A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[JennyMorgan]

25 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

John, the problem is, & Paladin has highlighted it for us, is that Dr P tends say one thing on one occasion and something else on another. DEFRA has made it perfectly clear, in Parliament, that for the Broads to be a national park it would have to accept the national park's legislation which includes Sandford or that the NP legislation would have to change to include the Broads without Sandford & I don't see that happening anytime soon. Dr P is a very persuasive and manipulative speaker. Those who have been involved with or watched his modus operandi over the years have learned not to trust him. Thankfully there are folk, like Paladin, who have longer memories than appears to be the case with Dr P.

[marshman]

You see, on looking at my earlier post about about the Scottish National Parks, I see the "hares" are out again!!! I never meant to infer that the Scottish National Parks were not properly constituted merely that they were slightly different from the ones south of the border. Which I still believe they are, slightly! 

Just as mine are sometimes, words and conversations of JP are analysed ad nauseum to find a lever to reintroduce an ongoing discussion, and I suspect over punctuation if appropriate, but in reality, I like John, think there enough has been said to make me happyish for the time being - not sure what COULD be said to satisfy the doubters so I guess they will still persist, as they have done as long as I can remember.

So I, again like John, I shall probably leave you to this endless task of splitting the "hares", whilst I leave them be!!! Probably!!

[JohnK]

Ok, very much playing devils advocate...

If we’re going to assume whatever he says is irrelevant because we’re just going to assume he means what we believe he means what’s the point in quoting him?

That’s almost:
Q: what colour do you think this is?
A: red
Q: I know you really think it’s blue. See, I told everyone he thought it was blue.

As someone very new to the debate it’s really interesting.
There are some of you that have been involved for a long time and are very knowledgeable that seem to assume everything said and done is part of a plot.
There are some of you that have been involved for a long time and are very knowledgeable that seem to assume the BA has moved on.
I’ve gained a lot of respect very quickly for people on both sides of that.
But it’s damned hard to pick a side.
I’d say there’s more recent evidence the BA has moved on but I also completely accept that if that’s not true they would want people to think that.

Could we start with something easier like peace in the Middle East and come back to this one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

 

On 02/02/2018 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?

 

marshman, I can't see any other meaning to your post, other that the Scottish national parks aren't actually national parks.

4 hours 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

JohnK, you seem to be at the stage I was at several years ago, when I first became involved in these forums. I was even known as a BA apologist, as I really couldn’t believe the things that were being said against the BA and John Packman. Many hours of reading BA reports, minutes etc, and having personal dealings with the BA, have changed my views entirely. I still don’t believe all the bad things, but my level of trust in the BA is virtually nil.

I usually put direct quotes inside quotation marks and in italics, as I did in my previous post.

Re the point I was making about the removal of protection, I’ll try to make it clearer.

One of the current statutory duties of the BA is to protect the interests of navigation (Broads Act 1988) 

This requires positive action by the BA, to keep the navigation in a fit state for navigation e.g. dredging and tree clearance. This is in addition to the extant and historic Common Law right of navigation of tidal rivers.

The first part of the BA statement, shown below, ignores the statutory duty of protecting the interests of the navigation, and only acknowledges the public right of navigation.

"… by 2030 the Broads would be a National Park where the public legal rights of navigation continued to be respected and embraced…

There is no mention of any maintenance or protection of the navigation, which, on the Broads, is essential.

If the stated objective of achieving national park status was achieved, only that public Common Law right would be retained. While that might appear to be reassuring, that public right can be extinguished if the natural deterioration (silting up or becoming overgrown) is such that navigation is no longer possible.

By getting rid of the duty to protect the interests of navigation, the statutory purposes of the BA would be altered, which is exactly what Dr Packman said has never been the intention.

“It is not, nor has it ever been, the Authority’s intention to seek either a change to its statutory purposes…”

 

 

 

[JohnK]

I see what you’re saying Paladin. Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense now.
I guess it’s just what you read into that omission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughan]

8 minutes ago, Paladin said:

that public right can be extinguished if the natural deterioration (silting up or becoming overgrown) is such that navigation is no longer possible.

 

Does this also affect the common law right of access to a public staithe, whether or not that staithe is considered to be in tidal water?

I am thinking of course, of those staithes above Potter bridge, whose existence seems now to be seriously at risk, through pressure from bodies in addition to the BA?

[JohnK]

I read it again and you could read it in several ways I think.
1. We wanted to drop back to statutory navigation rights and still do.
2. We wanted to drop back to statutory navigation rights but now don’t.
3. We didn’t ever want to drop back to statutory navigation rights, we just didn’t say we would continue dredging etc, but we will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

18 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Does this also affect the common law right of access to a public staithe, whether or not that staithe is considered to be in tidal water?

I am thinking of course, of those staithes above Potter bridge, whose existence seems now to be seriously at risk, through pressure from bodies in addition to the BA?

This is an entirely different matter and taking the topic well off line, but my understanding is that 'public' staithes aren't actually public in the wider sense, and there is  no Common Law right of access. They were usually allocated to parishes by the Enclosure Acts of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. For example, Wood End Staithe, off Barton Broad, was allocated to the parishioners of Catfield, for their use. It is still in use today by a parishioner, to load sedge and reed from Catfield Fen. Some parish staithes were taken into private hands, by somewhat dubious means I'm told, in the 19th century, when the ordinary citizen had a very poor understanding of their rights. The Ludham staithe, off Womack Water, is one such, I believe.

[Paladin]

10 minutes ago, JohnK said:

I read it again and you could read it in several ways I think.
1. We wanted to drop back to statutory navigation rights and still do.
2. We wanted to drop back to statutory navigation rights but now don’t.
3. We didn’t ever want to drop back to statutory navigation rights, we just didn’t say we would continue dredging etc, but we will.

JohnK, I think you're getting the idea. Trying to pin Dr Packman down is rather like trying to pick up a globule of mercury with a pair of chopsticks.

[marshman]

John - go back to your dydling - you were making clear progress with that!!!!

[JohnK]

John - go back to your dydling - you were making clear progress with that!!!!

Haha, I’m back “home” pretending to work for a living.
I prefer dydling!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

The Messiah has spoken!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/broads-named-finalist-in-bbc-countryfile-national-park-of-the-year-awards-1-5386508

[JohnK]

The Messiah has spoken!
http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/broads-named-finalist-in-bbc-countryfile-national-park-of-the-year-awards-1-5386508

Go on then, I’ll take the bait, what’s the problem with that one (apart from the Broads National Park bits)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hockham Admiral]

I agree with John. 

Surely visitors from anywhere are a bonus for local business?

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Hockham Admiral said:

I agree with John. 

Surely visitors from anywhere are a bonus for local business?

I don't doubt that for one minute, not for one second, but there is just one  harsh reality of which we are both well aware of! 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, JohnK said:

 

Go on then, I’ll take the bait, what’s the problem with that one (apart from the Broads National Park bits)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No problem at all but if I were to travel half way around the world just to find that I had been mislead then I might be a bit miffed! However, I would enjoy all that the Broads has to offer, even all those saily things getting in the way!

[JohnK]

No problem at all but if I were to travel half way around the world just to find that I had been mislead then I might be a bit miffed! However, I would enjoy all that the Broads has to offer, even all those saily things getting in the way!

I’m sure you’re sucking me into this but ....
So I’ve travelled halfway around the world to visit some national parks (let’s assume more than one) and one of them is only called a National Park rather than actually being a National Park. I’d only care if there were real differences wouldn’t I? Are there? People live and work and farm in the others, there are boats in some of the others so how would I tell the Broads isn’t a real NP by visiting it?
Unless I go on the internet and find people bleating on about it not being a National Park (joke!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vanessan]

It probably won’t matter one jot to most visitors whether the Broads is a NP or not. The point is that those of us who have our own boats or hire very regularly know the dangers of turning a blind eye to the term the Broads National Park being continuously used. Over in t’other place Paladin (I hope he won’t mind me mentioning this) has posted a number of legal documents quoting the BNP. Not marketing stuff, legal stuff. Softly, softly catchee monkey I believe the saying goes...........

[finny]

Goodness me the good Doctor hopes to attract folk from Germany to Australia to the beloved National Park ( his words ) well that's all well and good - you are absolutely right ..the local economy will boom its a win win situation.............

well perhaps not if you are coming to this lovely place steeped with a historical waterway culture by Boat and need a bridge to lift or lock to open - maybe easier to carry on down the coast ''tis just as nice 

may not be a good idea to shout out that load ............unless ????

 

The Finny

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, vanessan said:

It probably won’t matter one jot to most visitors whether the Broads is a NP or not. The point is that those of us who have our own boats or hire very regularly know the dangers of turning a blind eye to the term the Broads National Park being continuously used. Over in t’other place Paladin (I hope he won’t mind me mentioning this) has posted a number of legal documents quoting the BNP. Not marketing stuff, legal stuff. Softly, softly catchee monkey I believe the saying goes...........

Exactly legal document's are in no way marketing , the problem is who's going to pull BA back in line with what they can and can't do regarding the national parks name .

Worse still I can't believe that they thought no one would spot it , good job some member's of both here and elsewhere are on the ball .

[JennyMorgan]

This latest press release starts off by mentioning an initiative that was announced several months ago, that of targeting visitors from overseas. No harm in resurrecting it as such but it then turns out to be another push to promote the Countryfile Awards and by association the BA's incessant campaign to become a national park. If my memory serves me right then it was back in 2010 when Doctor Packman announced that by 2020 the Broads would be a fully fledged National Park. It is now 2018 and retirement must by now be beckoning for the good Doctor. The fat lady has not yet sung.

[JennyMorgan]

Like others I contacted the editor of the Countryfile magazine and after submitting copies of legal documents and DEFRA letters he finally invited me to write to the magazine's letters page. Not as much as I'd hoped for but nevertheless a concession that I have followed up. Limited to 200/250 words I have attempted to outline the legal position and the reasons for my objections. Sticking to the facts I have made my case, I just hope that the editor is as good as his word. I suspect that the Doctor will have a right of reply but it will then be up to the readership to judge for themselves, facts are facts. 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Just a thought or three from me.

If calling the broads a "National Park" (for marketing purposes you understand) succeeds on its aim to increase tourism, that will mean more people visiting the area. This might irritate the RSPB who want fewer people and more "Rosy breasted nut scratchers". but it would be good for us.

If there are more visitors to the broads, and if we agree that the best way of seeing the broads is by boat,  then the extra visitors would mean a requirement more hire craft, both holiday and dayboats. This also would be a good for us.

If the extra boats materialised this would require more investment on the infrastructure of the broads (Rubbish facilities, 24hr moorings etc) Yet again this would be good for us.

To be honest, my guess would be that if a visitor from Woggawogga bongospot in the outback were to visit the area and discover that the broads was not a National Park, but a member of the National Parks family, he wouldn't give a wombat's doo doos, and just open up another tinny and light the barbeque.

Right! Where does that leave us? What should we be aiming for?

We want to achieve the cherry picking objectives that National Park (marketing only) status could give us. Loads of cash to help pay for the non boating issues, freeing the toll revenue to be spent on navigational issues.

HOWEVER

We still have to be careful not to overstep the mark and let true National Park status sneak in. We owe Peter (Jenny Morgan) much for his continued vigilance, long may it continue, but even having said that, we also could benefit from letting the Dr go as far with his ambition as he can,,,  without letting him actually succeed..   

[TheQ]

Unfortunately if you see a lot of what BA are pushing, it's canoes , and their RA Electric boat round Whitlingham gravel pit. All "Eco" type tourism Not us nasty boats leaving a trail of diesel ...

[JennyMorgan]

John, by his own admission Dr P has probably gone as far as he can with his ambition, but I doubt that that will stop him. My gut feeling is that has earmarked 2020 for retirement and in the meantime is unlikely to relent in his efforts..