The Sandford Myth

[batrabill]

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.

[MauriceMynah]

Wow, what a post. I needed to read it several times to work out how come I agreed with so much of it yet disagreed with the post as a whole. The best thing I can do is break it down into chunks a simple soul like me can handle.

“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)”

No. It comes across like that but I think the real situation is that there are some who shout at the failings but rarely praise the successes. Actually I think that most people do that to a great extent, but some more than others.

You then go on to make 6 points about the ‘Very vocal minority’s’ beliefs

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.

My views are…

1.     Not “would” but “could”.

2.     Not “Will be” but “Could be”

3.     I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to make or refute that statement.

4.     No. not my belief. I do not see it as a free standing desire of his.

5.     Yes, I do think that.

6.     No, I don’t think that.

A little later you say…

“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.”

 Now there I do disagree with you. The opposition would come from a few relatively small businesses and that “very vocal minority” as you call them. They would be flying in the face of  quite a few very large organizations and all those people you mentioned earlier who don’t think National Parks are a bad thing.

Next you say

“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. “

And here for me is the crux. If there is conflict between “Enhancing natural beauty” and “Protecting the interests of navigation”, Who decides which one gets priority, and on what basis.

If full NP status were to be granted we know full well what would happen, and on what it would be based… you guessed it, the bogey man.

Much more to answer on your post but I’ve run out of time  so that’ll do for starters.

[batrabill]

38 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

If full NP status were to be granted we know full well what would happen, and on what it would be based… you guessed it, the bogey man.

How do we "know full well"????

What on earth is that conclusion based on?

This is from the website of the BA

On 23^rd January 2015 the Broads Authority stated:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority indicates that it has no intention of seeking the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads Authority’s functions because it is of the view that the Habitats Regulations provide sufficient protection for the very special qualities of the area.”

The view of the Chief Executive of the Broads Authority has consistently been that the application of the 'Sandford Principle' would not be helpful in the complex role of managing the many different interests and pressures in the Broads.

Is there any chance that promoting the area as the Broads National Park will lead to a legal change so that the Broads has exactly the same framework as the 12 English and Welsh National Parks?

There is no reason to pursue any change in the Broads status and the Broads Authority has no intention of seeking such a change (which would require a change in legislation). There would be no advantage in doing so because the Broads already benefits from bespoke legislation which meets its needs.

The 'Sandford Principle' does not apply to the Broads under this legislation; where the interests of conservation or heritage have the potential to conflict with those of recreation, the Broads Authority has to give appropriate consideration to all relevant factors.

 

It would be suicide for the BA to change theirview on that. 

I know this will spoil a lot of people's favourite hobby - but it isn't going to happen. Open a beer and take the boat out.

[Paladin]

I find it extraordinary that it should be considered appropriate to criticise or discuss on here the opinions expressed on a completely separate platform. If there is a discussion to be had, surely it should be done with the people whose opinions are being criticised. I would welcome seeing the OP reproduced on the FB group to which reference is made. There are so many glaring errors in the  OP that I think the responses to it would be most illuminating.

[marshman]

Now you have opened the can of worms!! Having said that I am not sure if I disagree with a lot you have said - indeed hardly anything and indeed have been posting ad nauseum along such lines for years!! But I just refuse to get drawn into all the old arguments time and time again. Indeed in the past I have oft been accused of being a BA stooge and indeed JP once!!!

Lets see how long it is before you feel like a recently departed poster too!!!

[MauriceMynah]

6 minutes ago, batrabill said:

How do we "know full well"????

What on earth is that conclusion based on?

 

Cost. Simple as that. Protecting the interests of  navigation is going to be hugely more expensive than Enhancing natural beauty.

[batrabill]

3 minutes ago, marshman said:

Now you have opened the can of worms!! Having said that I am not sure if I disagree with a lot you have said - indeed hardly anything and indeed have been posting ad nauseum along such lines for years!! But I just refuse to get drawn into all the old arguments time and time again. Indeed in the past I have oft been accused of being a BA stooge and indeed JP once!!!

Lets see how long it is before you feel like a recently departed poster too!!!

Marshman I fully expect all kinds of things, relevant and totally irrelevant (can you guess what I'm refferring to ?? ) but why worry?

I like reading the NBN but it irks me when things that are just not true are endlessly repeated as fact.

Note: a great deal of the above is based on actual research - I have even read the submissions from the petitioners to the Lords including our own JM. And much of the debate on the 2009 Bill and things like the DEFRA briefing pre-bill.

[batrabill]

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Cost. Simple as that. Protecting the interests of  navigation is going to be hugely more expensive than Enhancing natural beauty.

I think I would out that down as 'an unproven assertion' - do you mean to stop dredging as a cost saving?

Wouldn't the hire boat industry and 10000 boaters have something to say about that?

 

[MauriceMynah]

There are "unproven assertions" on both sides of this fence, I'm sure we can agree on that! 

Now, just as an example, may I take Potter Heigham as an example, given that it's the area I understand best.

Can we agree that some of the larger craft that used to get under the bridge regularly can rarely do so these days? If so, can we also agree that the bridge isn't sinking, and nor is the water level rising? Finally that the BA's tide table gives the clearance as 6'6".

If we see eye to eye on those points then the question has to be, Why can't the boats that could get under, no longer do so.

I put to you that it's the inability of the tide to get out quickly enough on the ebb that has reduced the rise and fall at the bridge, and that the solution to that is to dredge right from Breydon to Hickling parish Staithe and Horsey Staithe. The whole lot. This will cost a bob or two in anybody's language.

Now, lets say that something crops up where to "Enhance the natural beauty" it is desirable to keep boat traffic to a minimum.

Give the head of a government body the choice, of satisfy condition 1 No cost, or satisfy condition 3 costing arms legs and other significant body parts. Which do you think he/she will go for?

[batrabill]

Everything I have read about dredging leads me to believe that I know nothing about dredging. What I do know is that the consequences of any dredging operation are not obvious to the untrained.

I'm not sure what point you're making - that no one has the money to dredge the entire river?

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

I like reading the NBN but it irks me when things that are just not true are endlessly repeated as fact.

Yes, it irks me, as well. For example:

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

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.

The NP grant is only an NP grant when it is granted by virtue of S.72 of the Environment Act 1972.

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.

The grant so loosely, and conveniently, referred to by the Broads Authority (and others) as a National Park Grant is actually a Secretary of State Grant, authorised by S.15 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.

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.

[JennyMorgan]

"As someone who has lived in the Broads for only 4 years  . . . . . . . . . . . . "

Says it all really.

Sorry, Bill, not going to be dragged into this one, life's too short! 

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

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.

That isn't the impression I get from the Kilner letter...

[MauriceMynah]

The point I am making is that any government office has a budget. if the requirements exceed the budget, the requirements have to be trimmed to get as near that budget as possible. Dredging is a low profile project and outside the navigational membership, has few friends. If the BA could find an excuse not to dredge why on earth wouldn't they use it.? If being a full NP gives them that excuse, why wouldn't they go for it.?

 

[JennyMorgan]

MM, some years ago now DEFRA made a £1.5 million pound grant, over three years,  to the Authority in order that it might catch up on its maintenance backlog.  After much manipulation and pleading  most, if not all, of that cash went on other projects such as The Broads Bill and an explosion in staff numbers thus Dragonfly House was deemed necessary in order to house them all. We certainly didn't see £1.5m being spent on dredging so yes, your comment is apposite. The Authority did have the budget but that was not what it was used for. 

[batrabill]

37 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

"As someone who has lived in the Broads for only 4 years  . . . . . . . . . . . . "

Says it all really.

Sorry, Bill, not going to be dragged into this one, life's too short! 

 

I'm hugely disappointed in you Mr Waller that you choose to simply dismiss.

 

I have always really admired you, at the very least for your relentless and indegafatible pursuit of what you believe to be right. But that really is disappointing.

The idea that you have no time to debate the rights and wrongs of this is another occasion when only derision will do. You have devoted, I am certain, hundreds of hours to just that as your many many thousands of posts and comments on all forms of media attest.

But now life is too short! 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Of course you're disappointed Batrabill, this whole thread was a bit "Waller-baiting" wasn't it? :-)

[batrabill]

Don't you find it a bit disappointing Mr Mynah?  You haven't lived here long enough? 

That's it?

Shall we all put our credentials on every post now? Length of boat ownership? Location of main dwelling? Number of posts on the EDP website?

 

[MauriceMynah]

36 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Don't you find it a bit disappointing Mr Mynah? 

Well ok, yes just a bit. It could have become a good scrap.

[batrabill]

Just to be clear, not engaging is fine.

To claim my views count for nothing because I've only lived here for 4 years, is insulting in many, many, ways. Not least to all the other people here who don't live here, but visit and feel they have a right to contribute.

[johnb]

Frankly. although i hold views about this subject, and I feel that where we keep our boat could be the first place where enhancing natural beauty could be used as an excuse (and already partly is, in my opinion) to cut off some navigation, rather than spending money keeping it open. However, I cannot see there is any new information in the public realm, so all the arguments must have already been made. It's a shame that all the old arguments will be dredged up and personal comments made, as have already happened. 

[MauriceMynah]

I can sympathise with that view John, but the regular airing of the views doesn't hurt and just in case the powers that be read them it indicates that we're still here and far from dormant.

[rightsaidfred]

Batrabiĺl

I dont live in the Broads area but have considered it my spiritual home for best part of 40 years where  does that place me.

I am not going to try and disect your post as that is purely personal interpretation but will offer a different perspective, I believe most of us respect and appreciate all the good things done by the BA especially all the hard working staff, however you dont constantly praise people for doing the job they are employed to do, like all public bodies while the BA have a number of duties to carry out which they perform reasonaby well there is always a hierachy that have their own pet agenda which is not always in the best interest  of those they represent, living in London this is something I am all to aware of and this is when those that care stand up question the motivation, unfortunatly there are always those that wont  or dont want to see anything that rocks the boat. 

Fred

[batrabill]

Fair dos Fred. It's a good point. I think the majority are pretty reasonable on most subjects. All the best

[vanessan]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I can sympathise with that view John, but the regular airing of the views doesn't hurt and just in case the powers that be read them it indicates that we're still here and far from dormant.

I couldn’t agree more. I have said in the past that those of us who don’t live in the area rely on those who do to keep us all appraised of developments (or lack of). If that means raising contentious issues on here from time to time, so be it.