Broads Authority Posts

[Vaughan]

22 minutes ago, marshman said:

The BA is of course a fairly modern development relative to the age of some of the photos around

So does that give the BA, in what you accept is their ignorance, the right to change history?

[JennyMorgan]

Based on information supplied the planning appeal 'judge' came to this conclusion, a conclusion that the BA relies upon to support its actions:

36. I acknowledge and accept all of the evidence from Mr Knight, Mr Ashby and

others which indicates that since Jenner’s boatyard went into liquidation and the

buildings were removed, various vessels have been moored within the basin over the

years. This includes some mooring by Hearts Cruisers (between 1984 and 1989)

referred to by Mr Ashby. However, none of this evidence is conclusive in my view on

the types or intensity of the mooring uses and some of the later evidence is in conflict

with submitted aerial photographs and the evidence of Mr Warren. There is no dispute

that the boatyard buildings and the supporting infrastructure were removed in 1971.

After that the evidence indicates that there was an extensive period of non use as a

boatyard. I accept that the mooring uses referred to may have included the mooring

of some hire vessels for a short time and for a variety of reasons. However, in my

view, the evidence does not indicate that these uses were of such a character or

intensity that, on the balance of probabilities, they could have kept alive the former

mooring use carried out by Jenners. Neither is the evidence given on behalf of the

appellant in my view, sufficient to indicate that these various mooring activities

constituted any significant material change in use of the appeal land.

It would appear that boatyard use rather than mooring use is the basis of the judgement that went against Mr Wood. Nonsensical in my opinion and that the BA chose to use that argument, illogical or otherwise, in order to win its case & destroy those moorings is of no great credit to the Authority, in my honest opinion. 

Also in my opinion there is unpleasant dirt to be dug.

[Timbo]

The BA is certainly tottering on the edge of malfeasance or misfeasance not sure which.

[BuffaloBill]

9 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I accept that the mooring uses referred to may have included the mooring

of some hire vessels for a short time and for a variety of reasons. However, in my

view, the evidence does not indicate that these uses were of such a character or

intensity that, on the balance of probabilities, they could have kept alive the former

mooring use carried out by Jenners. Neither is the evidence given on behalf of the

appellant in my view,

Seems that someone was cherry picking to suit themselves!

 

9 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

36. I acknowledge and accept all of the evidence from Mr Knight, Mr Ashby and

others which indicates that since Jenner’s boatyard went into liquidation and the

buildings were removed, various vessels have been moored within the basin over the

years. This includes some mooring by Hearts Cruisers (between 1984 and 1989)

referred to by Mr Ashby. However, none of this evidence is conclusive in my view

Again, cherry picking!

Perhaps someone should be asked to prove that statement rather than ignore it.

[Polly]

12 hours ago, marshman said:

Vaughan - not that its relevant but their offices are now opposite the Sorting office in Thorpe Road and to be honest why would they know of the history other than what others had told them - had they listened.

The BA is of course a fairly modern development relative to the age of some of the photos around

Sorry Marsh, that's not a defence for poor research.

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

Seems that someone was cherry picking to suit themselves!

 

Again, cherry picking!

Perhaps someone should be asked to prove that statement rather than ignore it.

Cherry picking for 'helpful' comments has long been the procedure at Yare House & its predecessors.

Re poor research, of course sometimes that is entirely true. However I firmly believe that selective presentation of carefully researched 'facts', with a view to winning, means that the truth, when it is unhelpful to the cause, is conveniently brushed under the carpet.

[JennyMorgan]

An apt reminder perhaps?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-authority-accused-of-gagging-its-members-1-4004881

[Stationerystill]

On 02/07/2017 at 0:05 PM, Vaughan said:

I already knew this was coming, but was expecting it tomorrow!

The photo that James published in the blog was taken sometime before 1936 (as Wards yard is not yet there) and was taken from the quay in front of Jenner's boat sheds. The gantry on the quay is their petrol pump. The summer house is at the other end of the Town House lawn. This is clear photographic evidence that the land on the island side was in use for the mooring of boats at that time. Just behind the three boats moored there would be the present entrance to Jenner's basin.

 

This photo is looking eastwards and is a rare shot of the old Jenner's boat sheds. The photographer in the blog photo would have been standing in front of the smaller of the two sheds. The mother and daughter are standing on a quay just to the east of the Old Hall and the houseboat called "Nutcracker" was owned by the Broads artist and historian, Philippa Miller. Taken in the 1920s, this is more proof that the land on the island, which is now called Jenner's basin, was in use for the mooring of boats.

This "piques" me as well as James, as the sworn statements I made, that the basin was still in use for moorings during the 1970s and 80s, were presented to the first appeal and IGNORED.

I don't know the internal workings of the Broads Authority but I know that James is exactly right in what he says about the island.

I also dispute this manoeuvre about the City Council "owning" the river bottom. The navigation from Norwich to Gt Yarmouth came a long time after the Lowestoft Navigation, and therefore a long time after the railway was built. Any "claim" by the City Council would therefore be on the Back Reach and not on the old river through Thorpe.

Perhaps I should also "declare an interest" in this as James is my brother-in-law and I gather he has been accused of something similar with regard to his own brother. If the BA seriously believe that businesses on the Broads do deals without knowing, or being related to, each other, after hundreds of years, they must be joking!

I have been informed by Jack Jenner, whose father owned Jenners pre war, that the little girl is Muriel Ward

[JennyMorgan]

Make of this what you will:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/company-which-purchased-part-of-thorpe-island-for-200k-owned-by-two-of-the-original-objectors-1-5090103

[MauriceMynah]

Insufficient information to make any form of judgment either in favour of, or against the new owners.

Therefor, like most EDP articles, I make nothing of it whatsoever.  

[Vaughan]

What is interesting is the timing of this article, and the fact that it is based on internal e-mails to members of the BA, and the minutes of planning committee meetings.

I have a feeling there is a whistle blower somewhere.

[Oddfellow]

The EDP is reporting news that it can now find readily available in minutes and land registry, probably spurred on by the receipt of an internal email. This isn't new news, just what it can glean without much real effort and zero journalistic skill. 

However, it is important to keep all this at the front of our memories. The BA does not like liveaboards and has gone to incredible lengths (and costs) here to prevent them in an area that has undergone gentrification. The likes of Peter Dixon, a wealthy BA appointee puppet who is head of the planning committee would seem to be happy to work in his role not for pubic good, but at the behest of the puppet-master who's agenda is perhaps obscured by his lofty and seemingly safe position.    

 

[marshman]

These new revelations are just so..........nothing!!!

[Poppy]

I'll just leave this here with no further comment !

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/company-which-purchased-part-of-thorpe-island-for-200k-owned-by-two-of-the-original-objectors-1-5090103

 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

These new revelations are just so..........nothing!!!

I quite agree. We have known about this for a long time on the forum.

It is the timing that interests me. Also the use of internal BA e-mails.

I am assured that the source, on this occasion, is not James Knight!

[marshman]

Did this "news" not break at the time it was happening?? If so then its not news nor of much interest some months down the line!!

Typical of a local newspaper that no longer employs staff to search out something a) of interest and b) topical and worthy of the title news implying that it was both new and of value reporting!!!

[Poppy]

25 minutes ago, marshman said:

Did this "news" not break at the time it was happening??

 

If it did then I missed it. Seems potentially 'dodgy' to me !

[webntweb]

5 hours ago, Poppy said:

I'll just leave this here with no further comment !

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/company-which-purchased-part-of-thorpe-island-for-200k-owned-by-two-of-the-original-objectors-1-5090103

 

Does it really surprise anybody.

[Hylander]

Surely purchasing at under value is not legal.  I stand to be corrected.

[Vaughan]

Lana Hempsall has made this comment about the EDP article an hour ago, and I repeat it here:

http://disq.us/p/1k7s2nr

[Polly]

I think they can certainly buy it ethically as long as they don't make money off it doing the things to which they led a campaign of obstruction. If they do the latter, then there ought to be legal ramifications. I would include buying below value if a higher value could have been realised.

[quo vadis]

Just now, Polly said:

I think they can certainly buy it ethically as long as they don't make money off it doing the things to which they led a campaign of obstruction. If they do the latter, then there ought to be legal ramifications.

Why ever not apply for planning permission comply with the law unlike the previous owner would make a lovely marina 

[teadaemon]

38 minutes ago, Hylander said:

Surely purchasing at under value is not legal.  I stand to be corrected.

It was a private transaction between the (then) owner and the buyers.

The owner needed to sell quickly in order to pay his legal bills. They made him an offer, and really he had no choice but to accept. It's not nice, but it's a perfectly legal tactic.

[Polly]

Again, provided the permissions they might get are not the same as the ones refused to Mr Wood

[ExMemberBobdog]

What does 'purchasing at under value' mean?  Land is worth only what someone is willing to pay, it has no intrinsic value.