A Plea From Dr Packman Of The Broads Authority

[JennyMorgan]

To save people from searching FaceBook I have lifted the following. It is a copy of a letter sent to the the editor of Countryfile magazine. People know my views so I am not going to repeat myself but I post this as being someone else's take on the same problem, that of setting the record straight.

Dear Mr Collins,

I write with reference to the inclusion of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads in the Countryfile Magazine’s competition for national parks. I know the fact that the Broads are NOT a national park has been drawn to your attention and that you have consulted National Parks UK, who have told you that the Broads ARE a national park. 

While it is true to say that certain sections of a limited number of enactments have been applied to the Broads as if they were a national park (such as planning laws), no legislation has ever designated the Broads as a national park. Scottish national parks have been designated as such under Scottish legislation, as the Scottish government has devolved powers, so any comparison with those parks is meaningless.

I have attached some documents, which, if you take the time to read them, will prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Broads have NEVER been designated as a national park.

I realise that admitting that fact will be uncomfortable for you and your magazine, but the truth must be told.

As you know, or should know by now, national parks are designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are empowered and controlled by the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads 1988 Act.

The Broads could not, and cannot, be designated as a national park, as the duties of the Broads Authority are different from those of a national park authority. You will note that is it the Broads Authority, not the Broads National Park Authority. They cannot be a National Park Authority, because the Broads are not a national park.

The first document I would like you to look at is Branding-the-Broads-ba230115.pdf This is the report to the Broads Authority by the Chief Executive and Solicitor of the Broads Authority in 2015 regarding the rebranding (i.e. renaming) of the Broads as the Broads National Park.

Please note paragraph B, which says … “The Authority…Resolves … not to pursue the ambition in the Broads Plan for the Broads to become a national park in law.”

Then, at paragraph 5.5 it says… “The relationship with our Minister and Defra is crucial to the Authority and it is apparent from Lord de Mauley’s letter (See Appendix F) to the Chairman of the Authority that Ministers are clear that, regardless of brand, the Broads is not legally a National Park…”

If you then go to the very foot of the report, you will see a copy of a letter from the then-Under Secretary of State for Defra to the then-chairman of the Broads Authority, in which he writes … 

“In terms of government policy, the Broads is treated as a member of the national parks family although its statutory basis is quite separate and it is not legally a national park. We do not propose to change this position…”

I rather think that the advice of a government minister carries greater weight than that of an organisation with a vested interest in increasing its membership.

Next, please read the document Branding the Broads Minutes BA-Minutes-230115_confirmed.pdf This is a copy of the minutes of the Broads Authority meeting in 2015, at which it was resolved to re-brand the Broads as the Broads National Park.

Scroll down to paragraph 4/9, where again you will see the statement “…that if the Authority agreed to accepting the use of the brand Broads National Park, that it would no longer pursue the ambition stated within the Broads Plan for the Broads Authority to become a national park in law” 

And …

“…dropping the aspiration to become a national park in law was an important concomitant to the branding principle.” 

Also …

”In reaching their decision Members had to be satisfied that the Broads National Park Brand would be adopted for marketing related purposes and that the ambition to become a National Park in law … would no longer be pursued.”

And …

”in accepting the above, the Authority also … resolved … not to pursue the ambition in the Broads Plan 2011 for the Broads to become a national park in law…”

It is abundantly clear that the Broads Authority themselves do not consider the Broads to be legally a national park.

The third document I have attached is the transcript of the handed-down judgement of the High Court in the case of Harris, Harris and the Broads Authority, which revolved around the rebranding. I draw your attention to paragraph 90, in which the inclusion of the Broads as a national park on the web site of National Parks UK was acknowledged by the court as an error.

“The Claimants also rely upon extracts from the National Parks UK site as showing that the Broads has wrongly been presented as a statutory National Park and subject to the Sandford Principle. To some extent this has happened because of the way in which links have been created within the website. But the website has been produced by a separate organisation and they have been requested by the Authority to make changes. There should be no difficulty in these changes being made. In any event whether or not the Authority has power to use the Broads National Park as a marketing brand cannot depend upon errors of this kind on the website of a third party.”

I could also direct you to Hansard, which shows that a succession of ministers have confirmed that the Broads is not, and will not be, a national park, but I think I have made my case well enough already.

If you are still in doubt, ask the Broads CEO, John Packman, whether the Broads are LEGALLY a national park. I’d be very interested in his reply.

You may regard the inclusion of the Broads in your competition as justified, as it just might come under the heading of ‘marketing’. However, if the competition was for classic Jaguar motor cars, would my immaculate Concours d'Elegance-winning 1953 Ford Popular be accepted, just because I had replaced the Ford badge on the radiator with a silver leaping Jaguar mascot? After all, it’s got four wheels and an engine.

I await your response,

[batrabill]

Quote

Do we take the word "literally" literally? If we do, that would include the Dr, and that we do not believe. 

Literally was literally, and specifically, correct. That is "no one".

There are many references here to what Dr Packman has said in the past (usually followed by the assertion that you can't believe him, which is, at best logically confusing) but what we do know is that the BA has publicly and officially stated that it is no longer seeking full NP status.

But of course, you can't believe what they say, so back down that rabbit hole for another trip to Wonderland!

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, the Broads is not a national park, please, get over it!

[batrabill]

Right back at ya!

[JohnK]

We all accept the Broads isn’t a legally defined National Park don’t we?

We all accept the Broads can call itself a National Park in some circumstances don’t we?

Does anyone not agree with those statements?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vaughan]

I think it is a great shame (and I use the word literally) that even when we have a clear and forthright statement such as this from the BA, we still can't somehow bring ourselves to believe it, or trust it.

That is not our fault - it is the reputation that the BA have given themselves, in recent years.

[JohnK]

I think it is a great shame (and I use the word literally) that even when we have a clear and forthright statement such as this from the BA, we still can't somehow bring ourselves to believe it, or trust it.
That is not our fault - it is the reputation that the BA have given themselves, in recent years.

Couldn’t agree more.
I might debate the last part a little though
Short of DrP leaving could they now do anything to restore your faith? Would even that do it?
I think what’s equally a shame is that whilst almost everyone here wants the same thing we argue over the issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grendel]

11 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I think it is a great shame (and I use the word literally) that even when we have a clear and forthright statement such as this from the BA, we still can't somehow bring ourselves to believe it, or trust it.

That is not our fault - it is the reputation that the BA have given themselves, in recent years.

while clear and forthright, there are omissions, by omitting the 'for branding purposes only' - the whole document is read differently and a different view is put forth, for me at least this is the issue, and where the trust is lost..

[JennyMorgan]

38 minutes ago, grendel said:

while clear and forthright, there are omissions, by omitting the 'for branding purposes only' - the whole document is read differently and a different view is put forth, for me at least this is the issue, and where the trust is lost..

T'other Peter is bang on the money here. This continuing failing to be open and truthful rather than bending and distorting is the absolute crux of the matter. 

Could we ever trust John Packman to make an open and truthful admission rather than promoting only a fraction of the truth? Well, do leopards change their spots?

I do fear that his indoctrination will live on after his retirement. In my view whoever takes over, and who becomes the leader of the Authority, the Chairperson rather than the Chief Executive, are both going to have to choose very wisely as to what they distance themselves from and what they carry forward.  No easy task.

[JohnK]

while clear and forthright, there are omissions, by omitting the 'for branding purposes only' - the whole document is read differently and a different view is put forth, for me at least this is the issue, and where the trust is lost..

As someone in a fairly neutral position (I hope) I don’t see it that way. Unless the high court said that every time the BA use the phrase National Park they must add the disclaimer. Did it?

What do you see as the omission? They couldn’t be clearer that they’re not a full National Park, have no intention to become a full National Park but can use the brand could it? Whether or not that’s true is a different debate isn’t it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JennyMorgan]

John, the problem is simple, and backed by history. Give an inch to the Doctor and he tends to take a mile. DEFRA quite reasonably allowed him to coin the phrase, a member of the National Parks Family. Not content with that the Doctor pushed still further. A rather illogical court judgement allowed him to use the BNP title for marketing purposes and he immediately pushes that. The pattern is clear and further good reason for not trusting the man.

[JohnK]

John, the problem is simple, and backed by history. Give an inch to the Doctor and he tends to take a mile. DEFRA quite reasonably allowed him to coin the phrase, a member of the National Parks Family. Not content with that the Doctor pushed still further. A rather illogical court judgement allowed him to use the BNP title for marketing purposes and he immediately pushes that. The pattern is clear and further good reason for not trusting the man.

Thanks JM. The mist is clearing for me a little.
I can see the logic for the positions on both sides of the fence.
But we are in this together


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[batrabill]

You'll miss him when he's gone - have to appoint a new Great Satan.

 

[JennyMorgan]

13 minutes ago, batrabill said:

You'll miss him when he's gone - have to appoint a new Great Satan.

 

And maybe you'll need to appoint a new saint!

In any case I would wish to see the Authority moving forward as it did under Dr Packman's predecessor, Prof Aitken Clark.

[ranworthbreeze]

 

I saw this, no doubt only used for marketing but at whose cost?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/new-artwork-at-norwich-airport-welcomes-visitors-to-the-broads-1-5395321

Regards

Alan

[batrabill]

I notice this comment has appeared under the article.

Great marketing initiative, also a great opportunity for promoting an unwelcome agenda by the Authority in one unelected man's quest to gain the Sandord Principle in order to restrict access by boaters, anglers and walkers across Broadland.

Is that statement true?

[scaniaman]

He's more than likely sat in his office delighted at winding up every poor sole on this forum, as far as he can

paul

[VetChugger]

There is at least one person on here that believes it Bill!

[JennyMorgan]

45 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I notice this comment has appeared under the article.

Great marketing initiative, also a great opportunity for promoting an unwelcome agenda by the Authority in one unelected man's quest to gain the Sandord Principle in order to restrict access by boaters, anglers and walkers across Broadland.

Is that statement true?

Bill, yes, I'm convinced both by events and conversations with Satan himself that it is.

[batrabill]

I will regret this, but WHY does Dr Packman want to 

36 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

restrict access by boaters, anglers and walkers across Broadland.

???

 

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I will regret this, but WHY does Dr Packman want to 

40 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

restrict access by boaters, anglers and walkers across Broadland.

My guess would be that boating costs too much money in maintenance, but all the bird watching, cycling, rambling, dog walking and canoe-ing does not. Those activities though, conveniently fill 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 all the others bring in nothing.

[Guest]

This thread somewhat reminds of the concept of marriage:

Many people are married and have a certificate to prove it, however many also:

Behave as though they are married, enjoy the benefits of being married, have been told they should be married, tell everyone that they are married, explain the reasons why they should be married, in some cases would like to be married but are not actually married.

Anyway the BA seems to be very pleased to show everyone their wedding ring 

[JennyMorgan]

9 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I will regret this, but WHY does Dr Packman want to 

???

 

Bill, you will be glad, indeed probably over the moon when I say that I am not going to regurgitate all the tired old arguments. However I will remind you about Hansard, the official record of Parliamentary affairs.  In it you will find a verbatim record of minor matters such as the Broads National Park Bill and the Broads Bill. It really wasn't about safety, not really, more that it was about control and absolute authority. I heartily recommend that you read them. 

Vaughan, access, but nevertheless controlled. Whilst our public footpaths are protected our waterways, if the Doctor had had his way with the Broads Bill, would not have been. Both Houses agreed with the petitioners over this issue and the Bill was, thankfully, suitably amended.

 

[johnb]

I hope this doesn't go against t&cs. There is a long statement from DrP in another place. He asks for unity in supporting the Broads in the survey. He also states that he has never, and never  will support The Sandford Principle for this area. 

[Cockatoo]

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?