The Broads National Pike / The Answer Is! I Really Don't Know!

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

I'm not in favour of the Acle Centre, but better to stick to facts. The BA said they would do,  ’a full business analysis of the potential costs and income that such a facility could generate before [it] commits to approaching funding bodies for financial contributions.’

JP was cornered on that one. Thanks for confirming it and reminding us all.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, ChrisB said:

The BA come under the National Audit Office. I think you can trust their accounting.

I do , Chris. However I still have reservations regarding money management at Yare House. The boundaries between accounts has purposely been blurred. 

[dnks34]

I have just been perusing the sustainable development project for 2013/2014 and am wondering how Norfolk Broads Direct managed to recieve £2392 in BA cash toward paying for 47 gps speedos fitted to their dayboats...

[ChrisB]

42 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I do , Chris. However I still have reservations regarding money management at Yare House. The boundaries between accounts has purposely been blurred. 

But is it really in the best interests of the whole area to have two pockets of money? How can you have effective financial management with one hand tied behind the back so they can't reach one pocket? 

If there was a disaster to navigation that could not be met within it's budget? Would you be happy to keep the accounts apart, even if it mean't a doubling of tolls? 

I feel the whole area of tolls can only be used for our benefit   ( which I am sorry it is) is selfish, short-sighted and wrong in the long term.

[dnks34]

Are you saying if there were some sort of expensive disaster to Navigation and the supposedly ring fenced nav budget couldnt cover it the BA would want to put their hand in their other pocket to pay for it? 

I suppose they might but Im quite sure Tolls would go up in a heartbeat to recover it. 

There is something fairly significant to Navigation happening as we speak......the Lower Bure is silting up affecting the entire Northern Broads....

[JennyMorgan]

7 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

But is it really in the best interests of the whole area to have two pockets of money? How can you have effective financial management with one hand tied behind the back so they can't reach one pocket? 

If there was a disaster to navigation that could not be met within it's budget? Would you be happy to keep the accounts apart, even if it mean't a doubling of tolls? 

I feel the whole area of tolls can only be used for our benefit   ( which I am sorry it is) is selfish, short-sighted and wrong in the long term.

Chris, I have no wish to enter into a protracted argument but when well qualified professionals tell me that the system is being manipulated then I tend to accept their word. How our money (tolls) is spent is subject to a side agreement with various parties including the RYA. The DEFRA (NP) grant never fails to be conditional so wouldn't be able to bail 'navigation' out unless specified for that purpose. As it is about half of our tolls is syphoned off for overheads.

[ChrisB]

I do not wish to enter the field of environmental hydrodynamics because I am not qualified to comment. However my point is as a retired Director of two large multi nationals is it fair to the Management of the BA. 

If a company had a healthy plus balance in one account but had run on another and went cap in hand to the bank or shareholders it would not wash. 

Likewise in the present uncertain economic climate for the UK why should a need of cash be provided from the public purse if the Nav Acc. Is in credit if the Broads has a crisis need of cash.

I am sorry but two tier accountancy is a stupid way to run any organisation .

[ChrisB]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Chris, I have no wish to enter into a protracted argument but when well qualified professionals tell me that the system is being manipulated then I tend to accept their word. How our money (tolls) is spent is subject to a side agreement with various parties including the RYA. The DEFRA (NP) grant never fails to be conditional so wouldn't be able to bail 'navigation' out unless specified for that purpose. As it is about half of our tolls is syphoned off for overheads.

Peter, neither do I, you have run Businesses in the Broads, would you have done so with two accounts that never the twain should meet?

[dnks34]

If the BA had shareholders they would probably get fleeced along with the Toll Payers. 

[JennyMorgan]

Chris, in my experience it is not uncommon to have several accounts, even if only on paper. 

I don't have a problem with the BA having several accounts, indeed it seems only right and proper to me. Theoretically it should ensure that money is used as intended. Unfortunately there appears to be a objectionable level of obfuscation though.

[JennyMorgan]

41 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

If the BA had shareholders they would probably get fleeced along with the Toll Payers. 

To be honest I don't think that we are fleeced as such. 

[dnks34]

25 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

To be honest I don't think that we are fleeced as such. 

Bled dry? Milked? 

[marshman]

I actually think that it is still a worthwhile and good value addition to my general boating costs - it will take more than that to make fall out of love with the Broads

There are better things to get excited about....!!

[dnks34]

The rest of the country has been suffering austerity which must have missed Yare House completely!

It may not seem an unreasonable proposal but I certainly dont want to see my boating costs increase as a result of it. Its simply not necessary. 

I would sooner see some moorings with electric, a loo block, some bins and whatever they intended for the visitor centre they could fit on a waterproof notice boad array.  Theres a cafe over the bridge! 

Theres nothing the building can bring to school children that couldnt be achieved at Whitlingham. 

[marshman]

To be fair that is your opinion - there are others who do see the benefit. As for costings and where it is sourced, could we not just wait and see?

[grendel]

we could wait and see, but then if anything is amiss - it could well be too late to do anything about it.

[Paul]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

we could wait and see, but then if anything is amiss - it could well be too late to do anything about it.

nail firmly and squarely hit. 

we waited to see if Hilter really would invade Poland

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, dnks34 said:

The rest of the country has been suffering austerity which must have missed Yare House completely!

It may not seem an unreasonable proposal but I certainly dont want to see my boating costs increase as a result of it. Its simply not necessary. 

I would sooner see some moorings with electric, a loo block, some bins and whatever they intended for the visitor centre they could fit on a waterproof notice boad array.  Theres a cafe over the bridge! 

Theres nothing the building can bring to school children that couldnt be achieved at Whitlingham. 

Or How Hill or even their own class rooms.

[smellyloo]

I often drive from Norwich to Winterton via Acle and look forward to crossing the Acle Dam.

I always get a buzz crossing over water and catching a glimpse of the boats, So for me this is an ideal place to build an eye catching, iconic visitor centre. I suspect it would draw the attention of many passing motorists who would then take a nosey.

So for me this is a far better location than Whitlingham or Howe Hill which are really tucked away places, and hardly likely to attract passing trade.

If, however, as some seem to suggest we go for the cheap option of a  shed with bins & water hose then it will attract precicely nobody ..... except the passing boaters!

 

[TheQ]

15 hours ago, dnks34 said:

 

I would sooner see some moorings with electric, a loo block, some bins and whatever they intended for the visitor centre they could fit on a waterproof notice boad array.  Theres a cafe over the bridge! 

 

What where?

[dnks34]

https://www.pedrosrestaurants.co.uk/acle/

and dont forget the Bridge does food to!

2 hours ago, smellyloo said:

I often drive from Norwich to Winterton via Acle and look forward to crossing the Acle Dam.

I always get a buzz crossing over water and catching a glimpse of the boats, So for me this is an ideal place to build an eye catching, iconic visitor centre. I suspect it would draw the attention of many passing motorists who would then take a nosey.

So for me this is a far better location than Whitlingham or Howe Hill which are really tucked away places, and hardly likely to attract passing trade.

If, however, as some seem to suggest we go for the cheap option of a  shed with bins & water hose then it will attract precicely nobody ..... except the passing boaters!

 

I would think that prime waterside plots such as this one at Acle should and in this case would be put to better use providing for the boating industry, the life blood of waterways.  Without which there would be even less visitors to spend 10 minutes in a visitor centre, buy an overpriced coffee and a poshly named sandwich, then realise theres not much going on and get back in their car and head off to Roys to spend some money.  If the Broads Authority havent realised by now that Visitor Centres are not very interesting to all people then I dont know what to say.

I also dont think Whitlingham is tucked away, easily accessible from the A47, car parking, cafe and I think importantly away from a dangerous main road with poor access and slap bang at the edge of a lake with quite a nice safe walk with watersports going on.  

What could be better. 

How Hill I agree is very tucked away. 

 

[Baitrunner]

The problem with whittlingham is river access is nigh on impossible. With space for maybe 4 reasonable sized well moored boats its virtually impossible to get to other than by car. And given a couple of the moored boats will be liveaboards (and I have no grip with them, they just manage to get there first and no insinuation they overstay the 24 hrs) I can't see much benefit to either boat tourists or boat owners in the moorings there. It needs more moorings.

im sure the same might end up at Acle.

 

[dnks34]

Now that would be a worthwhile project in my opinion, increasing moorings at Whitlingham, 

[smellyloo]

On 10/08/2018 at 11:43, dnks34 said:

I would think that prime waterside plots such as this one at Acle should and in this case would be put to better use providing for the boating industry, the life blood of waterways.  Without which there would be even less visitors to spend 10 minutes in a visitor centre, buy an overpriced coffee and a poshly named sandwich, then realise theres not much going on and get back in their car and head off to Roys to spend some money.  If the Broads Authority havent realised by now that Visitor Centres are not very interesting to all people then I dont know what to say.

 

I would hope that a visitor centre would be designed to attract visitors, other than boaters, who new to the area might be encouraged to re visit  and maybe book a broadland holiday. For this to be achieved the visitor centre would need to be adjacent to a highway and there are very few suitable sites that allow motorists easy access to a waterside.

To be able to go inside a building, particularly in winter, with panoramic views of the river and relax in comfort, supping/eating whilst watching the world go by would be very appealing to me. Add to that other areas that can be used for a variety of other purposes and I suspect the visitor experience might last significantly longer than 10 minutes.

[marshman]

The NWT Visitor Centre on the main Norfolk Coast road is very very popular - and its not just twitchers who visit.

You might as well just accept that in the short term your "voice" is unlikely to be listened too! I think you have stated your case very well indeed, but there are others who might not agree and yet have a perfectly valid point of view to put across without the inevitable derision that seems to follow.