Jump to content

The Broads Is Not A National Park!


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

JM

Yes, but the legal position is, and has been, quite clear. I really don't understand the response to this?

I think you are quite mistaken if you think anyone claims the Broads are a Full National park. They aren't, and I believe never will be in this life.

However, I have attached the 2002 DEFRA review of National Parks where the legal issues around the Broads are discussed at length.

Here is one of the recommendations :

Recommendation 3: The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 should be amended – when parliamentary time allows – so that the first two purposes of the Broads Authority are made consistent with those of National Parks.

The Environment Act 1995 amended the two purposes of the National Parks to give them a wider definition; for example, by making explicit reference to wildlife and cultural heritage. The Broads is an area of international significance both for flora and fauna, and is of historic importance. We therefore propose that the first two purposes of the Broads Authority should be brought into line explicitly to include:

i) conservation of the Broads’ wildlife, as part of conservation of the Broads’ natural beauty;
ii) conservation of the Broads’ cultural heritage, including built heritage and local traditions; and

iii) promoting understanding, as well as enjoyment, of the Broads.

We envisage the third purpose “to protect the interests of navigation” remaining unchanged. Implementation of this recommendation would require primary legislation. This could be done either before or in association with action arising from the separate study for the Broads (recommendation 53).

 

So the genesis of the 2009 Act was the desire to more closely align The Norfolk Broads with the other NP's with the addition of Navigation.

You might also note, if you read the document, that the funding of the NP's including The Norfolk Broads is discussed as one issue. I have read dozens of times that the DEFRA funding from the NP pot is a "matter of convenience" and "it had to come from somewhere", when in fact the NP funding is considered in the round. So I find that idea, er, not conversant with the facts.

 

One of the things I always find odd about this debate is that The National Park Authority has been listing the Broads as a National Park on its website since 2004. If there really is a problem calling the Broads a NP, shouldn't you start with the National Parks? Although a time machine will be need to shut that stable door.

 

 

 

 

 

englishnationalparksreview-defra2002.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, recommendations that were not upheld.

In regard to i) conservation of the Broads’ wildlife, as part of conservation of the Broads’ natural beauty; who could argue with that?
As for ii) conservation of the Broads’ cultural heritage, including built heritage and local traditions; rather a pity that that ethos has not been taken onboard by our powers that be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

You might also note, if you read the document, that the funding of the NP's including The Norfolk Broads is discussed as one issue. I have read dozens of times that the DEFRA funding from the NP pot is a "matter of convenience" and "it had to come from somewhere", when in fact the NP funding is considered in the round. So I find that idea, er, not conversant with the facts.

Fact 1.

Environment Act 1995

Section 72 National Park grant.

(1)The Secretary of State may make grants to a National Park authority for such purposes, of such amounts and on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.

Fact 2.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988

Section 15 Grants from Secretary of State.

(1)The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants to the Authority for such purposes, and on such terms and conditions, as he thinks fit.

Once again the easy 'shorthand' references have been used to confuse. The BA glibly refer to the "National Parks Grant", which suits their purpose, when it should be referred to as the "Secretary of State grant".

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 24/02/2018 at 08:46, JennyMorgan said:

, I'm sure that you will agree. There is no question that Sandford is part & parcel of the NP package. There is no doubt that in the past Dr John has sought the powers required to exclude boaters from waterways, see the Broads Bill. John, I ask you one final, pertinent  question, can you prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt,  that Dr John doesn't still retain the desire for NP status and won't, once again, change policy in order to achieve that goal?

This is from JM in Feb 2018. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been holidaying on the Broads for over 60 years both as a hirer and syndicate boat owner. Unfortunately health issues mean I probably won't be able to visit as a boater again.

I would just like to thank Jenny Morgan and others who over the years have worked to keep the Broads the special place it is for future generations to enjoy.

There is no doubt in my mind that if full National Park status ever happened it would be, because of the Sanford Principle, to the detriment of navigation.

I don't know how long, and by who, attempts have been made to make the Broads a National Park but the page attached from a 1989 Hoseasons brochure appears to say that the Broads was a National Park at that time.

Hoseasons 89.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Roy

So sorry to hear of your health issues and as a result having to give up boating. We wish you well and all the very best to you and your family

I don't understand the half of it all but I do very much appreciate the efforts some of the guys on here go to to keep our Broadland safe for future generations to enjoy, well done guys 

Jay and Grace x

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 27/02/2018 at 17:18, JennyMorgan said:

It's not so much the name issue, more the possible outcome of its use that matters and concerns an unknown proportion of the relevant populous.

The problem is the number of publications/media that this misnomer has been made public. As an example I’ve just passed my VHF SRC test along with a helmsman course and was given a RYA Inland Waterways handbook published in 2010, in where it clearly states.

”The Broads Authority has the status of a national park authority and manages the 125 miles of inland waterways and 40 broads.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I mean let's stop regurgitating old cr*p about a futile ongoing argument which acheives nothing but degrades any value this forum has. We've just a nice period free from this, with positive reports about people actually enjoying the broads.

The quote above is recycled from 2010 for God's sake!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Two points, firstly, there is a constant turnover of forum members, many of whom will be initially unaware of the issues and debates regarding the BNP. Secondly, can we really afford to lower our guard? To that last question I'd say NO, obviously!

New members have easy access to all the threads and can easily see which are currently being debated. No need to keep bringing up old ones which have been comprehensively debated previously, just for the sake of it.

New members may well wonder who you mean be "we". Don't include me in that; "we" are not in some kind of army. When I was a new member round here I got the impression from certain people that if I didn't share their opinion on this issue, I wasn't welcome to voice one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably wrong here but won’t raising The Broads to National Park level help keep the area in the public eye?

I mean I work less than a hundred miles from it and most of my colleagues haven’t heard of it or know about it vaguely. 
However ask about the Lake District or exmoor it’s a different story

Because if those funding cuts come it’s going to be easier to cut money from places without National in the title

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here goes,  I am not going to bother re-quoting other posts or replying to individuals just face the facts.

I like some other long standing members who either live in or have been associated with the Broads North and South for many years have become exasperated with the continued lie and misrepresentation of the Broads as a NP for no other reason than political ambition, talk to any new comer you like and they don't come because its a NP they come because of the recreational opportunities it offers, the constant reference to a NP can only be to the detriment of  the area not to any benefit, only those who wish to curtail boating will benefit from the broads being designated a NP.

Fred

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has to read this, if you do so then it is by your own free will!!

Re funding, good point but let's look at the history of funding cuts on the Broads. Not so long ago HMG decreed an austerity drive and cut funding to the Broads and suggested cost cutting measures by the Authority. We lost a couple of information centres but it wasn't long before the Acle Debacle/NP information centre  reared its ugly head. So much for cost cutting measures, especially as our tolls were raised to make up the shortfall as will inevitable happen again should there be further funding cuts. I fear that his NP ambitions and extravagances will continue unabated.  Mind you, HMG also proposed a cull of the quangos, inevitably as far as Norfolk was concerned that was a non event.

Varying opinions are welcome!

Just to remind you all!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.