A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[JennyMorgan]

52 minutes ago, SteveDuk said:

His own words are?

 

"I have noted comments stating that, by using the term Broads National Park, the Broads Authority may somehow invoke a change in designation by stealth and that the Sandford Principle could be applied. I can categorically restate that this is not the Authority’s or my intention and I would not support it. 

I have never advocated the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads - quite the reverse. "

 

Is this true?

So why did he submit the Broads National Park Bill to Parliament then? Could he possibly have been unaware that Sandford was part and parcel of the National Parks legislation? Could he possibly be telling the truth? Answers on the back of a postage stamp and in no more than two letters.

[marshman]

Oh dear  - here we go again!!

Having seen the "offending" complaint by JP, about the poster concerned, I cannot but help having a great deal of sympathy for him!!

It so happens, I like many others, really have no axe to grind with the BA over this issue and to be honest see no reason to still doubt his word - after all given what he has now said, he would find it quite difficult to backtrack!!

Anything more interesting to discus.....!!!

[BroadAmbition]

Having had a look next door at that place we cannot mention (nbf) or put a link to (Still proper childish imho)

Palidine really is on the ball, much respect to him and I'm glad he is doing what he does so factually and eloquently.  It speaks volumes neither neither Mrs Collins or JP will answer his questions / points.  Anyuroadup I have copied / re-arranged Paladines points and fired them off to Mr Collins.

I also have JP's email address from way back.  I might just be firing an email off to him too

Griff

[BuffaloBill]

There is a lot that I could say but dare not!!

Trust JP? Never 

Just think of how he raised our tolls the last time.....

"Some will pay less and some will pay more" Guess which raised the most income?

[donnygeoff]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

My guess would be that boating costs too much money in maintenance, but all the bird watching,  This activity though, conveniently fills one of the Sandford principles of  opening up access to the public.

What is perhaps forgotten is that boating tourism brings in revenue - half the annual budget - but this one brings in nothing.

Must disagree there Vaughan, I have brought money into the system by bird watching....

ps... I was on a hire boat at the time and the sun was out....

 

[Cockatoo]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Oh dear  - here we go again!!

Having seen the "offending" complaint by JP, about the poster concerned, I cannot but help having a great deal of sympathy for him!!

It so happens, I like many others, really have no axe to grind with the BA over this issue and to be honest see no reason to still doubt his word - after all given what he has now said, he would find it quite difficult to backtrack!!

Anything more interesting to discus.....!!!

I'd find him more believable if he answered the questions that were asked.

 

Avoiding them just makes him sound like a politician and we all know how honest they are.

[Paladin]

I have received a complaint from John Packman, accusing me of misrepresenting his views and the intentions of the Broads Authority, The only post of mine that he actually quoted was this one which I posted here on 4 Feb.

This is the email exchange, in which I totally refuted his accusation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Morning,

I have been contacted by the Editor of BBC Countryfile Magazine, and your email exchange with him has been forwarded to the Authority for information. My attention has also been drawn to your postings on various social media sites. In both instances you appear to be misrepresenting my views and actions in regard to the legal status of the Broads.

It is disappointing that our shortlisting in the BBC Countryfile Magazine awards is met by such a negative reaction from you and a few other people who claim to have the interests of the Broads at heart. Our inclusion in this competition should bring only positives for the Broads, promoting greater awareness of our beautiful area and encouraging a wider visitor base to the benefit of the local economy and rural services. To undermine our inclusion seems inward looking and narrow focussed. Since the announcement of our shortlisting we have had many comments of support, not least from National Park Authorities, including those whose Parks are shortlisted.

I accept that we are unlikely to reach agreement on all aspects of this matter. However, I object to public postings that misrepresent my views and the intentions of the Broads Authority.

One example is your posting of 4 February in which you stated: “So why did JP try to get the Broads designated as a National Park back in 2006, with the BA-sponsored private Broads National Park Bill (which failed).”

This statement is incorrect in several ways.

The prime motive behind the Broads Authority promoting a Private Bill in 2006 was to improve safety for the public.

In Summer-Autumn 2006, the Authority explored whether it would be possible formally to change the name of the area to the Broads National Park without any other changes to the status of the area. The Authority did not, as you say, “try to get the Broads designated as a National Park”.

In September 2006, the Authority dropped the proposal to make any formal changes to the name of the area or the Authority, and the Bill deposited in Parliament in November 2006 was titled the Broads Authority Bill. The Bill did not fail - it brought in some important changes to the Norfolk and Suffolk Act 1988.

I have never advocated the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads - quite the reverse.

My ambition has always been for the Broads Authority and its partners to be able to use the term ‘Broads National Park’ so that the area can fully benefit from the status it was given by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. We are implementing the decision taken by the Broads Authority in January 2015 to use the term Broads National Park. This decision, which has the support of the National Park Authorities and the constituent local authorities, was tested in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal through a judicial review. This determined that the Authority had the power to take this decision and that it was not misleading the public in using the term Broads National Park.

I have noted comments stating that, by using the term Broads National Park, we may somehow invoke a change in designation by stealth and that the Sandford Principle could be applied. I can categorically restate that this is not the Authority’s or my intention and I would not support it.

The Broads is a unique landscape, with appropriate legislation that reflects the need to balance a more complex range of interests than is the case with other National Parks and maintain the navigation area for the benefit of our toll payers. It is lawful to promote the Broads National Park.

I can see that you are passionate about this issue. While I doubt I will persuade you that the Authority is doing everything properly and for the benefit of the Broads, I request that you stop misrepresenting my views or attributing inaccurate comments to me.

If you wish to post this email in its entirety to help others understand the true position, I have no objection to your doing so.

With regards

John

 

 

Hello John,

Thank you for your email. Fergus Collins told me that he had forwarded the correspondence to you. I had hoped you would respond to the points I had put to him. I am disappointed that, like him, you have chosen to ignore them.

I don’t wish this to become like a ping-pong ball, going backwards and forwards, so perhaps we can cover all the issues, before I make further public posts. I try to keep my public posts as accurate and factual as I can, so if you could take the time to send me the social media posts, and comments to Fergus Collins, that you believe misrepresent you and the intentions of the Broads Authority, I would be only too happy to review them and make corrections if I think it appropriate.

You regard my comment about your actions in 2006 to be inaccurate. My full reference to that period was:

“So why did JP try to get the Broads designated as a National Park back in 2006, with the BA-sponsored private Broads National Park Bill (which failed). At that time he was quoted (by the BBC) as saying, "Changing the name of the Broads will not change its status. It is already a national park..."”

May I draw your attention to the letter sent to you at that time by the Head of the Defra National Parks Branch, John Kilner. He was responding to the draft Bill and notes that had been sent to him by the Broads Authority chairman.

Mr Kilner wrote:

“Allowing the use of the title “National Park” and “National Park Authority”  
I’m afraid that we still cannot support this”

An effort to change the names to National Park and National Park Authority is an effort to have the Broads designated a national park. I believe that to be a fair assessment, particularly as you thought at the time that the Broads was a national park. [Designate (definition) - “officially give a specified status or name to.”]

Wasn’t the original title of the Bill “The Broads National Park Bill”? It was not presented to Parliament as that, and I consider that to be a failure. You were told you could not use the name Broads National Park. It was The Broads Authority Bill that was passed.

Have I actually said that you advocated the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads? I don’t recall having done so. I am fully aware that you have stated, in the past, that you consider the EU Habitat Directives afford such sufficient protection to the Broads that the application of Sandford is unnecessary.

Nor do I recall suggesting that Sandford could be introduced by stealth.

I don’t regard my reaction to the Broads inclusion in the competition as negative. I put great store in truth and accuracy. I consider those to be more important to uphold and support than any promotional misrepresentation. As I have already publicly stated, if the competition had been for ‘members of the national park family’, no-one would have noticed or objected. It is an opportunity missed. A competition with that reference would have united all those in favour of, and against, the national park rebranding under one banner - The Broads, Member of the National Parks Family.

Regards,

 

Good Afternoon

After a long history of debate on the National Park issue we clearly have different views on this specific point.

My understanding of your position is that you accept that the Broads is a member of the national park family, but take the view, that the term ‘National Park’ can only be applied to areas designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

My view is that the Broads was given the status of a national park by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and that it is perfectly reasonable and lawful for the Broads Authority to use the term Broads National Park when promoting the area.

That position is supported by the Broads Authority, the National Park Authorities and the Courts.

On the other hand I think we are both agreed that we don’t support the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads.

That may be as far as we can go on this.

With kind regards

John

 

Hello John,

As you have avoided making any reference to the points I made in my last email to you, I must assume you do not disagree with them. As you haven’t provided me with any of my earlier posts to review, I also assume there are none that misrepresent your views or the intentions of  the Broads Authority.

I don’t actually accept that the Broads is a member of the national parks family, but I accept that you were given permission to use the expression for marketing, by the then Minister of State. I believe that the Broads is much better than a national park and to market it as such is degrading it.

But that is a personal view, not the view of someone who wishes to make money out of the Broads. I would have much preferred the Broads to be marketed for all its wonderful qualities, without trying to make it into, or describe it as, something it’s not.

A small point, but an important one. You talk about “promoting the area”. That isn’t actually what the Authority’s resolution said, is it. The resolution said “…that the brand “Broads National Park” be adopted for marketing related purposes…”.

Promoting and marketing  have two entirely different meanings. It is within the remit of the Authority to ‘promote’ the Broads (2nd function 1988 Act: “promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public”), but it is NOT a function of the Authority to market the Broads. That is done by tourist companies, hire yards, accommodation providers etc.

I think you’ll find that this is at the root of the discontent with the way the Authority is using the expression.

We will have to continue to agree to disagree.

One last question, a genuine one. I have searched the 1988 Act for the word ‘status’ but have failed to find it. Can you point me towards the section that gives the Broads the status of a national park?

Regards,

 

 

[ranworthbreeze]

Thank you Paladin for sharing these emails with us all on the various forums.

Regards

Alan

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

One last question, a genuine one. I have searched the 1988 Act for the word ‘status’ but have failed to find it. Can you point me towards the section that gives the Broads the status of a national park?

I don't believe for one moment that he will be able to. 

[Paladin]

It's a phrase I've heard over a number of years. I can't find it in the 1988 Act, so I really want to know where it originated. It may be another JP coining, I don't know. Any information gratefully received.

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, Paladin said:

The prime motive behind the Broads Authority promoting a Private Bill in 2006 was to improve safety for the public.

I feel entirely confident in suggesting that a goodly number of those of us on the Navigation Committee at that time did not entirely agree that safety was the prime motive behind the Bill. I'm afraid that minutes of informal Nav Com meetings in the car park  were never taken but I assure you that many of us had our doubts!  Yes, there were some safety issues, can't deny that.

[BroadAmbition]

I jumbled up Paladin's questions / statements of fact and e-mailed them off to Mr Collins at Countryfile magazine.  I got a reply here:-

----------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Griffin

 

 

 

Thank you for your email. We have noted your comments but BBC Countryfile Magazine will not be entering into further correspondence on this issue. Please address all queries to National Parks UK, by emailing info@nationalparks.gov.uk

 Kind regards

 

 

 

 

Fergus Collins

Editor, BBC Countryfile Magazine

 

To which I replied:-

--------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Collins

Well, what a cop out.  Just what I expected however.

Goodness knows how you got to attain the position you currently hold.

Yours

Disappointed,

Mr Griffin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His reply:-

I am away from the office until Thursday 22 February and will respond when I return. 

Best wishes

Fergus

Happy Christmas and have a very happy New Year.

Fergus

--------------------------------------------------------------

So that seems to be the end of that then!

Griff

 

 

 

[BroadAmbition]

 And now I have found this in my inbox, so I assume they are sending this flyer out to all those on there emailing list.  It seems Richardsons are under the delusion that the Broads is now a National Park too!  I wonder how many of their customers will end up being deluded too?

Personally I will vote - but I won't be voting for a lie.

Besides, lets just ponder for a moment that the Broads won this award, which would no doubt attract more visitors to our beloved magical waterway.  What would they find during their stay? - Closed off moorings, restricted venues to dispose of rubbish to name but two obvious issues that need sorting prior to increased visitor numbers arriving

Griff

Vote for the Broads National Park! View this email in your browser The Broads has been shortlisted in the 'National Park of the Year' category by Countryfile Magazine! The Broads National Park is amongst four others as a finalist for 'National Park of the Year' in the BBC Countryfile Magazine Awards 2018! The Broads faces competition from the New Forest, Exmoor National Park, Northumberland National Park and Snowdonia! We love the Broads and its unique landscape, serene surroundings and wonderful wildlife - and we know our guests do, too! So, vote now to make sure the Broads comes out on top as the best National Park!   VOTE FOR THE BROADS NATIOAL PARK NOW   Voting closes on 5th March 2018!     Why Vote for the Broads? Wonderful Wildlife   The Broads is home to lots of wonderful wildlife, including the elusive otter, the rare Swallowtail butterfly and lots of important bird breeding numbers! Chinese Water Deer, the Norfolk Hawker dragonfly and many more call these unique waterlands home, offering visitors to the area the chance to catch a glimpse! Fantastic Holidays   The Broads National Park also offers visitors the unique opportunity to enjoy a fantastic holiday on the water, with 126 miles of lock-free navigation! At Richardson's Boating Holidays, we have a fleet of over 290 cruisers to suit most budgets, needs and tastes! Explore 7 rivers and 63 Broads - it's the quickest way to slow down! And much, much more!   VOTE FOR THE BROADS NATIONAL PARK NOW       Copyright © 2018 Richardsons Holiday Group, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in. For full terms and conditions please visit http://www.richardsonsboatingholidays.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/ Our mailing address is: Richardsons Holiday Group The Staithe, Stalham Norwich, Norfolk NR12 9BX United Kingdom Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

[grendel]

A Natioal Park now (bottom of the first page)

[Vaughan]

I just got that e-mail as well!

[BroadAmbition]

Mind you to be fair and nit picking, The BA do claim that the term 'National Park' is to be used for promoting the Broads, which is exactly what Richo's are doing so in that respect they aren't doing owt wrong, are they?  But in my book they are still hoodwinking anyone who is not clued up that the Broads are a national park

Griff

[BroadAmbition]

I just got that e-mail as well!

Which one?

Griff

[Vaughan]

The one you posted!

[Paladin]

39 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Mind you to be fair and nit picking, The BA do claim that the term 'National Park' is to be used for promoting the Broads, which is exactly what Richo's are doing so in that respect they aren't doing owt wrong, are they?  But in my book they are still hoodwinking anyone who is not clued up that the Broads are a national park

Griff

John Packman thrives on misunderstandings such as this. The relevant resolution that was passed by the Broads Authority was:

"...that the brand “Broads National Park” be adopted for marketing related purposes with immediate effect..."

Richardson's are marketing the Broads, so in that respect I agree, they're doing nothing illegal. The morality of it is, perhaps, debatable. On the other hand, the BA has neither the remit nor the duty to do any marketing. Their duty is "promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public".

Marketing isn't mentioned anywhere in the Broads Acts.

While I'm on the subject, he also claims that the 1988 Act gave the Broads the status of a national park. That too is incorrect. There's no mention of it in the Act. It is simply a created form of words, with no legal authority whatsoever.

[JennyMorgan]

I believe that he has an 'A' level in creative writing ! 

[finny]

1 hour ago, BroadAmbition said:

I jumbled up Paladin's questions / statements of fact and e-mailed them off to Mr Collins at Countryfile magazine.  I got a reply here:-

----------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Griffin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your email. We have noted your comments but BBC Countryfile Magazine will not be entering into further correspondence on this issue. Please address all queries to National Parks UK, by emailing info@nationalparks.gov.uk

 

 Kind regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fergus Collins

 

Editor, BBC Countryfile Magazine

 

To which I replied:-

--------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Collins

Well, what a cop out.  Just what I expected however.

 

 

Goodness knows how you got to attain the position you currently hold.

 

 

Yours

 

 

Disappointed,

 

 

Mr Griffin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His reply:-

I am away from the office until Thursday 22 February and will respond when I return. 

 

 

Best wishes

Fergus

Happy Christmas and have a very happy New Year.

Fergus

--------------------------------------------------------------

So that seems to be the end of that then!

Griff

 

 

 

 

The " Merry christmas " remark speaks volumes unfortunately

 

Finny 

[grendel]

it shows me that he wasnt particularly careful when he set his out of office to check the message, and this is his first few days off since christmas.

[vanessan]

10 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I believe that he has an 'A' level in creative writing ! 

I think it is more a degree! An absolute master of word play.

[JennyMorgan]

23 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I think it is more a degree! An absolute master of word play.

Ah, bless him, he does appear to be uncharacteristically lost for words at the moment though. In the 'other place' JP pleaded for support for his pet project after which he was vociferously challenged regarding the history and legitimacy of the BNP tag-line. The same has happened via a Facebook group and in both cases it appears that JP is either unwilling or unable to respond to what is clearly a well researched, well worded challenge.  Perhaps it's only an 'A' level after all!

[JohnK]

At some point don’t you give up arguing with people whose counter argument seems to be “you’re lying”?

He’s said clearly he’ll never support Sanford but we don’t accept that.

He’s said clearly he doesn’t want full legal NP status but we don’t accept that.

He must realise that there’s not a single thing he could say to convince some of you mustn’t he? At that point do you continue trying? I love a good argument but I wouldn’t.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk