The Broads Is Not A National Park!

[rightsaidfred]

JohnK

As I said before we will have to agree to disagree the important thing is its done with respect

Fred

[JohnK]

JohnK
As I said before we will have to agree to disagree the important thing is its done with respect
Fred

Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnK]

For marketing purposes my Skoda is a Rolls Royce! 

Interesting analogy .... do you think if you did call your Skoda a Rolls Royce people would think you’re trying to turn it into a Rolls Royce?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smellyloo]

7 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 

Interesting analogy .... do you think if you did call your Skoda a Rolls Royce people would think you’re trying to turn it into a Rolls Royce?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember when Skoda's used to be mistaken for skips! Now they have aspirations of being a VW ...... so maybe the next leap is to Rolls Royse which is, after all, only a posh Skoda!

[batrabill]

36 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Hello John,

The qango (yet again another unelected administration) that governs the Lake District has restricted access to many of its lakes, we tend to only hear of Lake Windermere with its speed ban.

Regards

Alan 

This is quite a strong misrepresentation of the facts. 

There is a lot of boating on Windermere Ullswater Coniston and Derwent water  

The speed limit is 10mph  

Its worth noting that Conuston has a speed records week every year - it was on the Grand Tour recently - which seems to happily coexist with local fauna. No blanket ban there  

You can sail on Bassenthwaite - there’s a very popular sailing club but the only powered boats are the safety boats  

That is a “restriction” but not one that leads to much objection  - rather the opposite

Buttermere Crummock and Loweswater you can row and sail with a permit

Once again, there is no infrastructure for boating and gas never been  

Like most people I would be horrified if motor boats were introduced to these lakes

It is hard to find the history of these restrictions partly I guess because they are non-controversial

 

So there is a ton of boating going on in the Lake District and while the 10mph speed limit is unpopular with some it is popular with many others

I really don’t think the facts support your “has restricted” claim  - but as I said I struggled to find the history of the restrictions which at the risk of repeating myself, suggests they are widely supported. 

[vanessan]

JohnK, JM, Paladin, rightsaidfred, Batrabill et al.

I, for one, have been grateful to read the differing views and I hope the sometimes heated exchanges have not caused any lasting friction. One thing we can be sure of, the issue of NP status will not be allowed to disappear by those who fear what will happen if full NP status is ever awarded. However, none of us are getting any younger and, if navigation is to remain protected, the ‘watch’ must be continued by those who hopefully have many boating years ahead of them. For that reason it is a good thing that these threads run and long debate follows as folk can then try and make up their own minds accordingly. Whichever side of the fence you are on, or even if you are sitting firmly on the middle of it, someone will be grateful for your input.

If you find it all too boring, there is always the Today’s Jokes section. 

[Broads01]

I've been reading this thread with interest and I'd like to make a couple of points. 

Firstly, I have a problem with calling the Broads a National Park when it isn't. In my mind it's misleading to use a term 'for marketing purposes' or whatever. I think it's wrong the BA was ever given permission to use the term. 

Secondly, with regard to Sandford, it's wrong to associate that with a complete boating ban. Whilst the chances of that ever happening are close to zero, I'm concerned Sandford would make it too easy to close parts of navigation. For example, what if Horsey Mere was deemed to be specially significant for wildlife conservation ? With Sandford in play it would surely be on the agenda to close it off. 

[Vaughan]

You have hit the nail on the head, Simon!

It is not the fear of a blanket ban on navigation, that the Sandford principle threatens. It is the gradual closure of the smaller navigations on the grounds of "preservation" or "conservation" of wildlife, fauna, little snails, or whatever. Catfield staithe is a present example.

We are nowadays only using about a third of the navigations which used to exist in Norfolk and Suffolk in the 1800s in the heyday of the wherries. We don't want to lose any more of them, just to political manoeuvring!

[JennyMorgan]

To those doubting Thomases, whilst you may not be convinced that there is a risk, that indeed any suggestion of a risk is just the figment of a  crazed, tormented individual's mind, then please consider what we stand to lose if those risks turn out to be real. Complacency is also a risk. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, JohnK said:

 

Interesting analogy .... do you think if you did call your Skoda a Rolls Royce people would think you’re trying to turn it into a Rolls Royce?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Some might! But hopefully you get my point. Sell something for what it is, not what you want it to be.

[marshman]

Vaughan - no one is closing Catfield off. Indeed it is due to be dredged but just as you have to get everyones permission to cut trees, you have to get even more to dredge!!

It is important not to keep putting about false news!!!

[JohnK]

To those doubting Thomases, whilst you may not be convinced that there is a risk, that indeed any suggestion of a risk is just the figment of a  crazed, tormented individual's mind, then please consider what we stand to lose if those risks turn out to be real. Complacency is also a risk. 

I’m with you completely and just as soon as I’m convinced it’s happening I’ll be right behind you marching on Yare House!
You are absolutely right we should be watching just in case you’re not completely mad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marshman]

John - are you my brother??? 

[JohnK]

John - are you my brother??? 

Maybe, my dad used to say he enjoyed his Norfolk holidays a lot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vaughan]

50 minutes ago, marshman said:

It is important not to keep putting about false news!!!

It won't be false news if they decide not to dredge it - especially as it has already been allowed to become non - navigable to Broads yachts, through years of neglect. Nor will it be, if they decide not to maintain the navigation between the bridges in Thorpe, just because they say that the staithe on the River Green has "fallen into dis-use".

I hope you got my main point, nonetheless?

Would the ancient navigation to Catfield still be maintained, if we had to embrace Sandford?

[batrabill]

As you probably know Sandford actually doesn’t exist any more it was rewritten and has lost the Sandford tag. Although it is a useful shorthand for the principle.  

This is what it now says: 

The Environment Act 1995 s62 (1) (2) states:

"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."^[5]

So “greater weight” is the key phrase  

In Catfield Dyke there would have to be a conflict between ‘conservation’ and public enjoyment. I’m not aware of any so can’t see any issue here. 

 

That is twice this morning that misconceptions about NPs and Sandford have been introduced without comment from anyone on that side of the debate. 

Firstly that The Lake District NP has ‘restricted’ boating beyond the 10mph speed limit which I would argue it would be much more factual to say the Lakes have very successfully managed boating to the wide approval of the public. 

I don’t ignore or diminish the fact that a whole bunch of people were mightily peed off by the 10mph on Windermere. But it hardly leads one to believe that ‘Sandford’ leads to anything like a wide reduction in boats and boating. 

Now Vaughan you ask, quite reasonably, would Sandford lead to not dredging Canfield Dyke?

I would suggest as above, the answer in ‘absolutely not’ in any conceivable scenario. 

 

I keep bring told told that the facts have been presented to me and I am ignoring them, but then if well- informed people like Vaughan are not clear on what Sandford means then plainly the facts are not that clear. 

 

What would change  what I have written is if there were some specific environmental issue in Catfield Dyke. 

But it remains really hard to see how the doomsday scenarios can come about when looking at current facts. 

[johnb]

I along with many others, moor on Waxham Cut. BA have cut the weeds a bit more often, as we have complained, but apparently it really needs dredging. I have to say that on the odd occasion I have mentioned the problems on forums, there hasn't been a great deal of interest, as it is "not used by many". The sign at the beginning is misleading, as there is a turning point at the mill, although the reeds tend to narrow the Cut just before the mill. Actually they push out of the way quite easily, after which there is a wild mooring, and a footpath which would take you to the beach (eventually!). Admittedly, beyond this there are no public moorings but there are a number of private boats, all liable to pay tolls. IF BA decided to close this to motor boating, how many people would protest beyond a nominal email etc? I guess will would be the first domino. What would your reaction be?

[batrabill]

Johnb 

You make a very good point.

[Paladin]

42 minutes ago, batrabill said:

As you probably know Sandford actually doesn’t exist any more it was rewritten and has lost the Sandford tag. Although it is a useful shorthand for the principle.  

This is what it now says: 

The Environment Act 1995 s62 (1) (2) states:

"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."^[5]

So “greater weight” is the key phrase  

In Catfield Dyke there would have to be a conflict between ‘conservation’ and public enjoyment. I’m not aware of any so can’t see any issue here. 

 

That is twice this morning that misconceptions about NPs and Sandford have been introduced without comment from anyone on that side of the debate. 

 

That's three times now. Wiki can be very useful, but, when quoting legislation, the best source to quote is the legislation itself.

Section 62 of the EA 1995 begins "(1)After section 11 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (general powers of local planning authorities in relation to National Parks) there shall be inserted..."

It then goes on to make a number of amendments, by inserting a new Section 11A into the 1949 Act. One of the amendment is the one about if conflict arises etc. So that principle is not in the 1995 Act, it's been added to the 1949 Act by the 1995 Act.

As the wording of that new subsection in the 1949 Act actually differs from the wording of the Sandford Principle, it is S11A we should be referring to, not Sandford. Using shorthand expressions when discuss legal matters is fraught with danger.

So John Packman, with hand on heart, can say there is no intention to apply Sandford to the Broads, because, as has been rightly pointed out, it no longer exists. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't seek to apply a similar principle, except it wouldn't be Sandford.

[Paladin]

11 minutes ago, johnb said:

I along with many others, moor on Waxham Cut. BA have cut the weeds a bit more often, as we have complained, but apparently it really needs dredging. I have to say that on the odd occasion I have mentioned the problems on forums, there hasn't been a great deal of interest, as it is "not used by many". The sign at the beginning is misleading, as there is a turning point at the mill, although the reeds tend to narrow the Cut just before the mill. Actually they push out of the way quite easily, after which there is a wild mooring, and a footpath which would take you to the beach (eventually!). Admittedly, beyond this there are no public moorings but there are a number of private boats, all liable to pay tolls. IF BA decided to close this to motor boating, how many people would protest beyond a nominal email etc? I guess will would be the first domino. What would your reaction be?

johnb, I would resist ANY attempt to close ANY part of the navigation, and I know there are others (not necessarily on this forum) who would do the same. I have only been up Waxham Cut once, several years ago in a Safari 25, to fulfil my ambition to go to every limit of the navigation.

Perhaps if you give members an idea of what sort of vessel can easily use the Cut, more might make the effort. I'm not sure I would attempt it in my Bounty 30, with its 12' beam.

[batrabill]

Paladine

I think this is both wrong and somethitng it’s impossible to mount a rational defence against. 

Hasnt this just become the default fall back? Whatever the facts, you can just say “he’s lying”

 

As I pointed out above Sandford doesn’t really exist but I think every person involved in this debate uses it to mean the current principle by which conflicts between conservation and the needs of people are resolved.

 

 

 

[Paladin]

batrabill, on more than one occasion I have been at legal loggerheads with the Broads Authority and have prevailed each time. So I know they use the letter of the law, when they think it suits them. Had John Packman said that he wouldn't apply Section 11A, or any derivative, I would feel more reassured.

When the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads Bill was going through Parliament, an amendment was proposed (and later withdrawn) as follows:

"Conflict of interests.

(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 2(1) of this Act, where it appears to the Authority that there is, or is likely to arise, in connection with the discharge of the functions under section 2(1), irreconcilable conflict between the interests of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads, and either promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public, or protecting the interests of navigation, it shall give priority to the interests of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads.”

That isn't Sandford. It isn't even S11A. It has its own bespoke wording that would have a similar effect, though.

[Vaughan]

50 minutes ago, batrabill said:

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."

Now that is an interesting one and please believe me, I am being serious here. The difference between other NPs and the Broads is that often mis-used phrase "natural beauty".

The Broads are not natural. They are as they are today, because that is how MAN has evolved them. They are re-claimed land which requires constant maintenance. So "natural beauty" is a mis-nomer.

If you follow my reasoning to its rhetorical limit, then "cultural heritage" means peat workings.

I thank you for calling me informed but in fact I only know what I have seen around me, growing up on these lovely rivers from the age of 6 months. I only know Sandford from what JM and others have told me but seeing the gradual degradation of the boating paradise that I have loved all my life, I see it as a threat.

 

[marshman]

But Vaughan, again its a matter of opinion! I am not sure I see that gradual degradation you talk about.

And surprise surprise there are sailing boats out of the water at Catfield! I wonder how they got there? You will also know full well there are Broads yachts and Broads yachts - I sail them and I do not go aground very often - but if I had a deep draught one, I would expect too!

My old man had a 28' ships lifeboat conversion and I well remember taking that up the Waxham Cut in the early 60's - guess what? I got stuck! But instead of whinging about it, I did expect to, to be honest. Equally I can remember bits of Hickling being out of bounds because of the weed!

So 60 years on, not much has changed from where I sit!!

[Vaughan]

29 minutes ago, marshman said:

So 60 years on, not much has changed from where I sit!!

If you are happy about it, I am glad for you. 

Unfortunately I still don't think you got my main and general point, so perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned a specific one? The rights that we enjoy, to cruise the Broads, are under constant pressure from various different factions these days, most of whom defend their own interests as natural beauty, preservation of the natural habitat of little curly snails, etc., and if we don't defend our rights then we shall continue to have them eroded (or silted up) as we have for hundreds of years.

It's a bit like the BA planning dept trying to suggest to Roger Wood that Thorpe Island must not be used for moorings as it is a conservation area of natural beauty. 

It is not, at all. It is an overgrown railway embankment.