A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[Paladin]

It's all very well to dismiss these concerns, simply because it's only a name. For the benefit of those who only read here, this is what I've just posted elsewhere:

A planning application for development at the Study Centre on Carlton Colville marshes has been submitted. One of the consultees, Natural England, has submitted a report which included the following comments:
"the development “would...have a significant impact on the purposes of the designation of The Broads National Park”
and
“The proposed development is for a site within The Broads National Park.”

There are two points here. Firstly, we have an organisation, sponsored by Defra, who is going against the government's (Defra's) policy of NOT regarding the Broads as a national park. Secondly, if they regard the Broads as a national park, then they must also think that Sandford applies and they could well give advice on that basis, which could well be inaccurate and and embroil the BA in legal challenges.

[MauriceMynah]

I was told that I would receive my state pension at 65. I shall not. the rules were changed. Did I have a say? No.

I was told that I was voting for or against joining the European Economic Community. The rules were changed. Did I have a say? No.

So. Now I'm told "All is safe, it would need government to change the rules... and they're not going to do that, are they"

All I can say is...   "Look behind you."

Rather than sniping at those who watch like hawks, we should be continually thanking them for their diligence.  

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I was told that I would receive my state pension at 65. I shall not. the rules were changed. Did I have a say? No.

I was told that I was voting for or against joining the European Economic Community. The rules were changed. Did I have a say? No.

So. Now I'm told "All is safe, it would need government to change the rules... and they're not going to do that, are they"

All I can say is...   "Look behind you."

Rather than sniping at those who watch like hawks, we should be continually thanking them for their diligence.  

Well said .

[smellyloo]

I think debate on this topic has got a bit confused. It is not a debate about whether the Broads is a full NP or not, it is merely a poll asking people to vote for their favourite park, which under the current rules, the Broads is entitled to feature.

However without JM raising this topic I wouldn't have been aware that the poll existed so thanks to his alertness I have been able to register a vote in support of the Broads.

[JohnK]

I think we all (or at least nearly all) agree the Broads isn’t and shouldn’t be a full National Park don’t we?
Isn’t (or at least shouldn’t) the debate (be) whether or not anyone is trying to turn it into one?
Some people seem to think some people are trying that and every mention of NP is a sly way of moving towards it.
Other people think the full NP status attempt has had its day and everyone has moved on.
Personally I think that if the first statement is correct we should stop bickering with each other because we’re actually on the same side. We just disagree about what’s happening behind the scenes don’t we?
Whilst I’m of the belief the NP thing has had its day I acknowledge I may be wrong. Because of that I’m glad some people are watching like hawks even though largely I don’t agree with their take on what’s happening today.
All of that said I do wish we didn’t have the constant “it’s not a National Park” statements everywhere because it detracts from what’s actually happening.
I’ll get off my soap box now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MauriceMynah]

And an interesting soap box it is too, much of it I agree with.

The Broads are not and should not be a (full) National Park.   ... Agreed.

Should the debate be "Is someone trying to make it one?" No, not really.  I appreciate the idea, but there is no way some folk will believe he is not trying to, and conversely there are those who are happy in their belief that he has no intentions of doing so. Debate is unlikely to change those peoples views. HOWEVER ... No damage will have been done if the first group is wrong, where irreparable damage could occur if it's the second group who have their way but are incorrect in their beliefs.

I hold the view that Dr Packman would be very short sighted if he had not considered the personal benefits he would receive if he were to facilitate the broads becoming a full national park. Further he would have at least one extremely powerful lobby group behind him.

If he can get 95% of this countries population believing it either already is, or that it should be, then his job becomes easier. So now he has the courts permission, and that of Parliament, to call the broads a National Park, (only for marketing you understand). Well.. That should help.  

It wouldn't be too difficult for him to explain that it's the wealthier section of society that own boats, or that a broads holiday on a hire craft is more expensive that the average holiday, thus the broads as they currently exist are really just being used as a playground by the more affluent folk. National parks are open to all people irrespective of income.

That last paragraph is of course highly inaccurate and full of spin, and we know that nobody would use such tactics for personal gain or political advancement.

I repeat...   "Look behind you."

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

If he can get 95% of this countries population believing it either already is, or that it should be, then his job becomes easier. So now he has the courts permission, and that of Parliament, to call the broads a National Park, (only for marketing you understand). Well.. That should help. 

MM, while I agree with most of what you have posted in this thread, I cannot allow your assertion, which I have embolden, to pass without comment. That is precisely the sort of misunderstanding that passes into accepted fact, if repeated often enough.

1. The Broads Authority did not ask any court for permission before deciding to rebrand the Broads as a national park, nor was permission granted retrospectively. Two local residents, Mr and Mrs Harris, applied to the court for permission to seek a judicial review of that decision. The court denied that application.

While it might appear to be splitting hairs, that means that the court decided that the rebranding was not an ultra vires act, and that the grounds put forward by the claimants were insufficient to grant permission for a judicial review. The court was not, under these circumstances, in any position to grant or deny permission for the rebranding process. I have attached a copy of the handed-down judgement

2. Parliament did not give permission for the rebranding, either. Dr Johnson, then-chairman of the BA, wrote to Defra to ask their views on the rebranding process. Lord De Mauley, Defra Secretary of State, replied to the effect that the re-branding was a matter for the BA, not the government, so definitely no permission was given there. Lord De Mauley did clearly reiterate what we all know, that the Broads is not a national park (see attached copy of his letter to Dr Johnson).

Harris v Broads Authority - handed-down judgement.pdf

[MauriceMynah]

Thank you for that clarification Paladin, I am happy to stand corrected. However I will if I may draw your attention to a point you made there,

9 minutes ago, Paladin said:

That is precisely the sort of misunderstanding that passes into accepted fact, if repeated often enough.

I think that this is rather the crux of one of our worries. If this "misunderstanding" of the broads being a National Park is repeated often enough then it surely must become easier to persuade an already busy government to change the Broads act (or whatever they would have to do).

Also can it not sometimes be inferred that by not saying "no" you actually mean "Yes" especially if to do so assists ones case. I shall read the attachment another day rather than now whilst I am enjoying a beer or two. Besides, it's a 35 page document that I'm unlikely to understand fully ...  even sober!!!

[JennyMorgan]

Having ploughed through all 35 pages it is abundantly clear that the Broads is NOT a national park and that even a pedant can't now deny that. What has not been made clear is quite why Dr Packman has pursued his NP obsession with such tenacity and expense to the public purse. The justification seems to largely resolve around the interests of commercial interests. Personally I remain convinced that we have more to loose than we shall ever gain

[JohnK]

Is it possible there are two feasible “journeys” for how we got here?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument DrP is the architect and it started with him wanting to turn the Broads into a NP for whatever reason. It then went as far as a submission to parliament who rejected it.
Now DrP has two choices doesn’t he?
1. Continue to pursue full NP status by nefarious means if necessary
2. Accept non full NP status use it as a marketing term and claim happiness because that saves face.
I completely accept MMs point that if us “it’ll be fine” sayers are wrong the consequences are dire whilst if the “we’re all doomed” sayers are wrong it’s all good. However, we are seeing more actual evidence of option 2 aren’t we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JohnK said:

Is it possible there are two feasible “journeys” for how we got here?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument DrP is the architect and it started with him wanting to turn the Broads into a NP for whatever reason. It then went as far as a submission to parliament who rejected it.
Now DrP has two choices doesn’t he?
1. Continue to pursue full NP status by nefarious means if necessary
2. Accept non full NP status use it as a marketing term and claim happiness because that saves face.
I completely accept MMs point that if us “it’ll be fine” sayers are wrong the consequences are dire whilst if the “we’re all doomed” sayers are wrong it’s all good. However, we are seeing more actual evidence of option 2 aren’t we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are we?

I don't know how much reading you have done on this subject, but, in the glossy 'consultation document' the BA published, one of the three reasons given for revisiting the BNP issue was that "Many already refer to the area as the ‘Broads NationalPark’, including MPs in Parliament, the World Database of Protected Areas, National Parks UK in its publications and website, local businesses in promotional material, Google on its Maps and New Anglia in its recent Strategic Economic Plan for Norfolk and Suffolk".

So, in their eyes, the more people who refer to the Broads as a national park, the stronger the case becomes. The BNP message is also being peddled into our education system, local schools as well as to a wider young audience http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/cambridge-students-learn-from-the-broads There will be a whole generation growing up believing the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads ARE a national park.

Does that look as if Dr Packman is sitting back, doing nothing but smiling?

 

[JennyMorgan]

Cynically smirking I suspect.

[JohnK]

All of those things sound to me like calling it a National Park which they’re allowed to do aren’t they?
None of those sound to me like actively seeking a legal status change.
But maybe I’m just naive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

10 minutes ago, JohnK said:

All of those things sound to me like calling it a National Park which they’re allowed to do aren’t they?
None of those sound to me like actively seeking a legal status change.
But maybe I’m just naive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you haven't been following this for very long. Full national park status was a publicly declared ambition of the BA, until just two years ago. It was only dropped to mollify the likes of the RYA, NSBA and others who objected to the use of the national park tag. JP claimed that full NP status, and the Sandford principle, wasn't necessary, because sufficent protection for wildlife etc was provided by the European Habitat Directives. Those directives were transposed into UK law in 1994!

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..."

I wonder why those organisations listed in the consultation document are using the term Broads National Park. I checked out Google Maps. On the map itself, the area is simply called The Broads. However, the side bar, which was put on by the Broads Authority, calls it the Broads National Park. So there's a very obvious lie in their consultation document, and a just as obvious 'product placement'.

But if you choose to believe that all this effort, time and money is being spent just for the sake of a name, who am I to disenchant you.

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Maybe you haven't been following this for very long. Full national park status was a publicly declared ambition of the BA, until just two years ago. It was only dropped to mollify the likes of the RYA, NSBA and others who objected to the use of the national park tag. JP claimed that full NP status, and the Sandford principle, wasn't necessary, because sufficent protection for wildlife etc was provided by the European Habitat Directives. Those directives were transposed into UK law in 1994!

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..."

I wonder why those organisations listed in the consultation document are using the term Broads National Park. I checked out Google Maps. On the map itself, the area is simply called The Broads. However, the side bar, which was put on by the Broads Authority, calls it the Broads National Park. So there's a very obvious lie in their consultation document, and a just as obvious 'product placement'.

But if you choose to believe that all this effort, time and money is being spent just for the sake of a name, who am I to disenchant you.

But if you choose to believe that all this effort, time and money is being spent just for the sake of a name, who am I to disenchant you.

JohnK,  an entirely logical comment is that.  

A few months ago JP invited me to drop in for a chat which I duly did. I asked about the NP issue to which he replied that 'it has gone as far it will, for the moment'. That suggests to me that once the moment has passed then the issue has further to go. Perhaps it's all coming to a head? Personally I feel that he's overstepping the mark. 

[JohnK]

I stand corrected.
I thought I’d got a good grasp on it.
I thought that when legislation was rejected that’s when the stated aim changed.
Sorry, I’ll stay out of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MauriceMynah]

Please don't "stay out of it" John, instead, join in the thread as you have been doing. Your comments can indicate what many think. Your questions may well be the same as some of the shyer members have. As in all things, your thoughts and comments are valuable to the forum.

[JennyMorgan]

17 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Please don't "stay out of it" John, instead, join in the thread as you have been doing. Your comments can indicate what many think. Your questions may well be the same as some of the shyer members have. As in all things, your thoughts and comments are valuable to the forum.

Sincerely seconded by yours truly, especially the last sentence.

[marshman]

I agree with John, again!! Whilst it is good to see those continuing to keep watch just in case a fire breaks out, I still see no evidence that things will change, or indeed many really want them to. I too shall leave this to the likes of PW and Pally to continue to search for clues that is suddenly more urgent, at which time I shall take up cudgels with them. Until then I shall join the vast majority who are probably take my view anyway and see no reason to split the poor " hares " anyway.

Actually to be honest, I might find it very difficult - John I am sure will too but he will probably be out dydling!!

[Paladin]

I initially entered this discussion to correct the impression that marshman gave that Scottish National Parks were not legally national parks. I contributed further to counter what I regarded as other mistaken interpretations of John Packman's journey towards achieving national park status for the Broads. Fortunately, I have downloaded numerous documents from the BA website, for future reference. I say 'fortunately', because they have a habit of disappearing from the web site, and , while they are, or should, be available to view on application to the BA, you have to know they exist before you can request to see them.

Here is a good example, which will, I hope, clarify JohnK's misunderstanding of the progress of the national park ambition.

This is a quotation from the document published by the BA on their web site, but no longer available there, in relation to the consultation on the current Broads Plan, with emphasis added:

"In May 2010, members of the Authority supported the objective that by 2030 the Broads would be a National Park where the public legal rights of navigation continued to be respected and embraced. In January 2015 the Authority resolved not to pursue this ambition, deciding instead to adopt the use of the brand ‘Broads National Park’ to promote more clearly the area’s national park credentials and special qualities to national and international audiences.
To make it clear, the use of the term Broads National Park is for marketing purposes only. It is not, nor has it ever been, the Authority’s intention to seek either a change to its statutory purposes or the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads.”

Currently, the 1988 Act imposes a duty on the Authority of "protecting the interests of navigation". That is totally different from "respecting and embracing the public legal rights of navigation". The duty was imposed by the 1988 Act, the public right of navigation of tidal waters (including rivers) was bestowed Common Law, and cannot be changed by the Authority. The right of navigation on some of the non-tidal areas areas of the Broads is enshrined in the 1988 Act.

So what Dr Packman was really saying is the Authority would comply with Common Law, which the Authority cannot change, but would remove the statutory duty of protecting the interests of navigation (which would include keeping the navigation clear by dredging, tree clearance etc). What is that if not seeking to change its statutory purposes, which Dr Packman says has never been the Authority's intention. He is very good at manipulating words, as I have found from personal experience.

JohnK, I hope that sheds some light for you, and others who may have been under the misapprehension that the national park ambition had died many years ago. I happen to believe that that flame burns just as brightly now as it did then. Continue to contribute and ask questions. There has been a great deal said on this and other forums about the BA, JP and national park ambitions. Search around, if you are really interested.

I'll let this thread get back to worrying about whether the Countryfile Magazine competition is credible or not

 

 

[JohnK]

Sincerely seconded by yours truly, especially the last sentence.

Thanks both. Ok, I’ll keep talking


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you for that, Paladin.

As for the Countryfile Magazine, well, creditable or not it does appear that it is being used by Dr Packman to further the 2010 objective, of that I have no doubt.

[JennyMorgan]

3 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Thanks both. Ok, I’ll keep talking


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Good news!!

[JohnK]

Paladin,

I’m afraid I don’t fully see which are your words and which are BA’s words.
But I’m not seeing the bit where you say DrP is proposing to remove the protection of the interests of navigation.
To be honest, what you’ve put in italics makes me feel more secure if anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[vanessan]

47 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Paladin,

I’m afraid I don’t fully see which are your words and which are BA’s words.
But I’m not seeing the bit where you say DrP is proposing to remove the protection of the interests of navigation.
To be honest, what you’ve put in italics makes me feel more secure if anything.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think that last sentence of yours is probably exactly what was intended JohnK. Paladin quoted from a document that is no longer available on the BA website . Luckily he keeps tabs on such documents, if people like Paladin didn’t do that, we would be none the wiser. There are some who are extremely adept at using words which convey something but can also be interpreted quite differently. You have to keep a truly open mind when reading JP’s words.