News From The BA

[JennyMorgan]

In round figures half the BA's income is from the tolls and half is from the national parks coffers which in turn comes from us, the tax payer. Of the half that is derived from tolls roughly half goes towards Authority 'overheads', just about anywhere but not on navigation! So, of its annual income only about a quarter actually goes on navigation. Effectively the Authority is dependent on the toll. I don't believe that there will never be boats on the Broads, anymore than is the case on the 'real' national parks, but I do fear unaccountable and draconian restrictions. However, if the Broads became boatless, however unlikely that is, then there would be no need for dredging, no need for 24 hr moorings and so on thus he'd save a wodge but then he would also loose that prop up for his expenses that is hived off from the navigation. Over the years various Authority officers and outside organisations have made it abundantly clear that there is a desire to de-boat the upper Thurne so lets imagine that it did happen, would that many people really object, other than on principle? I'd hate to see that bridge go, but there are no plans to replace or bypass it, read into that what you will, so personally I am not that bothered. Of all the boats on the Broads how many of them can pass under it and of those that can how many do? Perhaps a body like the obscenely well funded RSPB might pick up any loss of income due to the Upper Thurne being lost to us boaters. Remember that  'vision' to open up the coast to salt water incursion and then making Potter the new line of coastal defenses? Not so long ago and it was presented in all seriousness. No mention whatsoever to include boats in that proposal. We'd loose something that is not used by many, the Authority might just get away with it and I doubt that the tolls would drop. Anyway, hypothetical as it may seem, certainly not likely to happen in my lifetime, it has been talked about.

[Baggywrinkle]

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

In round figures half the BA's income is from the tolls and half is from the national parks coffers which in turn comes from us, the tax payer. Of the half that is derived from tolls roughly half goes towards Authority 'overheads', just about anywhere but not on navigation! So, of its annual income only about a quarter actually goes on navigation. Effectively the Authority is dependent on the toll. I don't believe that there will never be boats on the Broads, anymore than is the case on the 'real' national parks, but I do fear unaccountable and draconian restrictions. However, if the Broads became boatless, however unlikely that is, then there would be no need for dredging, no need for 24 hr moorings and so on thus he'd save a wodge but then he would also loose that prop up for his expenses that is hived off from the navigation. Over the years various Authority officers and outside organisations have made it abundantly clear that there is a desire to de-boat the upper Thurne so lets imagine that it did happen, would that many people really object, other than on principle? I'd hate to see that bridge go, but there are no plans to replace or bypass it, read into that what you will, so personally I am not that bothered. Of all the boats on the Broads how many of them can pass under it and of those that can how many do? Perhaps a body like the obscenely well funded RSPB might pick up any loss of income due to the Upper Thurne being lost to us boaters. Remember that  'vision' to open up the coast to salt water incursion and then making Potter the new line of coastal defenses? Not so long ago and it was presented in all seriousness. No mention whatsoever to include boats in that proposal. We'd loose something that is not used by many, the Authority might just get away with it and I doubt that the tolls would drop. Anyway, hypothetical as it may seem, certainly not likely to happen in my lifetime, it has been talked about.

As one of the few who can and does at every opportunity pass under that bridge and enjoy the upper reaches of the Thurne, I would be very saddened if explicit restrictions or poor weed cutting and dredging made it impossible to sail there. As for the bridge itself, William Dutt wrote in 1906 that "The old Waterman's Arms had been pulled down and  new inn built and it will not be surprising if before long something is said about building a new bridge. But to remove the old structure wold be a great pity, for Potter Heigham Bridge, with its rounded central arch and pointed flanking ones, is a fine example of mediaeval bridge - building." He goes on to mention that "A little way above the old stone bridge another bridge spans the river - an ugly one, over which runs the coast railway from Yarmouth to Cromer". Well, at least that's gone, but I wonder what he would have thought about its replacement. Not long before those times, Hickling, Whiteslea and Heigham Sounds formed a mainly shallow broad of some 650 acres. No chance of ever getting that back!

 

[batrabill]

21 hours ago, Philosophical said:

Not wishing to be difficult but how much the "NP half" is spent on navigational issues as opposed to National Park orientated issues?

Philosophical, the BA being a public body, publishes all its key docs. 

The latest budget is here:http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/965886/Financial-Strategy-2016-17.pdf

[marshman]

The Upper Thurne is still very accessible to those who have the right craft and I, and many others continue to sail over it in Broads boats without too much trouble! To me its a magical area and I never seem to have too much problem enjoying it.

And despite the scaremongering from the predictable few about managed retreat, letting the biries have their way, and no dredging, this year again dredging will still take place. To my knowledge thats at least 4 separate years over the last 6 that dredging has occurred up in that region. If you have your concerns, do not necessarily always blame the BA but address them to Natural England who control everything in that area, including dredging, weed cutting et all. Oh and do not forget the farmers and landowners who do not want spoil on their lands which is why of late, money has had to be found to establish new margins which have always been at risk from erosion by the wind.

Hardly the actions of an Authority that is about to abandon it all willingly?  Methinks that is "fake news" without evidence to the contrary?

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2008/apr/17/1

[grendel]

ooh I can see timbo wont be happy with 

Quote

Breydon Water, the remaining area of a once vast estuary in Roman times.

and this

Quote

The RSPB’s view is that conservation should be the priority in the Broads, the UK’s most important freshwater wetland. If the wider Broads community accepted the Sandford Principle then it really would deserve to be a National Park in reality, as well as in name

just highlights what we have been saying before re the Sandford principle.

Its all in there in Black and White. (well at least thats what the RSPB want)

[marshman]

The two don't exactly match up do they??

Its either going to be flooded imminently and if it does, the RSPB will not have an important freshwater wetland - take your pick!!

Abandoning the coastal fringes is not quite the same as allowing the sea up to the A149 area - that was first put forward as alternative in the 12th Century and it still has not got there!

Equally the RSPB do not have much land in that area - the nearest is Sutton Fen. The bulk is Wildlife Trust and they have not made such a statement - or have they??

All that proves absolutely nothing - worry about it when it becomes imminent and likely!  At the moment, neither seem to be the order of the day!

 

[grendel]

admittedly - it only proves they are considering it, but it does prove that both the National Parks and the RSPB think enough about it to commit it to writing,

one wonders if they are committing this much to writing - how much pressure are they then putting on the BA, and how much are the BA resisting.

those are the sort of things i want to hear the answers to,

you know - when you turn it on its head and look at the outside influences on the BA, then you could start asking who is driving who.

[batrabill]

That’s a good question. Met a bloke from EA. He told me the EA budget is £1 billion. 

The BA are a small fish. One of their vital roles is to balance these outside pressures. 

Environment, business, boating. 

I think they do ok. 

[vanessan]

I find that RSPB article quite scary. The organisation has a fair amount of clout and I wonder how much the BA would actually resist them if push came to shove. Thank you JM for posting those two  items.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

That’s a good question. Met a bloke from EA. He told me the EA budget is £1 billion. 

The BA are a small fish. One of their vital roles is to balance these outside pressures. 

Environment, business, boating. 

I think they do ok. 

At the moment maybe but long term ? Who know , Sandford is pretty much set in stone if it ever came in here then kiss good bye to any boating and navigation rights regardless of how long the broads have been here or how they originated .

Be careful what you wish for ! 

[JennyMorgan]

In my time with the BA I attended several meetings where RSPB representatives attended. As a fellow attendee commented after one such meeting, dangerous people. During a discussion in the car-park, after the meeting, several people made similar comments namely that it has long been considered that the CEO was answerable to others besides the BA. I'm not entirely convinced as to whom that might be but several folk, all closely involved with the BA clearly have their suspicions, and the obvious candidate appears to be the RSPB. Either way, and pointing no fingers because in my view there are no definite  culprits, I have to agree that there is a likelihood that the driving force behind BA policy is not alone in his aspirations. I am assured that the RSPB employs lobbyists in Parliament so who knows? For my money, if I had to hazard a guess,  then there are some at the UEA, as well as the RSPB, who tick more than a few boxes. Reds under the bed? Maybe, but there is clearly room for concern.

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, batrabill said:

That’s a good question. Met a bloke from EA. He told me the EA budget is £1 billion. 

The BA are a small fish. One of their vital roles is to balance these outside pressures. 

Environment, business, boating. 

I think they do ok. 

Met a bloke from EA. He told me the EA budget is £1 billion. 

I suspect that that is absolutely right, but then their area of responsibility stretches across rather more than the Broads.

The BA is a small fish, a fact that is taken advantage of, of that I am sure.

[Vaughan]

Thank you Peter, for that RSPB article. I have had a quick look although I haven't read it in detail yet. It seems a bit like the curate's egg to me, and I didn't notice them actually proposing anything new.

I would like to quote, though, from the regional director's introductory letter :

"Changes on land and water mean that much of the wildlife that Ted Ellis wrote about is gone."

Really? I'll grant him the Coypu, because we systematically shot all of those, but I can't think of any other species typical to Broadland that was there then, but is not here now? Numbers go up and down (and indeed bittern are said to be decreasing in numbers again owing to the RSPB's bad management of their habitat) but can you think of any that have actually "gone"?

Answers on a postcard please. . . . 

[Stationerystill]

I have written to the RSPB on three occasions about their wrong statement that wherries carried tons of material around undredged broads whereas modern craft need dredging to a metre. In fact Hobroughs had 6 steam dredgers working out of Thorpe to constantly dredge the Broads in those days. It is clearly the ambition of the RSPB to stop navigation if it can and it has repeated this lie for years.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Stationerystill said:

I have written to the RSPB on three occasions about their wrong statement that wherries carried tons of material around undredged broads whereas modern craft need dredging to a metre. In fact Hobroughs had 6 steam dredgers working out of Thorpe to constantly dredge the Broads in those days. It is clearly the ambition of the RSPB to stop navigation if it can and it has repeated this lie for years.

Just above the dredging statement it reads: "Too much influence has been given to boating interests;"

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/alan-fry-tolls-waveney-river-centre-broads-authority-1-5373176..

I had a long talk with Alan when he explained his case to me. Although I thought that he had a case I really didn't think that he'd win. Will he appeal I wonder?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/alan-fry-tolls-waveney-river-centre-broads-authority-1-5373176..

I had a long talk with Alan when he explained his case to me. Although I thought that he had a case I really didn't think that he'd win. Will he appeal I wonder?

Can he appeal ? I'm not sure he can now , it is ridiculous that someone who's boat causes no strain on the navigation system in anyway has to pay tolls , what exactly does he get from BA ? Yes nothing at all , who else pays for a service that they don't use ? This whole adjacent waters thing is a crock of s**t , if boats on brokerage don't require tolls when for sale then neither should those causing no strain on BA be liable for it either .

I consider myself as s continuous cruiser to get a very good deal from BA regarding tolls even if I have to spend countless amounts on fuel , but what gets my back is BA taking form those that cause no financial exposure to the authority , its totally unfair that someone who is selling up and BA might easily lose that boat as a source of future revenue doesn't have to pay a toll regardless of how long its on the market 

[Vaughan]

A £30 victim surcharge?

Who is the "victim" supposed to be?

[TheQ]

The victim surcharge is paid by anyone found guilty of an offence.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/types-of-sentence/other-orders-made-on-sentencing/what-is-the-victim-surcharge/

It doesn't go to the victim!!

 it's just another fine which is used to support the courts..

[marshman]

Surely though Ricardo, the whole world pays taxes and charges on services which they don't use at all - that sadly is the nature of taxation. Whatever rules as to who pays are set down, there will always be someone who thinks it does not apply to them!

 

[marshman]

And Vaughan, not sure I really agree with that comment about bitterns - saw more last year than ever before! There is no doubt that at places like Minsmere where the reed beds are managed, bitterns now thrive. Sadly in the Broads reed bed management, despite several initiatives, continues to struggle through funding issues but bitterns do need a managed bed - if the reed is not cut periodically bitterns cannot get around them so readily

However what has happened, is that no one is actually counting them anymore, although the BA help keep an eye on them.

[JohnK]

Surely though Ricardo, the whole world pays taxes and charges on services which they don't use at all - that sadly is the nature of taxation. Whatever rules as to who pays are set down, there will always be someone who thinks it does not apply to them!
 

That’s a very fair point.
We all pay towards schools whether or not we have kids.
We all pay towards the emergency services whether or not we use them.
It makes no difference does it? We’d just pay more for the bits we do use plus a bit extra for all the admin wouldn’t we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

A £30 victim surcharge?

Who is the "victim" supposed to be?

Its a tax for victims of serious crime goes to the government basically who de it out from there if they don't spend it first 

[JennyMorgan]

Alan is moored in a privately funded, man-made water that receives no maintenance funding from the Authority.

Alan remains moored at the WRC by choice.

On this one I can see both sides of the story.

Do I think that the adjacent waters toll grab is fair? No.