The Broads Is Not A National Park!

[floydraser]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Excuse me but that one is "below the belt".

He is a very old friend of mine, largely because our fathers were as well.  They both played a leading role in the first Broads Study and Plan, by the Nature Conservancy in the 60s, and upon which the present day management of the Broads area is still very largely based.

Peter himself is an ex member of the BA and as such, was the only one I know who took the trouble to contribute to this forum in the way that he has.  His criticisms of the BA are based on his own (somewhat bitter) inside experience.   In other words, he knew what he was talking about.  There is no-one on the present forum who can say the same on this subject, including me.

Yes, he got a bit passionate at times and was eventually muzzled by moderation.  When we look around us at the shenanigans going on right now, we might reflect that he had very good reason!

Well Vaughan, we'll have to disagree on that one; I think mine was a fair comment. I came here in 2018 as a new member and was constantly leaned on to say and think in a certain way, and told who I should respect, but not why. Like it was some kind of Old Boys Club. JM was as you say passionate about the subject but to the point of obsession. The evidence is there in the archives: every week a national park thread, constant bumping up of threads to keep them going, automatic "liking" of one's mate's posts. As I said before, it's just a forum and some people attach far too much importance to the content. Just because he's an old mate of yours doesn't put him above criticism for going public with his views.

[Vaughan]

37 minutes ago, floydraser said:

As I said before, it's just a forum and some people attach far too much importance to the content.

I notice that a lot of your posts about the Broads are in strong support of BRAG on Facebook.

Has it not occurred to you that Peter Waller is one of the main contributors and driving forces of that organisation?   And yet you denigrate his contributions to this forum.

 

40 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Like it was some kind of Old Boys Club.

Exactly!

That is exactly what the management of the Broads used to be, and it worked!   I have sometimes suggested here that the management of Blakes, and the Commissioners, was more like a "league of gentlemen".

They knew each other well, they worked together in a common cause and they achieved great results.

Hardly what we see in front of us on the Broads these days, is it?

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I notice that a lot of your posts about the Broads are in strong support of BRAG on Facebook.

Has it not occurred to you that Peter Waller is one of the main contributors and driving forces of that organisation?   And yet you denigrate his contributions to this forum.

 

No, Peter Waller is NOT the main driving forces behind that organisation. Let's perfectly clear, that is an easy assumption to make. He and anyone else of similar experience have open access to contribute their opinion. Colin Chet is the main driving force along with others and Peter is just the moderator of the webpage. He has in the past, had to be pulled up by Colin for allowing thread drifts on there!

I have been watching BRAG from the start and Peter's early contributions were surprising. He was actually expressing himself in a very dignified manner, in a constructive way and passing on the benefit of his vast experience. I thought he's either learned from his experience on this forum or had a bang on the head but I say well done; I wondered if it was the same person! 

Peter was mentioned because he was the one who started this thread, no other reason. I don't doubt his ambition or where his heart is, it's just the way he expressed himself on this forum which has been, let's just say, not quite as effective as it could have been, and leave it at that.

I should also add that I have actually met the man and shook his hand. It was when he came to the Denham Owl to collect the mains fridge I gave him for his daughter to use when she was a medical student. 

While all you old boys should be listened to for the benefit of past expeiences, the future of the Broads should be in the hands of those who live there and those of working age who have a future there. Not even me, as someone who pays for moorings and tolls; I can just upsticks and leave whenever I please. Every so often we have a vote to find out if we want our village to become a town. While the good people of Norfolk are entitled to an opinion as to whether that should happen, I would be pretty hacked off if they had a vote.

Edit: BRAG do not discuss the Nation Park issue as they say it would be a distraction. One thing at a time, remove JP first.

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

Oh well - that's put that to bed with a bit of luck! Again!!!!

Oh, no, it hasn't!

 

[dom]

11 minutes ago, floydraser said:

While all you old boys should be listened to for the benefit of past expeiences, the future of the Broads should be in the hands of those who live there and those of working age who have a future there.

I think this is a key problem area. Increasingly, the Broads is suffering "Burnham Market Syndrome". Large numbers of incoming surburban retirees driving up house prices, marginalising working class people from the leisure and similar industries, then complaining about traffic, noise, etc from holidaymakers disturbing their bird watching or paddleboarding. They then join parish councils and use either affluence or commercial experience to influence planning decisions, which all feeds back to the BA, shaping future policy.

It's evident that BA are now choosing to completely ignore or override the nav committee's input. As such, I think the status quo is that the former group are winning and the holiday and boating industry is on the ropes. I think it needs much more input from local government, but I find it worrying that the whole toll fees, multiple MP letter seems to have lost momentum without seemingly achieving much. I wonder what, if anything, is happening in the way of follow up.

28 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Edit: BRAG do not discuss the Nation Park issue as they say it would be a distraction. One thing at a time, remove JP first.

I want to support BRAG. I'm on the side of the boating community, have worked in a yard and have deeper connections to the history of the industry. I just find the group a bit ineffectual though.

On any given day, there'll be someone posting irrelevant, irrational, or just plain nonsense content to the group (all now seen by Duncan Baker who's recently joined). Before Christmas, you had a yard owner proposing paying last year's toll as a protest mechanism, which, if adopted by the majority, would have caused a massive issue for BA, possibly one JP might have chosen not to fight. That all seems to have got lost though and the group is currently full of ranting about dredging for flood management, which isn't generally a BA issue. 

If, as you say, the objective is to oust JP, then that ought to be clear and the sole focus of proceedings. There are some fairly obvious ways in which you could make his position far less comfortable.

 

[floydraser]

3 minutes ago, dom said:

 

If, as you say, the objective is to oust JP, then that ought to be clear and the sole focus of proceedings. There are some fairly obvious ways in which you could make his position far less comfortable.

 

I think it's there somewhere. By the nature of it, there has to be stuff going on behind the scenes but the committee do report every so often what is being done.

[dom]

15 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I think it's there somewhere.

I think this is one of the reasons why I don't particularly like the way that Facebook is being used as the primary vehicle for the group. You have to go digging about to find what their purpose or achievements are. You can bet a lot of the group members have never done anything like this and are just blindly clicking follow for a bit of gossip and excitement. The danger then is, you get an apparently large group of supporters but, when you come to lean on them, they're either completely unengaged or, worse still, on the opposing side.

I desperately want to see a group succeed in getting the boating community's voice better heard, but will happily bet £50 that BRAG won't oust JP during the course of this year. If I lose, I'll be the happiest I've ever been to settle a debt.

[Hylander]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

Oh, no, it hasn't!

 

Well it is pantomime season!!!

[floydraser]

48 minutes ago, dom said:

I think this is one of the reasons why I don't particularly like the way that Facebook is being used as the primary vehicle for the group. You have to go digging about to find what their purpose or achievements are. You can bet a lot of the group members have never done anything like this and are just blindly clicking follow for a bit of gossip and excitement. The danger then is, you get an apparently large group of supporters but, when you come to lean on them, they're either completely unengaged or, worse still, on the opposing side.

I desperately want to see a group succeed in getting the boating community's voice better heard, but will happily bet £50 that BRAG won't oust JP during the course of this year. If I lose, I'll be the happiest I've ever been to settle a debt.

I just did a quick google search and found a website under construction at https://www.broads-reform.org/

I heard they had the intention, let's hope it's up and running soon.

[Mouldy]

56 minutes ago, dom said:

I think this is a key problem area. Increasingly, the Broads is suffering "Burnham Market Syndrome". Large numbers of incoming surburban retirees driving up house prices, marginalising working class people from the leisure and similar industries, then complaining about traffic, noise, etc from holidaymakers disturbing their bird watching or paddleboarding. . . . . . . . . . .  .

Oooh!  That hurt.  As an incoming suburban retiree, I resent that generalisation.  I keep my boat on The Broads, spend quite a lot of my money on maintenance at a Broadland marina, spend money at Broadland businesses when onboard, whether in shops or pubs.  Since moving here, we’ve spent multiple thousands of pounds with local businesses refurbishing our home.

Ive been coming to The Broads for over 50 years and it was a long held ambition to move to the county when I retired.  I remain extremely grateful that I will spend the remainder of my life in a county in which I feel so very comfortable and am proud to call my home.

[dom]

1 minute ago, Mouldy said:

Oooh!  That hurt.  As an incoming suburban retiree, I resent that generalisation.  I keep my boat on The Broads, spend quite a lot of my money on maintenance at a Broadland marina, spend money at Broadland businesses when onboard, whether in shops or pubs.  Since moving here, we’ve spent multiple thousands of pounds with local businesses refurbishing our home.

But are you trying to change things? Have you bought a house and now expect to influence planning to reduce industry or tourism in your locality? Are you pushing the NP agenda to help further those goals? That's the bit which I was really referring to in the context of this topic.

6 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

I remain extremely grateful that I will spend the remainder of my life in a county in which I feel so very comfortable and am proud to call my home.

One of the reasons I'm particularly vocal about it is that I was, to a degree, driven out by the onset of the decline of the boating industry and lack of prospects as a young person in Broadland (and that was as an academic high achiever). Having worked long and hard over several decades, I now want to move back to the area, but the job market is far from healthy and the cost of accommodation is disproportionaly expensive. I'd love to be in the same position but sadly the cost of living in the area I still call home is currently preventing me buying somewhere to retire to. I'd happily live on a boat, but the BA's stance on this effectively renders it impossible to do as a hard working, law abiding person these days.

[rightsaidfred]

3 hours ago, floydraser said:

 

While all you old boys should be listened to for the benefit of past expeiences, the future of the Broads should be in the hands of those who live there and those of working age who have a future there. Not even me, as someone who pays for moorings and tolls; I can just upsticks and leave whenever I please. Every so often we have a vote to find out if we want our village to become a town. While the good people of Norfolk are entitled to an opinion as to whether that should happen, I would be pretty hacked off if they had a vote.

And here we have one of today's problems, to many of the younger generations think that the past and older generations are outdated.

I may not live in Norfolk but over the last 40 years I have spent a large part of my life in Norfolk and like many others have learnt from experiance, while I agree that times change and we need to adapt not all old values are bad and should be discarded and not all that is new is good.

I do not need to live in the Broads area to appreciate its value or what it needs, many of us fully understand what is needed in the way of investment and good managment much of which requires new blood, likewise we also know what does and has always worked in the past and needs to be retained as the backbone, many of the old and trusted ways are as relevant now as they always were.

What we fight for and fight against is out of love for the area and what it represents, while much of the Broads past is timeless there is always the need to adapt for the future and that is were the knowledge and experiance of us old coggers comes in knowing what is worth keeping and what needs changing.

Fred

[Mouldy]

31 minutes ago, dom said:

But are you trying to change things? Have you bought a house and now expect to influence planning to reduce industry or tourism in your locality? Are you pushing the NP agenda to help further those goals? That's the bit which I was really referring to in the context of this topic.

Personally, I’d like to see a reduction in the building and development around where I now live and around several other Norfolk towns until such time as the infrastructure is updated to accommodate the increase in local population.  Yes, we have moved to the county, but our bungalow was built over 35 years ago and we have simply replaced the two people who originally lived here, so no nett increase.

Our doctor’s surgery is overwhelmed, getting a dentist is virtually impossible, barely a week goes by without Anglian Water digging up the roads to repair a system that is not fit for purpose and suffering from under investment to modernise.

As far as The Broads is concerned, I resent navigation funds being used to further NP aspirations.  I do not see that more ranger patrols will promote safety generally, although they may help in busy areas to educate and protect kayakers and paddle boarders who contribute nothing financially to the BA’s coffers, most of whom are licenced by their own organisations.

31 minutes ago, dom said:

One of the reasons I'm particularly vocal about it is that I was, to a degree, driven out by the onset of the decline of the boating industry and lack of prospects as a young person in Broadland (and that was as an academic high achiever). Having worked long and hard over several decades, I now want to move back to the area, but the job market is far from healthy and the cost of accommodation is disproportionaly expensive. I'd love to be in the same position but sadly the cost of living in the area I still call home is currently preventing me buying somewhere to retire to. I'd happily live on a boat, but the BA's stance on this effectively renders it impossible to do as a hard working, law abiding person these days.

Our property is small - just a 2/3 bedroom bungalow on a small development about a mile and a half from the nearest town.  It’s nothing special to look at and we bought it in a very dilapidated state.  It was liveable, but only just.  The day we moved in, my wife started to put things in a kitchen cupboard and it promptly fell off the wall!  We have spent a small fortune on the place, updating everything from the gas boiler, the kitchen, bathroom, even the internal doors and garden, which was extremely overgrown and uncared for.  Yes, I’m lucky, I’m retired, having spent 48 years at work since leaving school, the vast majority in the logistics industry working long, antisocial hours.  I consider my position now to be one I have earned, not to which I am automatically entitled.

Just as a footnote, I lived in north west London until I was 21 and had to move away to be able to afford to buy a house.  Like you, there is no way that I could afford to return to live in the area of my birth and childhood, even if I wanted to.  It’s just how things are.

[ExSurveyor]

What happens, or not, on BRAG, is down to the leadership of that group.

If any members are interested they are free to join the group and influence it's direction from within.

 

[dom]

23 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Personally, I’d like to see a reduction in the building and development around where I now live and around several other Norfolk towns until such time as the infrastructure is updated to accommodate the increase in local population. 

I'd like to see it reduced full stop. That's one of the reasons the BA really frustrates me. They're supposedly this great green defender, only interested in conservation, yet they've allowed my home town of Wroxham to be completely over-developed.

The two examples which really stick in my throat are the old Bridge restaurant site (across to the old Broads Tours wet shed) and the former Jack Powles site up on the bend by Staitheway Road.

The former was open land with trees. It's now been destroyed and turned over to housing ruining the view from the Kings Head area. The bridge is also a defining feature of the village, but now has a much taller restauant looming over it. If it's a notional Natural Park, why allow houses to displace nature and reduce the appearance of the area?

In the latter case, the brownfield JP site has been turned over to yet more housing. If permission for housing had been refused, sooner or later, it would have been re-used for commercial purposes. That wouldn't necessarily mean boating, but would mean jobs for young people in the area. If it sits there for a long time unused, then find grant or similar funding to convert it to a public marina, which would provide an amenity and allow the current generation of huge hireboats to moor with ease, bringing more money into the local economy. Anything but more housing which, once established is pretty much there for all eternity.

If you compare the area now, to when the BA were established, it's unrecongisable and has lost almost all of its character and history. Allowing that to happen whilst proclaming themselves a National Park seems completely hypocritical to me.

[Bluebell]

3 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Oooh!  That hurt.  As an incoming suburban retiree, I resent that generalisation.  I keep my boat on The Broads, spend quite a lot of my money on maintenance at a Broadland marina, spend money at Broadland businesses when onboard, whether in shops or pubs.  Since moving here, we’ve spent multiple thousands of pounds with local businesses refurbishing our home.

Ive been coming to The Broads for over 50 years and it was a long held ambition to move to the county when I retired.  I remain extremely grateful that I will spend the remainder of my life in a county in which I feel so very comfortable and am proud to call my home.

And as a local I’d say you’re very welcome…😎

[Vaughan]

14 hours ago, dom said:

One of the reasons I'm particularly vocal about it is that I was, to a degree, driven out by the onset of the decline of the boating industry and lack of prospects as a young person in Broadland

Me too.

14 hours ago, dom said:

I'd love to be in the same position but sadly the cost of living in the area I still call home is currently preventing me buying somewhere to retire to. I'd happily live on a boat, but the BA's stance on this effectively renders it impossible

Me too.

[Vaughan]

13 hours ago, dom said:

If it's a notional Natural Park, why allow houses to displace nature and reduce the appearance of the area?

There is a simple answer to that.

In the Great Recession of the 80s, the new BA were pleased to see the decline of the boatyards as they thought the Broads was too commercial.  So as long as you were closing a boatyard, the BA would automatically give you a section 52 agreement to build houses.  They were handing them out like get-out-of-jail cards.

I admit that I did the same thing, as the only way to sell my business at that time, was to close it down and build houses on the site.  This what happened to Horning as well, where Southgates, Banhams and Percivals were all replaced by houses. Clifford Allen's at Coltishall and many others. Neither Horning nor Wroxham can ever call themselves the "Queen of the Broads" any more.  And the Broads themselves have little or no decent infrastructure left except for private mooring basins.

The BA have a lot of "previous" on this subject.

[Vaughan]

22 hours ago, Vaughan said:

The BA have a lot of "previous" on this subject.

It sounds incredible, looking back, but there can be no doubt (and I was there) that the downfall of the boatyards and the tourist trade that they brought with them, was deliberately encouraged by the BA.

We already knew that they had a strong national park agenda and I got the impression that they had dreams of a land "where sheep may safely graze"*  without being bothered by all those smelly hire boats and their grotty tourists.

I well remember a certain lady in a senior position as a BA officer, who announced at the time in an EDP article, that the Broads was attracting "the wrong kind of customer".  She very soon got a few sharp replies in the readers' letters column, one of them from the Sheriff of Norwich.

 

* J.S.Bach.

[Hylander]

Whoever she was , boy oh boy, bet she would have apoplexy if she saw some of the things that go on now on our beautiful , so called peaceful, (oh sorry Butlins on the River) Broads.    

[Norfolkangler]

On 14/01/2024 at 17:46, dom said:

I'd like to see it reduced full stop. That's one of the reasons the BA really frustrates me. They're supposedly this great green defender, only interested in conservation, yet they've allowed my home town of Wroxham to be completely over-developed.

The two examples which really stick in my throat are the old Bridge restaurant site (across to the old Broads Tours wet shed) and the former Jack Powles site up on the bend by Staitheway Road.

The former was open land with trees. It's now been destroyed and turned over to housing ruining the view from the Kings Head area. The bridge is also a defining feature of the village, but now has a much taller restauant looming over it. If it's a notional Natural Park, why allow houses to displace nature and reduce the appearance of the area?

In the latter case, the brownfield JP site has been turned over to yet more housing. If permission for housing had been refused, sooner or later, it would have been re-used for commercial purposes. That wouldn't necessarily mean boating, but would mean jobs for young people in the area. If it sits there for a long time unused, then find grant or similar funding to convert it to a public marina, which would provide an amenity and allow the current generation of huge hireboats to moor with ease, bringing more money into the local economy. Anything but more housing which, once established is pretty much there for all eternity.

If you compare the area now, to when the BA were established, it's unrecongisable and has lost almost all of its character and history. Allowing that to happen whilst proclaming themselves a National Park seems completely hypocritical to me.

As an old timer I totally agree with your frustration at the changes that have taken place not only at at Wroxham but several other places to.. Totally over developed and looks nothing like the broadland we once knew. 

When planning  was granted, surely it could have been a lot more sympathetic to the area. All you now see at what they call the "Capital" of the Broads is modern multi coloured housing be it for residence or for Holiday rentals. 

What happened to the Thatch roofs that are synonymous with the old style Broadland. They could have at least kept the appearances  in keeping with the area.

I understand the need for a certain amount of development, but why has it all got to look ultra modern which in my opinion look totally out of place.  

I know I am probably out numbered, but I really did enjoy Broadland when it was "Wild" and no where near as commercialised as it is today.

[rightsaidfred]

Sadly its a sign of the times and while we keep on expanding the population it will only get worse, all our cities and many towns are just concrete jungles, look out over London and its suburbs of a night and all you see is a forest of red lights.

Fred

[Wussername]

Look to the sky at night. Tell me what you see.

The brilliance of a star lit night.

Not any more, light pollution has put paid to that. 

That which you have never known will never be missed.

[Norfolkangler]

33 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Look to the sky at night. Tell me what you see.

The brilliance of a star lit night.

Not any more, light pollution has put paid to that. 

That which you have never known will never be missed.

Sadly your right, I guess we are jost old coggers.

[grendel]

try and photograph the night sky, and all you will see it the starlink trails crossing the sky.