A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[Guest]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Just not true. 

Will need legislation. 

Of cause it will need legislation but exactly how much warning of any potential legislation going through the system are you expecting to get ? If it's controversial and it most certainly is its doubtful it will be announced with a fanfare , to me it's far better to make feelings known now rather than wait when it could then be too late .

 

[Cockatoo]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Just not true. 

Will need legislation. 

What's not true?

 

Of course  it will need legislation but blocking that legislation needs:

A Support

 

B Knowledge that the legislation is going through in the first place

 If there is a well publicised campaign against then it is a lot less like likely to be sneaked through.

[quo vadis]

16 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Of cause it will need legislation but exactly how much warning of any potential legislation going through the system are you expecting to get ? If it's controversial and it most certainly is its doubtful it will be announced with a fanfare , to me it's far better to make feelings known now rather than wait when it could then be too late .

 

Good to see youre back Ricardo

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, quo vadis said:

Good to see youre back Ricardo

Thank you 

[quo vadis]

5 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Thank you 

You are welcome  

[Maxwellian]

For Ricardo to be back he would have had to leave. I am not sure he even put the keyboard down. :)

[Maxwellian]

It is amazing what people and organisation will do if a) they do not think it will be noticed b) they are big enough for them to get away with it.

to make a difference the opposite views to theirs have to be present and with a large enough voice. It also has to be well articulated and presented in a way that cannot be ignored. 

[Vaughan]

5 minutes ago, Maxwellian said:

to make a difference the opposite views to theirs have to be present and with a large enough voice. It also has to be well articulated and presented in a way that cannot be ignored. 

I'm convinced. You've got the job!

[Maxwellian]

8 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I'm convinced. You've got the job!

Did not know that I was being interviewed Vaughan!

[batrabill]

Well I for one am quite content that your vigilance will alert us all to anyone trying to “sneak through” legislation. 

Would be nice in the meantime if you could just shut up about it a bit, and specifically stop trolling any reference on the internet to the NP. 

Thanking you in advance. 

[smellyloo]

22 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Would be nice in the meantime if you could just shut up about it a bit, and specifically stop trolling any reference on the internet to the NP.

A somewhat harsh statement I think.

We all have the right to raise topics/comments/opinions on all topics that don't break the TOS just as we all have the right to argue contra points.

Most debates are conducted in a frank but friendly manner and long may this continue.

[ranworthbreeze]

1 minute ago, smellyloo said:

A somewhat harsh statement I think.

We all have the right to raise topics/comments/opinions on all topics that don't break the TOS just as we all have the right to argue contra points.

Most debates are conducted in a frank but friendly manner and long may this continue.

I tend to agree with you.

Regards

Alan

[Cockatoo]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

Well I for one am quite content that your vigilance will alert us all to anyone trying to “sneak through” legislation. 

Would be nice in the meantime if you could just shut up about it a bit, and specifically stop trolling any reference on the internet to the NP. 

Thanking you in advance. 

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 2/2/2018 at 09:36, marshman said:

Do you think that in Scotland they have this never ending discussion about what they call their "National Parks" - which are not?

Lets hope they have had the sense to move on?

We all know that both they, and the Broads and the remaining Parks , for whatever reason, are lumped together within a broad generic term - and thats what it is!  Individually we know what these reasons why this has happened, and until that changes, I am more than happy to vote for this area within that scope.

I am not sure whether Defra's support was sought but what was said was true - equally what was said in the High Court was true - that there was nothing wrong in calling "it" that!

I voted for the Broads and would again simply because I like the Broads and can see through all the semantics!!

You say they`re all lumped together within a broad generic term,  not true actually, the title National Park is a legal title, NOT  a generic term, and a title the BA are happy to use "allegedly" in order to help boost tourism.  I`ve said this before, so as someone who lives on the fringes of The New Forest National Park, i can vouch for the problems the National Parks Authority causes the NFNP residents by way of severe restrictions etc, and i`m always concerned re the BA all of a sudden declaring the Broads a fully fledged NP  because it has been called an NP for many years, so it eventually gets taken on secretly through the back door because people have no knowledge of such, so have no opportunity to launch any form of objection.  If that DOES happen, you can kiss goodbye to the vast majority of boating on the Broads, unless they are made of certain types of wood, have sails that are made only of a particular type of canvas, and have NO motive power whatsoever. Look at what has happened in the Lake District NP.

[marshman]

I think you will find that the Scottish National Parks are set up under separate legislation as espoused by others , but I recall reading on this, or another post here somewhere, that they have an "extra leg"  to their objectives or certainly operate under three principles - or did I dream that?

If that is the case they are NOT the same as our own and as such should not be treated as being equal. Or are they????

The trouble here as that some people just do not read , or refuse to understand how legislation is required to change this status quo - it is not a question of the BA "declaring" it or it arriving "secretly" by the back door but will require a full Act of Parliament, with three successful readings required in the House of Commons and then it going to the Lords , just like Brexit.!! Stop panicking - another Broads Bill is not really likely just to satisfy JP's wishes (if indeed you feel that they ARE his wishes and I have yet to be convinced on this point let alone many others! )

And I can also tell you that whilst there are detractors in all the National Parks, as you would expect, equally there are many who have welcomed the support and "interference " of the National Park Authorities. Somewhere else you will see this, again on a thread here, that the changes on Windermere were in fact welcomed by many of the people in the area and whilst it had understandably had an impact, I too would have said it was for for the better, and no doubt had I lived there, would have been a strong advocate for introducing that speed limit. You can enjoy water without the speed - see the Broads for evidence of that!!

[ranworthbreeze]

28 minutes ago, marshman said:

I think you will find that the Scottish National Parks are set up under separate legislation as espoused by others , but I recall reading on this, or another post here somewhere, that they have an "extra leg"  to their objectives or certainly operate under three principles - or did I dream that?

If that is the case they are NOT the same as our own and as such should not be treated as being equal. Or are they????

The trouble here as that some people just do not read , or refuse to understand how legislation is required to change this status quo - it is not a question of the BA "declaring" it or it arriving "secretly" by the back door but will require a full Act of Parliament, with three successful readings required in the House of Commons and then it going to the Lords , just like Brexit.!! Stop panicking - another Broads Bill is not really likely just to satisfy JP's wishes (if indeed you feel that they ARE his wishes and I have yet to be convinced on this point let alone many others! )

And I can also tell you that whilst there are detractors in all the National Parks, as you would expect, equally there are many who have welcomed the support and "interference " of the National Park Authorities. Somewhere else you will see this, again on a thread here, that the changes on Windermere were in fact welcomed by many of the people in the area and whilst it had understandably had an impact, I too would have said it was for for the better, and no doubt had I lived there, would have been a strong advocate for introducing that speed limit. You can enjoy water without the speed - see the Broads for evidence of that!!

Maybe the Scottish National Parks are different, Loch Lomond does allow boats, even speedboats on its waters.

I spend a lot of time in the Lake District and still had property in Bowness at the time of the demonstrations  against the ban, I can honestly say that I did not come across anyone that openly said they were in favour of the ban. As I have said from a commercial point of view the loss of the spending power will never be made up.

Regards

Alan

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I think you will find that the Scottish National Parks are set up under separate legislation as espoused by others , but I recall reading on this, or another post here somewhere, that they have an "extra leg"  to their objectives or certainly operate under three principles - or did I dream that?

If that is the case they are NOT the same as our own and as such should not be treated as being equal. Or are they????

I think you must have dreamt it. The Scottish national parks actually have four objectives:

”(a) to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area,

(b) to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area,

(c) to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and

(d) to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.”

In the event of a conflict between those aims, greater weight must be given to a).

The objectives of national parks of England and Wales are:

”(a)... conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas specified...

and

(b)...promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public.”

In the event of a conflict, greater weight must be given to a).

I don’t recall anyone saying that the Scottish national parks should be treated as equal to those in England and Wales. The point of the comparison is that they are legally constituted as national parks, under their own national legislation and are, therefore, eligible to enter a competition for UK national parks. The Broads are not, and are not.

What the editor of the magazine may have had to say about it I don’t know. I couldn’t find anything on  their FB page.

[ranworthbreeze]

27 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I think you must have dreamt it. The Scottish national parks actually have four objectives:

”(a) to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area,

(b) to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area,

(c) to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public, and

(d) to promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.”

In the event of a conflict between those aims, greater weight must be given to a).

The objectives of national parks of England and Wales are:

”(a)... conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas specified...

and

(b)...promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public.”

In the event of a conflict, greater weight must be given to a).

I don’t recall anyone saying that the Scottish national parks should be treated as equal to those in England and Wales. The point of the comparison is that they are legally constituted as national parks, under their own national legislation and are, therefore, eligible to enter a competition for UK national parks. The Broads are not, and are not.

What the editor of the magazine may have had to say about it I don’t know. I couldn’t find anything on  their FB page.

Hello Paladin,

Those four objectives make sense and are more favourable to people from the area and its visitors, it is a pity that this could not be adopted for the Norfolk Broads.

Regards

Alan

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Hello Paladin,

Those four objectives make sense and are more favourable to people from the area and its visitors, it is a pity that this could not be adopted for the Norfolk Broads.

Regards

Alan

Unfortunately, in all these discussions, it is only the oft-quoted three 'general duties' that are remembered:

"(a)conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads;

(b)promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public;

and

(c)protecting the interests of navigation."

The same section that created those duties goes on to say:

"In discharging its functions, the Authority shall [my note: it says 'shall', not may] have regard to—

(a) the national importance of the Broads as an area of natural beauty and one which affords opportunities for open-air recreation;

(b) the desirability of protecting the natural resources of the Broads from damage; and

(c) the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of those who live or work in the Broads.

So the Scottish model, from 2000, is broadly in line with the Broads model from 1988. Perhaps the later legislators decided that the first example from 1949 wasn't what was wanted, decades on.

 

[C.Ricko]

On 2/2/2018 at 07:57, ranworthbreeze said:

The thing that I find interesting in the article is that all the pictures used relate to the day visitor rather than people that visit the Broads for a week or weeks at a time, no real pictures of boating holidays, it all seems to be about the flora and fauna.

We all like to see the wildlife on our visits, but lets face it most of us come to the Broads for the tranquility of being on the water, watching the world go by.

Regards

Alan 

this is how highly regarded the motor boats are in Barton..

[marshman]

Well I am glad you put me right Mr P - you can be relied on!

I think what I was trying to illustrate is that not even all the NP's in the country are the same , so I could see no real reason why the Broads could not be included in a competition especially as 99% of the people voting could not tell the difference , nor care a great deal. To me the competition is as valid as ever!

 

[Paladin]

16 minutes ago, marshman said:

Well I am glad you put me right Mr P - you can be relied on!

I think what I was trying to illustrate is that not even all the NP's in the country are the same , so I could see no real reason why the Broads could not be included in a competition especially as 99% of the people voting could not tell the difference , nor care a great deal. To me the competition is as valid as ever!

 

marshman, you still don't seem to be thinking this through. Scotland is a different country from England and Wales. The 1949 Act applies to ALL national parks in England and Wales, so they are the same. The Scottish national parks were designated by a Scottish law. But ALL the national parks to which we have been referring are legally established national parks, unlike the Broads.

[marshman]

Pally - strangely enough I do see what you say! But you too know exactly what I am saying!

Its a competition and the Broads are very similar to the National Parks and my guess is that as the National Parks seem to be quite happy to call the Broads one, then I see no reason why it should not be included in that competition.

As such, like others I have voted for it, simply because for many reasons, I like it over the others. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

One thing we should all remember is that whether you`re for or against the NPs,  those that live in them are the people that should be listened to. They are the ones that know how much of a beneficial, or detremental effect being granted NP status gives them.  Being granted full NP status may sound nice to generate more tourism, be it day trippers or holiday makers, but for those that actually live and run businesses within the boundries of any NP, the cost and restrictive practice legislations could be so prohibitive, it could kill off industry causing the loss of hundreds of jobs. That would be a major disaster for the Broadland communities.

 

As for the 6mph speed limit on Windemere, yes, the Broads DOES have a 6mph limit, but with certain areas where SOME boats are exempt for activities such as water skiing, and powerboat racing, whereas on Windemere, there`s a blanket bann on anything over 6mph, and as Alan (Ranworth Breeze) has said, when was in Bowness (hired yachts from there several times) not one person was for it, because they knew the effect was going to be negative rather than positive.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

12 minutes ago, marshman said:

Pally - strangely enough I do see what you say! But you too know exactly what I am saying!

Its a competition and the Broads are very similar to the National Parks and my guess is that as the National Parks seem to be quite happy to call the Broads one, then I see no reason why it should not be included in that competition.

As such, like others I have voted for it, simply because for many reasons, I like it over the others. 

So, if i went to a Ford Mondeo owners club meet in my Peugeot 407 and entered it in their best Mondeo competition, it would be ok, as it`s SIMILAR to a Mondeo, being a large family salloon,?.  Would you vote for my 407?.