Potter Heigham Bridge

[ChrisB]

As seas warm so they expand. The water takes up more space adding to rising sea levels.

[rightsaidfred]

29 minutes ago, grendel said:

ah but its not called global warming any more - its just climate change - this means that it can get hotter - or colder. for example if the gulf stream ceased to flow, we would be at temperatures more experienced in Canada and Moscow- ie much colder winters.

the gulf stream is driven by the atlantic conveyor, of which reports have said it is slowing - this is a conveyor of cold water from the north atlantic running a deep cold current down to australia, which then via umpteen other ocean currents back to feed the gulf stream. climate change could change these patterns of weather inducing currents, there is evidence the atlantic conveyor has stopped before due to an influx of fresh water from the great lakes, so who knows really.

And that sums up mans puny attempts at controlling nature, climate change has always been the current warming cycle is just one small part.

Fred

[Smoggy]

Both the bridge and the rising sea levels are a good thing, I look forward to cruising into horsey harbour from sea, the windmill would make a good lighthouse...

[ChrisB]

17 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Both the bridge and the rising sea levels are a good thing, I look forward to cruising into horsey harbour from sea, the windmill would make a good lighthouse...

And Hickling could be one great Superyacht marina with a fast Cat service to Holland.

[MauriceMynah]

H If the water permanently freezes under the bridge I'm really stuffed!

[BroadAmbition]

If the water freezes anywhere, we are stuffed

Griff

[grendel]

just make sure if you get stuck, you get iced in at a pub.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

4.  Do nothing and eventually let the Hickling area become un-navigable. This would be the preferred option by the "Natural England", the RSPB and of course the BA

I notice, for whatever reason, that the R.S.P.B. seems to be almost as vilified on this forum as the Broads Authority, but I'm happy to have been a member of the R.S.P.B. (and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust too) for more than twenty years. I have read the RSPB's regular magazines, for that same amount of time, but... For the life of me, I cannot remember any article in either 'Natures Home' and 'Birds' nor in any of their other publications, where there is any stated 'preference' that the Hickling area, or any other part of the navigable broads for that matter, should become un-navigable.

  The file below, would appear to suggest that rather than preferring that Hickling Broad became un-navigable, the Broads Authority and Natural England have in fact worked together to keep the boating channel clear of weed growth. I believe too, that a programme of dredging was embarked upon in winter 2016 by the Broads Authority (with the agreement of Natural England) on the boating channel and continued this year around the sailing club and boat dyke area, further dredging is planned for Hickling Broad this coming winter too.

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/update-on-water-plant-management-at-hickling-broad

Somehow or other, I must have missed it. So please, If anyone could point me in the right direction, to where I might find any paper or article by the RSPB, stating that they would prefer the 'Upper Thurne Broads' to become un-navigable, I would be most grateful.

One last thing... For anyone who loves the flora & fauna of the Norfolk Broads and fancies a few hours stretching your legs, in beautiful surroundings, away from the boat. I can heartily recommend the RSPB's reserves at 'Strumpshaw Fen' and 'Surlingham Church Marsh'. Also, the Norfolk Wildlife Trust's reserve at 'Hickling Broad' is an absolute gem and within easy walking distance of the 'Pleasure Boat Inn' moorings...

[marshman]

Andrew - there isn't!!

But it won't be long before someone points out that that paper is written by the BA and is total codswallop! ( In fact its pretty much accurate and what it fails to say in addition, is that prior to those years they had spent two winters dredging Heigham Sound as well so the total spend has been fairly substantial - hardly the action of an Authority determined to close the navigation! )

You do have to accept that there are a lot of "chips" on shoulders amongst some of the detractors and every now and again, one has to contradict them, just to keep the thread running a bit longer!!

Incidentally, virtually everything the BA do on the rivers and Broads has to now be approved by Natural England and indeed in some cases the Forestry Commission - yet any department of seat polishers with jobs and pensions to justify!!!

 

 

[Guest]

The humerous bit is, apart from the illogical vilification of the RSPB, is that the two percieved 'villains of the piece' the Broads Authority & Natural England are both 'agencies' of DEFRA, a government department. So, the threat, real or imagined, to navigation on the upper Thurne broads is all a government conspiracy... I believe the National Parks come under the DEFRA umbrella too. Oh dear, it just gets worse...

[marshman]

The good thing Andrew at the end of the day, things take a long time to happen, especially around here and as the Broads are not hugely different over the last 50 years or so, except of course the obvious, then it will always take a long time , and way beyond what I will ever see!

And its still a great place to be!!!

[MauriceMynah]

Ok Kingfisher666,  I do understand your point but please allow me to explain the perspective as I see it, my opinion.

I was the only one in this particular thread to mention the RSPB.

In my opinion which I developed over the years from reading various things from various sources, is that the RSPB has become far more a political pressure group than it's origins had intended. Like any organisation, it has within it's membership, various levels of vociferousness.

Where the RSPB differs from so many other organisations, is firstly the size of it's membership, second, the obvious good intentions it's name and origins indicate, and third, the royal warrant. Again it is my opinion that whilst any one, or even two of those conditions might not be a problem, to have all three acting within a pressure group, makes it incredibly powerful.  

If given the choice between an area being a holiday hotspot or a bird sanctuary, which do you think the RSPB would favour, and if the latter could be achieved by doing nothing, how easy would it be. Logically therefore the RSPB could, if they wished, encourage "nothing" to be done. It is my opinion that the RSPB would take that route.

That covers the RSPB, Now to the other two, the Broads Authority and Natural England. I shall take Natural England first. I know little of this department except that the first thing I came across was their plan to let the Happisburg  cliff face fall into the sea and not only "not defend it", but stop anybody else try to do so.  They seemed not to care that people lived there, that they had their houses there. No! Those people counted for nothing. I know little else of what they have done, but that was enough for me.

Now, the BA.  I am not against the BA. I am not against Dr Packman. Hells teeth, I was the one that started the thread asking what the membership of this forum could do to help them. I am all for interested parties doing whatever they can to assist the BA in whatever way the BA suggests.

That is not saying I agree with everything they do, far from it, and when they do something I disagree with I voice my disapproval, usually on this forum. At the moment especially if the problem with Potter bridge is lack of dredging, and that dredging is a BA responsibility, is it unreasonable for me to shout out about it.

One other point I would make. "Conspiracy Theory" No, I think not.  It's more a case of several departments being in the "same boat". I doubt if there is a government department not under the pains of "spending cuts". Doing nothing is significantly cheaper than doing something. Can it really be so surprising that the Acle bridge situation causes uproar when the lower reaches of the bure seem to be in such a poor state due to insufficient dredging.

Marina Quays was a major mooring place. Now there are warning signs saying it's dangerous to do so. Why? Because it's too shallow at low water.

Sorry Marshman if all that was "Obvious" :-)

 

   

[ChrisB]

Kingfisher666. There is a book written by a much respected writer and journalist by the name of Ian Mitchell called "Isles of the West" . As the name suggests it is a study of Scotlands Western Isles that he travels in his Corribee.

It is available on kindle or paperback, I would recommend it to everyone who thinks the RSBP can do no wrong.

 

[rightsaidfred]

20 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Ok Kingfisher666,  I do understand your point but please allow me to explain the perspective as I see it, my opinion.

I was the only one in this particular thread to mention the RSPB.

In my opinion which I developed over the years from reading various things from various sources, is that the RSPB has become far more a political pressure group than it's origins had intended. Like any organisation, it has within it's membership, various levels of vociferousness.

Where the RSPB differs from so many other organisations, is firstly the size of it's membership, second, the obvious good intentions it's name and origins indicate, and third, the royal warrant. Again it is my opinion that whilst any one, or even two of those conditions might not be a problem, to have all three acting within a pressure group, makes it incredibly powerful.  

If given the choice between an area being a holiday hotspot or a bird sanctuary, which do you think the RSPB would favour, and if the latter could be achieved by doing nothing, how easy would it be. Logically therefore the RSPB could, if they wished, encourage "nothing" to be done. It is my opinion that the RSPB would take that route.

That covers the RSPB, Now to the other two, the Broads Authority and Natural England. I shall take Natural England first. I know little of this department except that the first thing I came across was their plan to let the Happisburg  cliff face fall into the sea and not only "not defend it", but stop anybody else try to do so.  They seemed not to care that people lived there, that they had their houses there. No! Those people counted for nothing. I know little else of what they have done, but that was enough for me.

Now, the BA.  I am not against the BA. I am not against Dr Packman. Hells teeth, I was the one that started the thread asking what the membership of this forum could do to help them. I am all for interested parties doing whatever they can to assist the BA in whatever way the BA suggests.

That is not saying I agree with everything they do, far from it, and when they do something I disagree with I voice my disapproval, usually on this forum. At the moment especially if the problem with Potter bridge is lack of dredging, and that dredging is a BA responsibility, is it unreasonable for me to shout out about it.

One other point I would make. "Conspiracy Theory" No, I think not.  It's more a case of several departments being in the "same boat". I doubt if there is a government department not under the pains of "spending cuts". Doing nothing is significantly cheaper than doing something. Can it really be so surprising that the Acle bridge situation causes uproar when the lower reaches of the bure seem to be in such a poor state due to insufficient dredging.

Marina Quays was a major mooring place. Now there are warning signs saying it's dangerous to do so. Why? Because it's too shallow at low water.

Sorry Marshman if all that was "Obvious" :-)

 

   

MM while I largely agree with your thoughts I don't think it is that simple, yes like all large organisations there is a disparity in the RSPB  between its original aims and membership and what the hierarchy now deem to be their position of power and legacy,  with Natural England the clue is in the title and unfortunately creates a blinkered approach to what should be a balance between the needs of mankind and nature.

While like you I would like to see an improvement in the lower Bure as part of the regular maintenance programme it is a matter of conjecture whether that would improve the situation at Potter Heigham or not, as with all things in life where public money is involved its a balance between cost and benefit and sadly in my opinion any scheme to change things will not happen as the cost will be more than any perceived benefit to the economy local or national, the inconvenience to a few boaters me included would not be seen as sufficient justification for any change to the existing layout at the bridge as the navigation is still open.

Fred

[smellyloo]

I suspect most broads sailing cruisers can navigate past the bridge as can rowing boats and day boats so I really can't see that there is a problem.

Have you noticed that social media transforms opinions into facts? 

[batrabill]

53 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Ok Kingfisher666,  I do understand your point but please allow me to explain the perspective as I see it, my opinion.

I was the only one in this particular thread to mention the RSPB.

In my opinion which I developed over the years from reading various things from various sources, is that the RSPB has become far more a political pressure group than it's origins had intended. Like any organisation, it has within it's membership, various levels of vociferousness.

Where the RSPB differs from so many other organisations, is firstly the size of it's membership, second, the obvious good intentions it's name and origins indicate, and third, the royal warrant. Again it is my opinion that whilst any one, or even two of those conditions might not be a problem, to have all three acting within a pressure group, makes it incredibly powerful.  

If given the choice between an area being a holiday hotspot or a bird sanctuary, which do you think the RSPB would favour, and if the latter could be achieved by doing nothing, how easy would it be. Logically therefore the RSPB could, if they wished, encourage "nothing" to be done. It is my opinion that the RSPB would take that route.

That covers the RSPB, Now to the other two, the Broads Authority and Natural England. I shall take Natural England first. I know little of this department except that the first thing I came across was their plan to let the Happisburg  cliff face fall into the sea and not only "not defend it", but stop anybody else try to do so.  They seemed not to care that people lived there, that they had their houses there. No! Those people counted for nothing. I know little else of what they have done, but that was enough for me.

Now, the BA.  I am not against the BA. I am not against Dr Packman. Hells teeth, I was the one that started the thread asking what the membership of this forum could do to help them. I am all for interested parties doing whatever they can to assist the BA in whatever way the BA suggests.

That is not saying I agree with everything they do, far from it, and when they do something I disagree with I voice my disapproval, usually on this forum. At the moment especially if the problem with Potter bridge is lack of dredging, and that dredging is a BA responsibility, is it unreasonable for me to shout out about it.

One other point I would make. "Conspiracy Theory" No, I think not.  It's more a case of several departments being in the "same boat". I doubt if there is a government department not under the pains of "spending cuts". Doing nothing is significantly cheaper than doing something. Can it really be so surprising that the Acle bridge situation causes uproar when the lower reaches of the bure seem to be in such a poor state due to insufficient dredging.

Marina Quays was a major mooring place. Now there are warning signs saying it's dangerous to do so. Why? Because it's too shallow at low water.

Sorry Marshman if all that was "Obvious" :-)

 

   

Interesting MM. While a lot of what you say is probably correct, you post does illustrate how if you list all the negatives you can create an impression that is very negative. It's the same in any area, list all the cases where the police have "failed" and you create an impression they are "failing".

I say "probably correct" because there are many things that are not proved.

1. Dredging the lower Bure will lower the water level at PH bridge. I'm not sure anyone can prove that is true. The conditions in the system have changed so much over time that you are not comparing like with like.

2.|"The problem at PH is lack of dredging" - see above.

3. Happisburg. Well thats a complex one. Theres a huge area of sand that is being washed into the sea. Opinion differs as to whether its saveable or with saving. I do not see that whatever NI do in that case has any bearing on anything else, and why if you don't like what they are doing there it means everything else is bad?

I don't agree with much of what you have written above, but on the whole I find your contributions t debates very interesting and useful. The first will not change the second.

4. Choice between Holiday hot spot and bird sanctuary. Not the issue, its both a holiday hotspot and a bird sanctuary and therefore you would expect the RSPB response to be much more nuanced than this false binary choice. This is often used against the BA "choose between nature and boats" and reinforced by the Sandford myth. In fact all these organisations have to constantly balance different and often competing pressures. 

5. Natural England. The clue is in the name. But Human England are doing a bloody good job of messing the place up, and thanks to a lot of do-gooders like sensible politicians and organisations both public and private, he mess we humans make is held in check by regulations and counter pressure to preserve what we have.

6. Marina Quays - a question, was it never dredged before? Is it possible no one is bothering because no one is using it?

Don't want to come across as aggressive MM but had so time to kill so wanted to consider this in the round.

 

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Kingfisher666. There is a book written by a much respected writer and journalist by the name of Ian Mitchell called "Isles of the West" . As the name suggests it is a study of Scotlands Western Isles that he travels in his Corribee.

It is available on kindle or paperback, I would recommend it to everyone who thinks the RSBP can do no wrong.

 

Thank you for the book recommendation, I'll look out for it. But, even before I read it, I'm pretty much aware that no large organisation, however well meaning, is going to be 'whiter than white' and mistakes and wrong decisions have and will be made. But, on the whole, I consider them an organisation worth supporting.

[Smoggy]

I used to be an rspb member but cancelled as I felt they were getting to big for their boots and much too poweful, I don't have much respect for them nowadays.

[MauriceMynah]

BatraBill, You have not come across as aggressive in any way, and I thoroughly enjoy crossing swords with you as we both respect each others views when we differ. (I accept that "crossing swords" is tricky to do in a non aggressive way)

I must however take you to task on where you quote me as 

49 minutes ago, batrabill said:

2.|"The problem at PH is lack of dredging" - see above.

Where in fact I really said...

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

At the moment especially if the problem with Potter bridge is lack of dredging,

You also say

49 minutes ago, batrabill said:

your post does illustrate how if you list all the negatives you can create an impression that is very negative.

Yes I am aware of that trap, and it's one I do try to avoid, just sometimes I fail !!!

49 minutes ago, batrabill said:

4. Choice between Holiday hot spot and bird sanctuary. Not the issue, its both a holiday hotspot and a bird sanctuary and therefore you would expect the RSPB response to be much more nuanced than this false binary choice. This is often used against the BA "choose between nature and boats" and reinforced by the Sandford myth. In fact all these organisations have to constantly balance different and often competing pressures. 

Yes, ok I hold my hands up for that one, a bit naughty, but I wasn't sure of the best way of phrasing it. I agree it is, at the moment, both, but the fewer boats able to use the navigation, the more insignificant the minority who can, will become. That in turn will strengthen any argument in favour of closing it for those who might wish to.

Oh, and one last thing,  You too should sit a while on the "naughty step" for trying to bring the National Park issue in. Sandford myth indeed !!!

[batrabill]

2 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Yes, ok I hold my hands up for that one, a bit naughty, but I wasn't sure of the best way of phrasing it. I agree it is, at the moment, both, but the fewer boats able to use the navigation, the more insignificant the minority who can will become. That in turn will strengthen any argument in favour of closing it for those who might wish to.

I do want to be clear on my perspective here, I will fight to the death to preserve the right to sail on Hickling and Horsey. And while it is good to be on your guard against erosion of access I fail to see the conspiracy (even if t is a accidental conspiracy - ie the aims of BA NI and RSPB accidentally being similar by coincidence, not collusion)  that some here detect in the behaviour of some organisations.

ALL of them have to balance competing interests. On the whole I think the BA who I know quite a lot about, do OK. NI and the RSPB I know less about so am less able to comment. 

I do note your "if" MM, shouldn't have omitted it.

[Guest]

MauriceMynah, thank you for your reply. I think the assumption you make, that the RSPB would make a stark choice between either a 'holiday hotspot' or a 'bird sanctuary' and come out in favour of only the 'bird sanctuary' is wrong. You only have to look at the list of RSPB reserves, to know that both can and do co-exist well together, all around our country. In fact many reserves are 'holiday hotspots' in their own right and often add another 'attraction' to traditional tourist areas.

I'm pleased that the RSPB and NWT are quite 'powerful' in both a political and financial sense, this means that they can and do stand up against the unfettered development, we see today. You don't have to look far on the Norfolk Broads to see that, if a square metre can be built on, it will be. I believe it's known as 'creeping urbanisation' and the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads are not immune. But, at least we can be pretty much assured that the large areas, either owned or controlled by the RSPB, NWT and others, will remain recognisably as 'The Broads'. I would mention the 'mid Yare reserves' around Surlingham, Rockland, Strumpshaw, Buckenham. Or, the 'mid Bure reserves' from Woodbastwick to Upton Marshes. Or perhaps the Suffolk Wildlife Trusts, 'Carlton & Oulton marshes' reserves on the Waveney. I have mentioned just a few of the many more areas that conservation organisations hold in trust for us all to enjoy, around our beautiful Norfolk & Suffolk Broads.

[grendel]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Interesting MM. While a lot of what you say is probably correct, you post does illustrate how if you list all the negatives you can create an impression that is very negative. It's the same in any area, list all the cases where the police have "failed" and you create an impression they are "failing".

I say "probably correct" because there are many things that are not proved.

1. Dredging the lower Bure will lower the water level at PH bridge. I'm not sure anyone can prove that is true. The conditions in the system have changed so much over time that you are not comparing like with like.

2.|"The problem at PH is lack of dredging" - see above.

3. Happisburg. Well thats a complex one. Theres a huge area of sand that is being washed into the sea. Opinion differs as to whether its saveable or with saving. I do not see that whatever NI do in that case has any bearing on anything else, and why if you don't like what they are doing there it means everything else is bad?

I don't agree with much of what you have written above, but on the whole I find your contributions t debates very interesting and useful. The first will not change the second.

4. Choice between Holiday hot spot and bird sanctuary. Not the issue, its both a holiday hotspot and a bird sanctuary and therefore you would expect the RSPB response to be much more nuanced than this false binary choice. This is often used against the BA "choose between nature and boats" and reinforced by the Sandford myth. In fact all these organisations have to constantly balance different and often competing pressures. 

5. Natural England. The clue is in the name. But Human England are doing a bloody good job of messing the place up, and thanks to a lot of do-gooders like sensible politicians and organisations both public and private, he mess we humans make is held in check by regulations and counter pressure to preserve what we have.

6. Marina Quays - a question, was it never dredged before? Is it possible no one is bothering because no one is using it?

Don't want to come across as aggressive MM but had so time to kill so wanted to consider this in the round.

 

on balance you can also create an overall false positive impression by only listing all of the positives, or by only selectively disclaiming all of the negatives of the situation, so a balanced perception can only be formed by weighing all of the positives and negatives to achieve an opinion, so as such goes, both your version and MM's version can be considered and used to form an opinion, while maybe both , either , or neither could be skewed to a flavoured slant on the topic in hand.

[rightsaidfred]

7 minutes ago, grendel said:

on balance you can also create an overall false positive impression by only listing all of the positives, or by only selectively disclaiming all of the negatives of the situation, so a balanced perception can only be formed by weighing all of the positives and negatives to achieve an opinion, so as such goes, both your version and MM's version can be considered and used to form an opinion, while maybe both , either , or neither could be skewed to a flavoured slant on the topic in hand.

Very true especially when considering an issue that has a personal impact, the difficulty lies in standing back and taking a realistic impartial view rather than concentrating on the desired outcome.

Fred

[Vaughan]

I have always found it bizarre that we have a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and a Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals. But we only have a National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children.

58 minutes ago, kingfisher666 said:

I'm pleased that the RSPB and NWT are quite 'powerful' in both a political and financial sense, this means that they can and do stand up against the unfettered development, we see today. You don't have to look far on the Norfolk Broads to see that, if a square metre can be built on, it will be. I believe it's known as 'creeping urbanisation' and the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads are not immune.

I am touched by this, and had not considered this viewpoint before. I am one of the known objectors to the NDR and all the urban sprawl which goes with it and I am fearful that this can only get worse. If the wildlife reserves that Kingfisher has listed, will surely resist this urbanisation from happening on their land, then this approach may be the only way of saving large areas of rural Norfolk as we know it.

[Paul]

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Ok Kingfisher666,  I do understand your point but please allow me to explain the perspective as I see it, my opinion.

I was the only one in this particular thread to mention the RSPB.

In my opinion which I developed over the years from reading various things from various sources, is that the RSPB has become far more a political pressure group than it's origins had intended. Like any organisation, it has within it's membership, various levels of vociferousness.

Where the RSPB differs from so many other organisations, is firstly the size of it's membership, second, the obvious good intentions it's name and origins indicate, and third, the royal warrant. Again it is my opinion that whilst any one, or even two of those conditions might not be a problem, to have all three acting within a pressure group, makes it incredibly powerful.  

If given the choice between an area being a holiday hotspot or a bird sanctuary, which do you think the RSPB would favour, and if the latter could be achieved by doing nothing, how easy would it be. Logically therefore the RSPB could, if they wished, encourage "nothing" to be done. It is my opinion that the RSPB would take that route.

That covers the RSPB, Now to the other two, the Broads Authority and Natural England. I shall take Natural England first. I know little of this department except that the first thing I came across was their plan to let the Happisburg  cliff face fall into the sea and not only "not defend it", but stop anybody else try to do so.  They seemed not to care that people lived there, that they had their houses there. No! Those people counted for nothing. I know little else of what they have done, but that was enough for me.

Now, the BA.  I am not against the BA. I am not against Dr Packman. Hells teeth, I was the one that started the thread asking what the membership of this forum could do to help them. I am all for interested parties doing whatever they can to assist the BA in whatever way the BA suggests.

That is not saying I agree with everything they do, far from it, and when they do something I disagree with I voice my disapproval, usually on this forum. At the moment especially if the problem with Potter bridge is lack of dredging, and that dredging is a BA responsibility, is it unreasonable for me to shout out about it.

One other point I would make. "Conspiracy Theory" No, I think not.  It's more a case of several departments being in the "same boat". I doubt if there is a government department not under the pains of "spending cuts". Doing nothing is significantly cheaper than doing something. Can it really be so surprising that the Acle bridge situation causes uproar when the lower reaches of the bure seem to be in such a poor state due to insufficient dredging.

Marina Quays was a major mooring place. Now there are warning signs saying it's dangerous to do so. Why? Because it's too shallow at low water.

Sorry Marshman if all that was "Obvious" :-)

 

   

One of the best posts I have read on this, or any other forum.