not really true!! Neither do I think the late Martin George would agree with you, nor for that matter, Andrea Kelly at the BA who I guess he also knows and respects

Both the BA and the EA put in a huge amount of time and effort to continue to ensure water quality improves and will continue to do so - it is much better than it was 25 years ago and work is still ongoing. There is for example a lot of effort up towards Brograve to solve the red ochre problem and they, and indeed others such as the IBD,s are doing there bit. However it takes a long time to undo all the harm cause by overdeepening the drains and really difficult to reverse - but it is getting better and takes a lot of effort but they ALL have a role and are continuing to work together thank goodness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marsh, did I really write 'ALONE'?

It was actually Martin George who pointed out to me the vast amount of work done by the EA and reminded me of the past damage done by the drainage boards to which you allude. As for Andrea Kelly, a realist at the BA if ever I met one, a lady for whom I have a very high regard. However, as far as water quality is concerned, I stand by my contention that the EA, to-date, has achieved far more than the BA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, smellyloo said:

However when I have been enjoying a pint by the riverside I occasionally find the line of motor boats strung out along the bank to be not a pleasant view ....... particularly at high tide.

So I can see both sides of the debate.

I mean no disrespect Smellyloo but to me your opinion really makes no sense!

If you go for a walk in the countryside you would expect to see cows right?!  (they terrify me but thats where they live) 

So when your going for a pint in a riverside pub.....on the Norfolk Broads.....why would you find the sight of boats (big orange and yellow ones or otherwise) so unpleasant.  Its the Norfolk Broads and without those boats and tourism etc who knows the pub your having your pint in may have to close its doors! 

We all must agree to live and let live but based on the impression I have gotten from the media available (and my latest Toll bill)  it is clear to me that the worst for not doing so could be the Chairman of the Broads Authority himself!! 

A man in his position will always be critcised for something but does he ever get anything right, and not only right in his view?! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no way is this a matter of who should/should not  have a say in what happens to the broads. The answer is simple, everyone who uses the broads should have a voice.

It is however perhaps worth mentioning that although some of the users who require facilities, pay little or nothing directly towards those facilities, their requirement not only entitles them to that voice but also that their requirements are unlikely to be for them alone. Waste bins are of course a prime example.

The other day on TV there was an article about people using canals as dumping grounds and the trouble and expense that was leading to. I do hope that the relevant authorities (not the BA this time) watched this and took note.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

The other day on TV there was an article about people using canals as dumping grounds and the trouble and expense that was leading to. I do hope that the relevant authorities (not the BA this time) watched this and took note.

Unfortunately this is an age old problem, cars, motor bikes and shopping trolleys to name just some items plus old mattresses all floating or sat on the bottom are not unusual and havn`t been for years where I live, it has been nothing to do with lack of waste bins as on the Broads but mostly stolen items or fly tipping a country wide problem somewhat exasperated by local authority restrictions at waste sites and the ever increasing land fill tax as anyone who has hired a skip recently will testify, while the rubbish bin situation on the Broads is a major problem its importance shouldn`t be lost by including it in a much wider anti-social behaviour pattern, MM I did note that you said not BA this time.

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

while the rubbish bin situation on the Broads is a major problem its importance shouldn`t be lost by including it in a much wider anti-social behaviour pattern

True but it doesn't help the situation, something that although is blindingly obviously still needs be pointed out !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bins were certainly emptied in the "old days".

Excuse me, that was a bit flippant, as this is a lively and constructive debate with genuine views well expressed by all.

It has been suggested that the River Commissioners' responsibilities were too narrow, but this was not as I remember it, for 2 reasons :

1/. They had close and amicable relationships with the other bodies involved, such as rural district councils, drainage boards, etc.

2/. They were a genuine navigation authority, a subdivision of the Port and Haven Commissioners, who were a Harbour Board. So their job was navigation, and they did their job!

Could it be that we have now gone too far the other way? Does this new authority now have too much power, over too many aspects, so that they have become elephantine in their operations?

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vaughan said:

 

Could it be that we have now gone too far the other way? Does this new authority now have too much power, over too many aspects, so that they have become elephantine in their operations?

 

 

That may well be the root of the problem, it seems to be a facet of modern life that everyone wants more and greater powers in larger areas of control rather than concentrate on their prime objectives, be it the BA the Mayor of London or local council officials, Jack of all trades master of none comes to mind apart from Empire building.

Fred

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vaughan said:

The bins were certainly emptied in the "old days".

Excuse me, that was a bit flippant, as this is a lively and constructive debate with genuine views well expressed by all.

It has been suggested that the River Commissioners' responsibilities were too narrow, but this was not as I remember it, for 2 reasons :

1/. They had close and amicable relationships with the other bodies involved, such as rural district councils, drainage boards, etc.

2/. They were a genuine navigation authority, a subdivision of the Port and Haven Commissioners, who were a Harbour Board. So their job was navigation, and they did their job!

Could it be that we have now gone too far the other way? Does this new authority now have too much power, over too many aspects, so that they have become elephantine in their operations?

 

 

I agree with the above but I do question the final question, and it relates to Marsh's contention that the BA does a great deal more towards water quality than I have admitted to. If we take the River Waveney as an example, there is something like 1000 square miles of land that feed the water-shed that supplies the river, so I was told by an Environment Agency bod. There is a great deal outside the BA's executive area that impacts on the Broads and over which the BA has absolutely no control. So, to do its job better there is an argument for extending the powers of the Authority. I do know that the BA has sought to extend its powers outside its executive area and I have to agree with the principle of that. However I also agree with the oft expressed opinion that the BA should stick to the requirements of the Broads Act and do that job well rather than dabbling with matters outside that requirement. The bottom line though has to be cost, which takes us back to tolls and our contribution to the BA coffers. I have made the point that about half our tolls goes towards BA overheads thus the higher the toll then the higher that 50% goes. On one hand I can see the logic of extending the BA's influence but that costs money, money that the toll is increasingly providing. On the other hand I agree with the opinion that the BA should stay within their legislative requirements, in other words stick to their business. Then there is the issue of duplication and that takes us onto planning, do we really need separate planning departments for the same areas? Why do we need two different planning departments for Horning and Oulton Broad for example? Perhaps the Authority should also consider working within its means rather than constantly demanding more from the toll payer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dnks34 said:

I mean no disrespect Smellyloo but to me your opinion really makes no sense!

If you go for a walk in the countryside you would expect to see cows right?!  (they terrify me but thats where they live) 

So when your going for a pint in a riverside pub.....on the Norfolk Broads.....why would you find the sight of boats (big orange and yellow ones or otherwise) so unpleasant.  Its the Norfolk Broads and without those boats and tourism etc who knows the pub your having your pint in may have to close its doors! 

We all must agree to live and let live but based on the impression I have gotten from the media available (and my latest Toll bill)  it is clear to me that the worst for not doing so could be the Chairman of the Broads Authority himself!! 

A man in his position will always be critcised for something but does he ever get anything right, and not only right in his view?! 

If I was to choose a boat for the Broads I would choose a bathtub because of the space available. Would I describe them "bathtubs" as beautifull? NO.

If I go to the countryside I enjoy seeing the local wildlife be that birds, cows, sheep ot even women.

If I go to the Broadland riverside I enjoy watching the ducks,swans & fish,

Do I find the moored "bathtubs" attractive? NO. But if I was onboard I would fid the uninturrupted views of ducks etc as attractive.

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I agree with the above but I do question the final question, and it relates to Marsh's contention that the BA does a great deal more towards water quality than I have admitted to. If we take the River Waveney as an example, there is something like 1000 square miles of land that feed the water-shed that supplies the river, so I was told by an Environment Agency bod. There is a great deal outside the BA's executive area that impacts on the Broads and over which the BA has absolutely no control. So, to do its job better there is an argument for extending the powers of the Authority. I do know that the BA has sought to extend its powers outside its executive area and I have to agree with the principle of that. However I also agree with the oft expressed opinion that the BA should stick to the requirements of the Broads Act and do that job well rather than dabbling with matters outside that requirement. The bottom line though has to be cost, which takes us back to tolls and our contribution to the BA coffers. I have made the point that about half our tolls goes towards BA overheads thus the higher the toll then the higher that 50% goes. On one hand I can see the logic of extending the BA's influence but that costs money, money that the toll is increasingly providing. On the other hand I agree with the opinion that the BA should stay within their legislative requirements, in other words stick to their business. Then there is the issue of duplication and that takes us onto planning, do we really need separate planning departments for the same areas? Why do we need two different planning departments for Horning and Oulton Broad for example? Perhaps the Authority should also consider working within its means rather than constantly demanding more from the toll payer. 

Planning! I want to hold my head in both hands and weep when the question of planning, or maybe anti planning, is mentioned within the Broads area. It seems the time of "common sence" has ended in favour of absurd restrictions supposedly designed to preserve the essence of broadland, whatever that is or was?

I think there are many areas of the Broads that contribute to the Broads being what it is that would be erradicated from the face of Broadland if the current planners had their way.

Maybe a little more grass and a lot less weed is the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone from the BA has been on any fact finding missions in the Netherlands seeing how they manage their waterways and deal with any weed.......we should be very suspicious. 

Infact maybe that is genuinely how they control it over there,  smoke it, and look how good the dutch waterways seem to be!

If anyone has any spare.....send some to the BA c/o JP!  You never know it could help us all no end!!

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.