The Broads National Park. Again!!!!

[ExMemberBobdog]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

 

It concerns a publication, by Broads tourism, no less, entitled BROADS NATIONAL PARK. 

According to the letter from DEFRA to Dr Packman which Peter has published on another thread, this appellation is ILLEGAL. 

 

No, that's not true.  The High Court ruled, last year, that the BA could use the term Broads National Park in publicity and promotional materials, so the appellation is NOT illegal.

[marshman]

Correct!!!

 

[JennyMorgan]

Marsh, I was going to keep out of this but you talk of supposition, well, that is a two edged sword, it really is. Can you be absolutely certain that being a full blown national park won't be the death knell of the Broads? Answers in just one word, no more than two letters!

Regarding hard facts, errr, we do. The Broads Bill, The Broads National Park Bill, the consultation papers of both Bills and the harsh reality of the attempted closure of Horsey Mere. The wish list has been made abundantly clear.

The Court judgement was that the term national park could be used for marketing purposes. It was stressed that the Broads, once again, is NOT legally a national park. 

If the Broads Authority had the same powers as a national park then that would include Sandford, which the Authority does NOT have, that is a FACT, one that we can't sensibly argue with. Clearly then  the BA does NOT have the same powers as an NP. To suggest that it does is just nonsense, just as it is a lie to call the Broads the Broads National Park when legally it isn't.