The Broads Is Not A National Park!

[Gracie]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

 

Congratulations Alladin, said the Genie, you will be rich for ever. 

And hence fourth the National Park made Alladin very rich.

Alladin bought a big, posh boat and lived happily ever after on Lake Windermere  x

[floydraser]

23 hours ago, Rogerbarnes said:

I'm baffled. Why don't people want the Broads to be a National Park. Don't they want it to be protected? 

Thankfully, the hornet's nest you just poked is not as big as it used to be when this thread started.

There seems to be varying opinions depending on a variety of things. Sandford seems to have written the 11th commandment; nobody has ever suggested his principle may be out of date, or could ever be out of date, it's just there and has to be applied. Why it can't be re-assessed in the light of modern attitudes and climate change etc is beyond me. There was also talk of someone doing something like that I think, was it Danford?

Anyway BRAG have subdued a lot of the discussion by coming along and applying some common sense. Within their posts was what I thought to be a very good question indeed, something like: Is it that you don't want a National Park or is that you don't trust those who would be in charge of the administration of it?

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

He thought long and hard, and then said, Genie, I wish you give me £1 every time someone posts on the internet “But it’s not a National Park”

I wonder if you realise how much that reminds me of the committees, societies, charities and even boards of directors that I have been part of in the "old days" where we would attend for a serious discussion of Broads future but someone, towards the end, would always stand up, having contributed nothing to the debate, and say "Mr Chairman, I have sat here and heard nothing but rubbish, from start to finish"!  They would then sit down again, without saying anything further.

One of the worst proponents of this tactic was Philip Wayre, of the Otter Trust, who had the arrogance to assume that as everyone knew who he was, he was therefore right.

If you feel that my carefully considered post of this morning is rubbish, that is fine.  This is a forum.

But genuine criticism is only valid if you can offer a reasoned alternative.  So what is yours?

 

 

[batrabill]

54 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I wonder if you realise how much that reminds me of the committees, societies, charities and even boards of directors that I have been part of in the "old days" where we would attend for a serious discussion of Broads future but someone, towards the end, would always stand up, having contributed nothing to the debate, and say "Mr Chairman, I have sat here and heard nothing but rubbish, from start to finish"!  They would then sit down again, without saying anything further.

One of the worst proponents of this tactic was Philip Wayre, of the Otter Trust, who had the arrogance to assume that as everyone knew who he was, he was therefore right.

If you feel that my carefully considered post of this morning is rubbish, that is fine.  This is a forum.

But genuine criticism is only valid if you can offer a reasoned alternative.  So what is yours?

 

 

Before you both patronise and insult me, perhaps you would care to read this thread from 2018. I don’t know how to link to a past post  You can use the search function  

The Sandford Myth

By batrabill
May 11, 2018 in Broads Chat

[Vaughan]

54 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Thankfully, the hornet's nest you just poked is not as big as it used to be when this thread started.

That's just your opinion!

55 minutes ago, floydraser said:

a very good question indeed, something like: Is it that you don't want a National Park or is that you don't trust those who would be in charge of the administration of it?

It is a very good question and it also applies to the decision, by those who lived, worked and were concerned with the Broads, back in the early 80s, to vote against a flood barrier across the Yarmouth Haven.

We could see the point, in principle, of having a surge tide barrier but in no way, could we trust all the various agencies and authorities, not to bugger about with it!

[Hylander]

3 hours ago, Bikertov said:

 

But at least you remember some of what you said on your wedding day ?

"I do" the longest sentence in the world.        Sorry to lower the tone.

[batrabill]

For Vaughan, admit I am triggered by his insulting and patronising post 

 

To everyone else, I apologise  

 

 

Posted May 11, 2018

As someone who has lived in the Broads for only 4 years I have a different perspective on the ‘political’ landscape of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads than those who have lived here longer. They have a much longer perspective, but sometimes an outsider can see things differently.

What I have seen is a very, very vocal minority, who oppose everything the BA do or say, almost without exception, and have a perspective on the Broads which I see as quite false. The boating forums are broadly “anti-BA” (although of course they will say they are just offering constructive criticism - hmm)

One of the places this is most focussed is the Facebook Group “Protect The Broads We are Not a National Park” (637 members)

Here are some, fairly typical comments from a thread of 24th April 2018 - this is the OP on the BA peer review:

OP 

It seems it is now acknowledged that the Broads Authority has a problem or two. its internal workings are reported by their Peer Group review as hardly fit for purpose, whilst it is now acknowledged the Authority has lost touch and confidence with its stakeholders. As a single and probably minor stakeholder, my view is that they are not going to regain my confidence or indeed get back 'in touch', until they drop this ridiculous National Park pretence. That is my price. Might this meet with general approval and do you think there is any mileage in it?
REPLY 

No, it would take more than just the removal of the BNP tag to regain my confidence. I need to be content that any administration understands the unique community of broadspeople, its ways, its history and its way of doing things. I do not need to see a self promoting, over safety conscious body that calls itself an "authority" that seems to think it can lord it over the very people it is supposed to serve. I could go on but rant over, temporarily.

REPLY

Too late for me, there will be no return conditional or otherwise. Packman has single handedly destroyed the Broads culture and is well on track to destroy what's left of it's "sustainable" industry. There is greener grass elsewhere.

From extensive reading here are my analysis of the core beliefs of this group.

 

1. Being a full National Park would be very bad for the Broads.

2. Sandford is a mechanism which will be used in a full NP to restrict or reduce boating, and boaters’ rights.

3. That the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads don’t really have any 'real' connection to the National Parks Authority, they were merely ‘associated’ as a political convenience in the past.

4. John Packman (individually and specifically) wants to reduce or restrict boaters’ rights and reduce further the navigable length of river available to boaters.

5. That John Packman is using a “thin end of the wedge” technique to make the Broads a Full NP by the back door.

6. That the BA is mismanaging the Broads and that the situation generally in the Broads is poor and in need of radical change to bring it back to a time when it was better.

 

I find this narrative false on nearly all counts. Why then has a false narrative arisen, and why is it repeated so often? 

HISTORY

I think it has two main sources, firstly a deep-seated personal animosity to John Packman, and secondly but more importantly the echo of the battle over the Broads Bill 2009.

The first I find deeply unpleasant and unnecessary. It does nothing to advance the debate, but perhaps it’s much easier for people to hate individuals than an ‘Authority’.

 

A comment from a frequent contributor on the EDP website: Apart from the so called advantages to the tourist trade what actual advantages does the pseudo title of Broads National Park, BNP, actually bring to the Broads? Perhaps Dr Packman could enlighten us and explain honestly his reasons for pursuing the mythical BNP title. Might it be the eventual control that the Sandford Principle would bring, or a gong to accompany his impending retirement?

 

It is my belief that the fight over the Broads Bill is still being fought by the anti-Packman group.

That is, they are fighting a 10 year-old battle and that, as U2 say, they are ‘stuck in a moment and can't get out of it.’

 

Many of the names who crop up in the anti-Packman postings are the same ones who were involved in the 2009 Bill, and if you read the text of their writings then (see Broadly Speaking, the now silent forum that was the site of much of the anti-bill debate) you will see that the rhetoric is identical.

However, that was then. If the dire warnings of 10 years ago were correct then surely the Broads must have been ruined over the intervening time?

That is a subject for debate….

 

1. Being a full National Park would be very bad for the Broads.

People like National Parks. We think they’re good things. I haven’t been able to find any polls of public opinion on NPs generally, which I think is in large part to the fact that no one bothers to ask a question to which there is an obvious answer - do you think NPs are a good thing?

 

But crucially, would being a full NP bad for the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads?

Firstly, it is totally inconceivable that the Broads could become a Full NP with identical legislation to the others. This would require legislation to pass Parliament in the face of opposition from countless people and organisations.

So if the Broads cant be an identical Full NP to the others, there must always be a difference. The difference is the third purpose:

1. Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads;

2. Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public; and

3. Protecting the interests of navigation.

NOTE: the first 2 are the same as the other NPS - someone intended there to be an obvious link perhaps?

To imagine that the third purpose could be swept away is taking What if?scenarios to absurd lengths.

The Broads Authority is a Navigation Authority, it will remain a Navigation Authority, if those powers and responsibilities were taken away there would be another Navigation Authority who would be responsible for navigation. Those responsibilities will always remain.

 

2. Sandford is a mechanism which will be used in a full NP to restrict or reduce boating, and boaters’ rights.

So if the Navigation responsibilities for the Broads can never be removed, then how is the Broads Authority going to use its impossible-to-achieve “Full NP” status to restrict navigation?

The answer is always Sandford.

Sandford is the Boogeyman. No one has ever seen him but we all quake in fear!

Of course, Sandford doesn’t exist - it was replaced by the 1995 Environment Act:

 

In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park

 

I cant count the number of times I’ve seen Sandford used on the Broads forums, and elsewhere. It’s nearly always used in a way that is, at best, misleading. But lets continue with the simplification that is difficult cases the principle is used to help decide what to do.

 

Firstly Sandford as an idea only comes into play when considering new developments. The recent zip-wire across Thirlmere in the lake district is a good example. The word Sandford was used by a number of people in making an argument against the zip-wire, but it was no part of the actual rejection. There are dozens of reasons why people would object to a development like that, and there are numerous ways for a planning authority to test it - noise, safety, beauty, traffic. To imagine they sat down and judged it on Sandford is just silly. It was the RAF saying it wasn’t safe that was the ultimate reason.

I have searched for cases where Sandford has been the direct cause of a restriction. I only have access to what is on the internet, but I can find no reference in the judgement on the 10mph speed limit on Windermere (the antis go-to example of how Sandford is used). If you read back through the history of the 10mph restriction it is quite complicated. There was a growth in high speed boat traffic in the 90s which made some argue for the restriction. The main reason was safety, not environment vs public enjoyment. The 10mph case is relevant, however, as a retro-active judgement - but one that was simply not based on Sandford. 

It took many years and a public enquiry to bring in the 10mph limit.

When the 10mph limit was brought in, Speed week was moved to Coniston (also in the National Park). Hardly the environment being used as an argument to stop boating!

Green laning is also mentioned as a Sandford example, but as far as I can see its controlled by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, not Sandford. It's not something many people who done;t do it are very keen on. As a Lake District walker I would be outraged if it was widely allowed - a bit like allowing jet boats on Horsey. (Worth remembering her that boat racing is a big part of the Oulton Broad life)

I will be thrilled to see any examples where Sandford has been used in anger. I suspect they do exist, but remember, there are 15 National parks, so there must be lots of conflicts.

In summary - Full NP = Sandford = restriction on boating, doesn’t have any evidence to support it as a logical argument. Once again, it might be possible, but doesn’t the evidence say its incredibly unlikely?

 

3. That the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads don’t really have any connection to the National Parks 

The Broads and the other NPs have 2 main purposes in common….

If you read the debates in 2008 and what Defra was saying, it was absolutely clear that the Broads were seen as an NP with an extra bit - navigation. The NP grant is an NP grant.

Anything else looks like clutching at straws.

 

4. John Packman (individually and specifically) wants to reduce or restrict boaters’ rights and reduce further the navigable length of river available to boaters.

Evidence? The best I’ve seen is a self-reported conversation with a very vocal anti…..

 

5. That John Packman is using a “thin end of the wedge” technique to make the Broads a Full NP by the back door.

This sounds plausible, but in my view is actually ridiculous. Legislation is required to change the status of the Broads. What is the mechanism for this change? Once again, What if? taken to absurd lengths.

 

6. That the BA is mismanaging the Broads and that the situation generally in the Broads is poor and in need of radical change to bring it back to a time when it was better.

This is the reason I argue so vociferously against the antis. In order to prove that John Packman and the BA are wicked and doing a terrible job it must be shown that the Broads are in a terrible state.

Because, if everything’s OK then what are they complaining about?

 

So what are the main charges against the BA?  Loss of moorings, toll increases, planning, dredging, and money spent unwisely and overheads. There may be others, please add them.

 

I struggle to see moorings as anything other than a really tricky problem that the BA genuinely struggle to get right. Most of the disagreements and issues are with the owner of the land where the moorings are. Like all organisations that buy from a number of providers the BA cant get in a rising cycle of costs, with each seller increasing their price. So they have to manage what they can pay and what benefit the landowner gets. I think there is a lot of evidence that the BA are trying hard to make things better. Read their own documents on their site.

 

Toll increases - on what planet does no one complain about ANY increase? Seem within the sort of bounds we all expect from these things although last years restructure made a few really mad.

 

Planning - tricky one. Everyone loves a planner who lets them do what they want - and everyone hates a planner who stops them, or lets their neighbour do what they don’t want… Not sure there is much evidence that they are any less popular than planning authorities all over the country.

 

Dredging - expensive and very complex in the modern world. Many many people involved. They’ve just started dredging near Horning sailing club - immediate response from a forum - that’s going to be a problem for the 3 rivers. Damned if you do…. (moved on since I wrote - so typical non-starter)

Money spent unwisely. It is my experience that all public bodies suffer from a fairly constant drip drip of criticism. None escape this "Why oh Why?" stuff. Are the BA uniquely bad???

 

Overheads - never understood why the NP grant should pay all the overheads. Overheads are mostly people. Why shouldn’t the toll account pay for half?

 

I see the Broads in great shape. I see the BA doing a fairly decent job. I don’t see a nightmare. I see one of the best areas in the country, perhaps the world 

I read that it’s awful, the BA have ruined it. That makes me both sad and a little angry.

 

I think some people should get out on the river more.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

For Vaughan, admit I am triggered by his insulting and patronising post 

Come on Batrabill, what are we getting in to here?  Let's just step back for a moment.

I cannot see anything in what I have posted today that should cause such a reaction from you personally.

 

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

  5 hours ago, batrabill said:

He thought long and hard, and then said, Genie, I wish you give me £1 every time someone posts on the internet “But it’s not a National Park”

I took this as a throw-away, joke remark.  What else was it supposed to mean?

When this question was raised again this morning I tried to post in a way that looked at this "NP" thing from a more broad based perspective.  That is to say : what is it, exactly, that we are all trying to preserve?  Do we all see it the same way?  Does its future mean the same thing to all of us?

I then explained my reasons for suggesting how I feel.

You have since quoted a long post from 6 years ago which, may I say, largely refers to what people said on Facebook.  I am not registered with Facebook : I have never posted a word on it and I certainly never intend to.  So your feelings on that, cannot refer to me.

All the same, there is a great deal I agree with in the long post that you have just made.

But this morning, I tried to give a fresh subject for discussion on what has, very naturally, been discussed at length by all of us who hold the Broads dear to our hearts.

So, rather than what you said 6 years ago, what are your views on what I said this morning?

 

[dom]

9 hours ago, batrabill said:

Have you seen Lake Windermere????

You mean the one teeming with phosphorus from raw human effluent? Not exactly a glowing example of how to manage a waterway. If National Park status is such a huge benefit for conservation, how come water quality in Windermere is the worst it has ever been, and biodiversity has been decimated, putting rare species at risk?

[batrabill]

Why are you Changing the subject? Is it possibly because the point I’m making is simply correct?
This is surely a debate about the right to boat. Have they banned boating in the Lake District National Park? Have they? Surely SANDFORD! 

[dom]

10 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Why are you Changing the subject?

Was that aimed at me?

If so, it's a forum. People dip in and out and take discussion in whatever way their thoughts happen to meander. That's how forums work. It's a recreational pastime, not a dictatorship.

Besides, it's not really changing the topic - just pointing out that the National Park system is far from perfect.

[Woodie]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Why are you Changing the subject? Is it possibly because the point I’m making is simply correct?
This is surely a debate about the right to boat. Have they banned boating in the Lake District National Park? Have they? Surely SANDFORD! 

Powered craft on Windermere is a fraction of its former numbers since the speed limit was introduced. The 10knot limit was passed in 2000 with 5 years for business etc to change before enforcement in 2005. One of the LDNPA suggestions was for boatyards to sell canoes and kayaks to replace boat sales!! They suggested Loch Lomand as an alternative body of water-in another NP. They had to apologise for that one.

Businesses closed!

Heres the rub though. In the mid 90s their first attempt at control was to propose banning powered craft from Windermere. Think about that. Removing powered craft.

Fortunately they were reminded that Windermere has a legal right of navigation and legally they could not prevent any craft on the Lake. 

I can’t blame anyone for wanting to keep a close eye on the powers that be……..
 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Why are you Changing the subject? Is it possibly because the point I’m making is simply correct?
This is surely a debate about the right to boat. Have they banned boating in the Lake District National Park? Have they? Surely SANDFORD! 

With due respect it is you changing the subject, the debate is about the status of the Broads not the right to boat.

The BA administrative area is comprised of the navigation and a relatively small area of adjacent land, this is why the Broads are governed by a separate Act of Parliament with its own points of reference against those applicable to all the National Parks.

The Authority has three main areas of responsibility the navigation being the major difference between it and a NP, maintaining the navigation in a fit for purpose state speaks for itself, the practical day to day conservation work is largely undertaken by NWT and SWT along with some land owners, the BAs main contribution should be to maintain the waterways and verges in a fit and healthy state this would also satisfy its other main responsibility in providing an attractive accessible amenity for the public at large.

Since the authority's  inception the biggest issue has been the downgrading of the navigation while introducing mission creep into other areas to satisfy the CEO agenda, this has included an inflated staffing level contributing in a large part to the current financial liabilites  that toll payers are now being expected to make up the short fall.

Back to the original question the Broads do not fit the general conception of a National Park and as they have their own remit encompassed in the Broads Act and receive their own DEFRA grant they do not need or require any rebranding as a NP.

Fred

[batrabill]

4 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Back to the original question the Broads do not fit the general conception of a National Park and as they have their own remit encompassed in the Broads Act and receive their own DEFRA grant they do not need or require any rebranding as a NP.

 

Another £1 to Alladin

[batrabill]

18 hours ago, Vaughan said:

You say "don't they want them to be protected?  This is a fair question and I hope you have found some answers by reading back over this thread, as I have just done this morning.

Apart from the legal arguments, I have always had a priority reason why I don't want a national park and I quote from the first page of this thread :

The Sandford Principle talks of the conservation of natural beauty. Dartmoor, for instance, is pretty well exactly the same today as it has been for hundreds of millions of years since the last ice age, so it can really be considered as natural.  All the maintenance it needs is the local farmers grazing sheep on the uplands or coppicing the woodlands and natural forest for firewood and timber.

I suggest that the "national park" function has more to do with controlling the public and providing all the car parks and signage, than actually maintaining the "park" itself.  The Broads stands out on the list above, as the only one that is not natural.  It is a lowland basin that was artificially drained and re-claimed from the peat bogs hundreds of years ago.  Since then, it has had to be maintained by Man, as he has seen fit. 

So the real question, for me, about preservation and conservation (as per Sandford) is this :

At what point in its evolution over the centuries, do you want to "stop the clock" and preserve it?  It is not natural beauty, so you can take your choice.  Clearly the RSPB as a major landowner, would like it to go back to the 1600s, as a wetland marsh.  Others would yearn for the 1800s, in the heyday of the trading wherries.  I would rather see the navigations as they were in the 50s, than just what little is left now.  The farming landowners of course, would prefer thousands of acres of oilseed rape.

I don't see much evidence that the BA can answer this question or have even seriously addressed it, so I don't think that a national park structure would be any help at all.

 

I don’t think your point that the Broads are different from other National Parks is correct. I don’t believe there are any “natural” habitats in Britain. Parts of the highlands probably come closest. But all landscapes are man-influenced. Dartmoor, like pretty much the rest of Britain was wooded at one time. We, humans, cut down the trees.
Since all landscapes are human-created, every area has to decide what is the form of ‘naturalness’ they currently support. 
You are absolutely correct that the BA has to mediate between different, and competing interests. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the 50s were the best time, but also many things have changed considerably since those days. 

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

I don’t think your point that the Broads are different from other National Parks is correct. I don’t believe there are any “natural” habitats in Britain. Parts of the highlands probably come closest. But all landscapes are man-influenced.

This is correct of course, but I was trying to define the very big difference between maintaining the landscape on the Broads, as opposed to all the other, older and more natural areas.

I know one or two of the national parks fairly well, as I have tromped all over them in big boots when I was in the Army.  The Army actually own a fairly large area of the NPs and look after them pretty well.  Apart from all the shell holes, of course!

Perhaps the Corps of Royal Engineers should become involved in maintaining parts of Broadland?  I am sure they would soon make pretty short work of Potter Heigham bridge!

[Hylander]

Yes,   the Army would certainly make short work of the bridge.      Left alone to these two numpties it would be open navigation for all within minutes.

 

https://youtu.be/7_PX1cVuaVA

 

[rightsaidfred]

5 hours ago, batrabill said:

Another £1 to Alladin

My congratulations on a constructive well thought out counter argument.

Interesting that you should choose a common thief with his fairy tale wishes.

Fred

[Vaughan]

19 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Interesting that you should choose a common thief with his fairy tale wishes.

Am I reading something in between the lines, there?     

[batrabill]

Jokes are always better when they’re scrutinised. 

[rightsaidfred]

28 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Am I reading something in between the lines, there?     

Between the lines? an interesting tv programme, there's a thought.

Fred

[BroadAmbition]

Left alone to these two numpties it would be open navigation for all within minutes.

I can do that!  I got sent / ordered on a demolitions course.  Therefore I am qualified in blowing thing up (Down?) Semtex, cordite P.E etc etc  I'm pretty confident with the right stores order I could remodel PHB in short order 

Griff

[MY littleboat]

I have been following this thread for a considerable time and there are some glaring omissions from all parts IMHO. These are broadly

1. The statutory responsibility as a Navigation and Harbour Authority - Which, although has been argued by some as being fit for purpose, is being challenged by ever rising tolls, in excess of all other similar authorities, yet with ever declining benefits. In addition,  grants are being attached to green initiatives, which will, ultimately, shift more cost responsibility toward any vessel that is motorised surely? This is also closely linked with NP status, and, whilst I can see the desire to achieve such inclusion for the financial incentivisation, there is already unclear water as to where funding for some projects is raised, and refusal to separate or ring fence navigation funds is a clear indicator that they are plundered - if not directly to finance projects, there is an element of funding BA staff whose responsibility it is to manage projects of the kind.

2. Closed accounting - BA have recently placed costs on certain items and attributed them to various activities and used these as examples of why they should be funded by the toll payer - however, there has been absolutely no published data to support this, but one of the published reasons has been 'responsibility as a National Park.' It may not be Sandford, but without evidence and proof, the claim becomes highly dubious.

3. Accountability and planning - BA has a footprint far larger than the wetland areas and whilst local authorities have accountability with all councilors and officials needing to stand for election, given the size and scope of the organisation, few genuinely electable posts remain, and where those elected to standing committees raise objection to the chair (Who is not a chair as the chair by definition should always just hold a casting vote - a more appropriate term would be CEO) then those 'disruptors' are pushed aside far quicker than would be liked. There is no answer to why someone, who prolifically builds 'strange' properties gets permission for another 'James Bond Villain' style house whilst someone who just wishes to change a front door, or, god forbid replace a landing stage with a floating landing stage, gets refused and faces a long hard battle to obtain such a permission (Both cases in the public domain). 

4. Sandford - The Bogey Man - It is mentioned Trail Riding, and objections as a keen walker - I have trail ridden on m old KTM, mountain biked, fell run, walked and wild-camped pretty much all of my life - what is concerning here may not be the implementation of Sandford, but the objections from other interested parties such as RSPB, CLA, RA etc, who often cite SP's and have successfully used those oppositions to restrict activity - this has been most notable in the High Peak (Cessation of road vehicles, off road events and prevention of movement through ever-renewing TRO's) and the restriction of mountain biking (Forest code - reduction of speed and banning of Ebike modules which benefit many mountain bikes now) within New Forest - except a reduced number of routes - despite the 'right to roam' applying to cylcles! And the recent introduction of what has been dubbed the 'Wild Camping Bill,' the rights of which were removed from individuals in 2023, many local authorities banning camper van overnights in their towns, and I cannot help but see a direct parity between these activities and me, wild mooring on my boat and sleeping on it! Sandford has no natural affinity to the responsibility as a Harbour Authority, and the argument to support this is flawed with a few well chosen examples and is not predominant within BA's area whilst it maintains its current status as a 'member' of the National Park family - although I d note that GOV.UK actually name it as a NP in more than one publication recently - SO another £1 to your pot - The Broads are Not a National Park.

5. Holding to account - BA, as a statutory authority, has a large responsibility to hold other governmental departments and agencies to account - most recently this has been demonstrated by flooding and the Environment Agency - whatever anyone's view, the activities of BA, other harbour and port authorities, the EA, water companies, DEFRA, farming organisations, local and national government planners and others are all contributory to the problem, yet the organisation that should be taking the lead and being most vocal - is also the most silent - BA. Have we seen this before? Oh lets not even open the conversation about Network Rail, where a 'cooling the rails with water' was objected to by BA on grounds of environmental damage and dangerous wash off - therefore placing the environmental impact above navigation rights - who would have even thought that rain would also do this!

So these are just a few examples where BA are not the fit for purpose organisation and where NP status contradicts statutory obligations - however, I would also like to commend the workers on the ground who do a good job day in and day out, are not remunerated in line with others doing similar roles in the UK, and should have also seen a commensurate rise in their wages in line with the toll grab rises last year.

Also for Vaughan - I feel that I too have also trampled those same parks and developed a natural hate of rain and cold as a result!! :)

[MY littleboat]

3 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

Left alone to these two numpties it would be open navigation for all within minutes.

I can do that!  I got sent / ordered on a demolitions course.  Therefore I am qualified in blowing thing up (Down?) Semtex, cordite P.E etc etc  I'm pretty confident with the right stores order I could remodel PHB in short order 

Griff

But Griff - even given the smallest job like changing a door hinge always seems to need a concrete breaker!

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, MY littleboat said:

Also for Vaughan - I feel that I too have also trampled those same parks and developed a natural hate of rain and cold as a result!! :)

Sennybridge in Wales certainly doesn't support human life!

The amazing thing about Dartmoor is that you clamber up the side of a small hill, or tor, and find yourself knee deep in a bog, right on top of it!