National Park? Does It Matter?

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, ChrisB said:

If there was a way of ensuring fully mapped and documented areas of navigation could be enshrined in the form of a Broads Charter then I could only see benefits from full National Park status.

Clive is correct, National Parks are a World Wide recognised "brand". Maybe there should be some quiet areas, outside of main channels where it is sail, paddle and row only? 

I am playing devil's advocate here but at times the Broads popular areas can be anything but a magical waterland.

National Parks have truly become a world recognised brand, for that reason I find it questionable that our favourite quango can and has muscled in on that and forced themselves upon the brand. It is even more questionable when clearly the pseudo BNP is a park without boundaries. Let me explain, I pick up my i-phone and tap in Carlton Colville, a suberb of Lowestoft, and up pops a map telling me that I'm in the Broads National Park!  Ooh err, am I really? Estate agents are selling houses well outside the Broads Authority's executive area as being in the so called Broads national park. Norwich, granted that it is a 'fine city,' has been quoted as being the only city in a national park, once again outside the executive area. Great Yarmouth, probably the complete opposite to what most folk would expect of a national park yet even that town uses the BNP brand, a town that is, once again, largely outside the executive area.

All that fine detail aside I share the view that the Broads should be formally  recognised as a national park but ONLY if it retains the Broads Act with its three core responsibilities and does not down grade to the National Parks legislation. Access and navigation must be retained for all time. On top of that the Broads Authority has to be reformed and become a democratic authority, responsible to the electorate rather than it being the one man dominated quango that it is. 

Clive, you say that the Broads is not a brand, on that we must differ. I would suggest that history and literary is very clearly on my side on this one. You say that the NP brand is good for marketing, and probably it is, but I have had a face to face conversation with John Packman when he made it abundantly clear that boaters and anglers would have to accept limitations as to where and when they could roam or navigate the Broads. Would that be good for the hire boat industry?  

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, Wyndham said:

I'm another one without in depth knowledge of the situation but do have a question.

If I understand correctly, the view of some is that full National Park status is being sought by disguised tactics.

If so, can I ask why?

What motive has anyone got for wanting full NP status given the possible implications.

Genuine question.

I think that you best ask the chief executive of the Broads Authority that one, it seemingly being his unexplained mission in life. 

My view is that he craves the status of being the CEO of a real national park, agreed that it would be the fulfillment of an otherwise unremarkable career.

[ChrisB]

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I think that you best ask the chief executive of the Broads Authority that one, it seemingly being his unexplained mission in life. 

My view is that he craves the status of being the CEO of a real national park, agreed that it would be the fulfillment of an otherwise unremarkable career.

Peter, I would not go as far as using "Unremarkable" I believe he was the head of Economic Development and Regeneration at Brighton and Hove during it's "Turn Aound" phase and he has a great deal of experience in Town Planning.

I have only met him once but he was charming to my wife and I.

[riverman]

New to this argument, I mean civilised discussion. So I am just seeking some clarity.

Are we against misrepresenting the broads? Or is it the fear of the Sandford principle? 

If it is the latter, then from what I can see, this is all a storm in a tea cup. BA becoming a true NP and imposing the Sandford principle, IMHO greatly neglects the enormity of the task they would then be posed and the backlash it would create. 

As someone who is on the river 5 days a week there is no doubt in my mind that boating does conflict with nature, so all the boats would have to go. The loss of employment in boating and related sectors, the removal of thousands of boats, the lack of ability to maintain the waterways, the enormous loss in tourist revenue would cause uproar. Even if they did manage it, practically it would take years to do, not allowing for a heavily tourist reliant area to readjust.

Not gonna happen, don't panic.

[imtamping2]

Mr Mannering 

[Baggywrinkle]

17 hours ago, riverman said:

New to this argument, I mean civilised discussion. So I am just seeking some clarity.

Are we against misrepresenting the broads? Or is it the fear of the Sandford principle? 

If it is the latter, then from what I can see, this is all a storm in a tea cup. BA becoming a true NP and imposing the Sandford principle, IMHO greatly neglects the enormity of the task they would then be posed and the backlash it would create. 

As someone who is on the river 5 days a week there is no doubt in my mind that boating does conflict with nature, so all the boats would have to go. The loss of employment in boating and related sectors, the removal of thousands of boats, the lack of ability to maintain the waterways, the enormous loss in tourist revenue would cause uproar. Even if they did manage it, practically it would take years to do, not allowing for a heavily tourist reliant area to readjust.

Not gonna happen, don't panic.

If the Broads became a NP, it would be governed by the Sandford Principle which is stated on the government NP site as: “If there is a conflict between protecting the environment and people enjoying the environment, that can't be resolved by management, then protecting the environment is more important”.

There is no mention of keeping water courses navigable, so the BA could close to navigation those environments which it felt it could protect better without boats. This could be for instance Meadow Dyke, Horsey Mere, Waxham Cut, the Thurne from Martham to W Somerton and many other “extremities” which cost a lot to keep weed free, dredged and free of overhanging trees. They would, of course, keep open the main rivers so that all the big boats, which supply the majority of toll revenue could keep cruising and might even argue that more visitors would come to see the “newly protected” areas, where they could provide visitor centres and charge for viewing, bringing in even more revenue.

This is not something I want to see happen and is why I oppose the Broads trying to persuade the public that it is a NP.

[riverman]

Believe me, my livelihood depends on boating, I don't want to see it become a NP, I just don't see how it could happen.

If it became a true NP the Sandford principle would apply in its totality. I don't see how anyone could argue, even on larger watercourses, that large scale boating and all the factors that come with it don't conflict with nature. So at the very least all the powered boats would have to go, which realistically just isn't going to happen. 

 

[batrabill]

Also, what is the mechanism? It needs legislation. There’s going to be quite a lot of that to take up Parliament’s time in the next few years. 

A private members bill? Staggeringly unlikely. 

Michael Gove?  Mad as a box of frogs so perhaps the most likely. 

But can you imagine the opposition if this was a possibility? 

Every broads business. Every boater. The vast majority of people who live here. 

It’s not going to happen. 

[Paul]

I think Peter's post above is very much on the nail. We disagree sometimes, Peter and I about the fine detail, but on the basics we are very much "singing from the same hymn sheet".

OK, behind the sofa I go, but the Broads is to all intents and purposes a National Park. I say that with a degree of trepidation, as I was hounded out of a "different place" for making that same statement. It is a "Member of the National Parks family and enjoys the name "National Park" and many of the privileges and protections that it affords. It can be marketed as a National Park and visitors will find much of the infrastructure that they expect from a NP. But there are a few very important differences which are enshrined in the Broads Bill, which Peter and a number of other intrepid campaigners fought to ensure continued before it was enacted into law. 

Why does it matter? Well, if full NP status was afforded it would be easier for the Executive to restrict navigation in favour of conservation, in fact full NP status might almost oblige them to do so. Of course, there are two sides to the argument. Naturalist organisations such as the RSPB (and others) would very much like to see that happen. Those who enjoy boating would not. There has to be a balance and IMHO it's about right as it is. Whether it is the intention of the Executive to seek to further limit navigation I do not know, but I would not like them to have the authority to do so, further than that which they already have. 

Is it the intention of the Authority, and especially it's CEO to continue to push for full NP status? You would have to ask him. I have my opinions but I think I will keep them to myself.

[finny]

It's always an interesting subject personally one of the biggest issues here is " Trust " .we have an authority here that constantly falls on its own sword in many fore front public areas 

opening the front door is the first step the handing over the family silver for most - it's like making a small snow ball then running it down a large hill ......eventually it becomes to big to control 

just my thoughts 

finny

[ranworthbreeze]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

Also, what is the mechanism? It needs legislation. There’s going to be quite a lot of that to take up Parliament’s time in the next few years. 

A private members bill? Staggeringly unlikely. 

Michael Gove?  Mad as a box of frogs so perhaps the most likely. 

But can you imagine the opposition if this was a possibility? 

Every broads business. Every boater. The vast majority of people who live here. 

It’s not going to happen. 

Mod Hat Off

Hello batabill,

All of what you said was also said about the speed ban at Windermere, there were vast objections from both retail and business sectors with no movement by yet another unelected quango. 

Needless the ban went through, there is still tourism but hadly the value that had been previously been depended on by the local economy.

Lets not allow this to happen on the Broads.

Regards

Alan  

[Vaughan]

54 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Needless the ban went through, there is still tourism but hadly the value that had been previously been depended on by the local economy.

No need to take your hat off for that one Alan!

A most valid comparison, based on experience.

[grendel]

I would surmise that once Sandford got in - any complaint would be too late as it would override any objections.

[riverman]

18 minutes ago, grendel said:

I would surmise that once Sandford got in - any complaint would be too late as it would override any objections.

We could just ignore it, 13000+ boats  aren't going to disappear over night. 

And I think that's really the difference between Windermere and The Broads, numbers. I appreciate that 5-6 million (est.) was a lot of money for them to lose but we're talking about some very different figures here. 

Don't get me wrong, I think being watchful of BA is no bad thing but I don't believe for a second that they could ever get away with doing it. 

 

[vanessan]

19 minutes ago, grendel said:

I would surmise that once Sandford got in - any complaint would be too late as it would override any objections.

That’s why it’s so good that we have members who keep eyes and ears open for anything untoward. As they also keep the rest of us informed,  debate and discussion can continue. Like many forum members, I have learnt a lot about this subject and realise how important it is to keep on top of developments. It’s all very well saying ‘it’ll never happen’ but I do seem to remember people saying that a certain referendum would never produce a ‘leave’ vote........................

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, riverman said:

We could just ignore it, 13000+ boats  aren't going to disappear over night. 

And I think that's really the difference between Windermere and The Broads, numbers. I appreciate that 5-6 million (est.) was a lot of money for them to lose but we're talking about some very different figures here. 

Don't get me wrong, I think being watchful of BA is no bad thing but I don't believe for a second that they could ever get away with doing it. 

 

Despite being told by DEFRA et al that the Broads could NOT be called an NP the cunning blighter has got away with calling the Broads a NP. He gets 10 out of 10 for tenacity in my book. Any sign of weakness or complacency will be pounced upon with glee for that is the very nature of the man, every trick in the book!

[marshman]

The Sandford principle is talked about as if it had been regularly applied - note the wording carefully "..if there is a conflict..." and to quote the Windermere speedboat ban as an instance, is just not correct. I doubt anywhere in the reams of paper about that decision, whether Sandford was actually used to justify it. Despite the appearance from this site that the ban on speedboats was very much against the views of everyone, there were, and still are, many people who supported that move and would again today, if it were put to the vote! To be honest, I suspect that the majority would still support it - not necessarily the majority in the town itself who were directly affected but throughout the whole area . 

And Pete, you keep on quoting time and time again that one occasion that JP purported to quote to you about boats and anglers being banned, but he has never quoted it to me, nor anyone else that I am aware of and I challenge you to find it in print either!

As others say, it will not happen and you know that and many others do , so its a bit pointless IMHO to keep on ratcheting the ante up over it time and time again!

And whilst we are about it, to suggest we should have a vote on the election of the BA as some would wish, again it is not going to happen anytime soon - you have firstly the problem of deciding who should vote and secondly, do you really want the Broads run by an elected body? You would have some difficulty in selecting appropriate persons to stand and I would hazard a guess that elected members would make no better job of it. And thats based on my view of most publicly elected bodies!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

On 1/20/2018 at 15:01, ChrisB said:

Peter, I would not go as far as using "Unremarkable" I believe he was the head of Economic Development and Regeneration at Brighton and Hove during it's "Turn Aound" phase and he has a great deal of experience in Town Planning.

I have only met him once but he was charming to my wife and I.

He is charming, always, courteous too. He has never been otherwise to any of my family members. I am not sure that being a town planner was quite what the Broads needed.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

And Pete, you keep on quoting time and time again that one occasion that JP purported to quote to you about boats and anglers being banned, but he has never quoted it to me, nor anyone else that I am aware of and I challenge you to find it in print either!

 

Marsh, I don't lie.

[ChrisB]

I have to say that back in 2005 when the Lake District NP introduced a speed limit my wife and I were regular Whammel sailors on Windermere and we supported the speed limit.

To put it into context for those who are not familiar with the lakes the speed limit is 10 knots or 11.5 mph, the lake is 11.23 miles in length.

It can be argued that some boats make a greater wash at that speed but then I have never seen the need for a 38ft Sealine on what in European wide terms is a bit of a pond when compared with those in Switzerland, Germany and Italy.

In any case event organisers can apply for exemptions, I think there was something to do with float planes to mark a 100th anniversary not long ago.

[JennyMorgan]

I have just lifted this off the National Park website so it is an exact copy of what is written, no meddling or judicious editing on my part, they are not my words. Amongst others this advice is offered to students.

The aims and purposes of national parks are laid out by law. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, was a law made by parliament that set out what our national parks would be like.

There are slightly different aims and purposes for the national parks in Scotland and for the Broads National Park, compared to other national parks in England and Wales. When the aims and purposes conflict with each other, then the Sandford Principle should be used to give more weight to conservation of the environment.

An interesting comment, especially as the Broads is NOT actually covered by the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, nevertheless the doctrine is clear.

[JennyMorgan]

My previous comment contains the underlined words: Sandford Principle, click on that for further information.

[batrabill]

6 hours ago, ChrisB said:

I have to say that back in 2005 when the Lake District NP introduced a speed limit my wife and I were regular Whammel sailors on Windermere and we supported the speed limit.

To put it into context for those who are not familiar with the lakes the speed limit is 10 knots or 11.5 mph, the lake is 11.23 miles in length.

It can be argued that some boats make a greater wash at that speed but then I have never seen the need for a 38ft Sealine on what in European wide terms is a bit of a pond when compared with those in Switzerland, Germany and Italy.

In any case event organisers can apply for exemptions, I think there was something to do with float planes to mark a 100th anniversary not long ago.

I, and many others, completely agree with this. Waterskiing is totally inappropriate on Windermere and I agree with the ban.

2 things worth noting:

1. This is the "go to" example of the Sandford principle.

2. There are hundreds (thousands) of boats on Windermere - so to extrapolate from this example to a total ban of boats on the Broads is absurd - some would say a falsehood - or some might say a lie.

[Guest]

Just to put things in perspective they did not ban water skiing on Windermere it is just impossible at 11.5 mph , plenty of other craft were regularly tearing up and down the lake not towing anyone skiing , the ban was on all craft exceeding the imposed limit not just waterskiing .

 

[Bound2Please]

All who support these bans, for their only their own benefit, peace and comfort. Who dont have to earn a living from the area, are in fact killing off generations of hard work, that has kept people employed and with  roofs over their heads.

So its ok to break up communities, families and in fact any thing that doesn't effect you YET, as long as wildlife gets nice easy life. Well I was brought up in urban countryside, we had woods dense woods scrub land parks with deer running wild, in fact they still are, the woods are smaller. But the wildlife is as abundant if not more than in the 50's and 60's.

So my view is leave the broads real national parks to get along as they dis 50 years ago. Where did this country go so wrong. Ah yes I remember to many university bods that think they know better than the folks that have looked after nature side by side with getting on with their lives for 100's of years.

Conclusion Mother nature has her own way of righting wrongs, dont interfere with her let just do her own thing PLEASE.

May the broads be the magical experience they was when I was kid and my parents were kids, and for my great great grandkids.

Charlie