Jump to content

Time To Comment!


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

I previously mentioned a draft document that was circulated within Yare House, it is now in the public domain therefor I feel free to post it:

"(b) Comment: The Broads Authority is a navigation and harbour authority with responsibility for maintaining and
improving the waterways under Section 10 of the Broads Act. Its third purpose is to manage the Broads for the
purpose of ’protecting the interests of navigation’. This purpose was considered essential and appropriate in an era
now long gone when coasters brought their commercial cargoes up into Norwich, but the city is no longer a port
and now the primary use of the waterways is recreational boating. This could be seen as falling primarily under the
second purpose and it may be appropriate to review the wording of the purposes and consider whether the duty to
maintain the navigation area should be given greater prominence.
For consideration: Whether to review the Authority’s responsibilities in relation to the recreational use of the
waterways, protecting the interests of navigation and maintaining the navigation area in a way so the wording of
the purposes better serves the modern use of the waterways and interests of all those with a stake in the Broads.     

This is the section that covers the BA's wish to cease to run a Harbour Authority." Once again I ask why should the Authority wish to cease being a navigation authority? Why should it wish to lose the Authority's third purpose? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did say long ago that the BA want the Broads to be a full NP, and was widely ridiculed for it. Also, we had the usual claim that because of whatever, it could never happen, well think again. I stand by what i said some years back on this subject, sandford WILL come in soon, and when it does, look out.  

Ridicule me if you want, but don`t be surprised if i cam back in a few years and say "i told you so".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scaniaman said:

My opinion of  chief executives is "that they should manage the operation of a company or body.It is the responsibility of the Chairperson to provide direction and leadership. Perhaps JP is overplaying his authority.

paul

He`s been doing that for years, and too many of the **** lickers in the BA have been too scared to stand up to him. That`s why now if somebody DOES stand up to him, they get ousted.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, marshman said:

The son is proving even more obdurate than the father and instead of wasting  time worrying about what might be, perhaps we should be more concerned about what is actually happening!

I think you need to explain that remark please, as I am not sure to whom you refer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, marshman said:

You try cruising up towards Honing these days!!

The son is proving even more obdurate than the father and instead of wasting  time worrying about what might be, perhaps we should be more concerned about what is actually happening! The trouble is no one will actually confront these people and as a result they actually get away with it, and then its too late!! (To be fair that is beyond the BA's remit!! )

perhaps we should be more concerned about what is actually happening!

Exactly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ownership of the NW&D Canal between the Dilham Branch and Honing Lock has been in dispute for a long time but has generally remained open for canoes with landing generally frowned upon, but according to those in the area, there have been attempts to discourage even this of late. 

The point I was trying to highlight is once again we are worrying about something which probably will never happen, and even if it did occur is unlikely to have the impact the doomsters think,  whereas right under our noses this is already happening through private landowners and no one seems to want to stop it happening! ( Perhaps some cannot see any connection either! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, you and I both know that the present Broads Bill presents the Broads Authority with three core responsibilities as opposed to the two that national parks proper have on the statute books. It is that third responsibility, navigation, that sets the Broads apart from the Sandford Principle, that being that conservation takes precedent. We both know that, agreed? Now, very clearly, Dr Packman wishes to absorb recreational boating, and its requirements into 'recreation' thus removing navigation as the crucial third requirement. It's how it is in the Lakes District. Take away that third core responsibility and the door is open to the Broads being a National Park with the Sandford Principle. Can't make it any more plain than that, If you can bring yourself to accept that, then ask yourself why would Dr Packman wish to make this change? The answer, to most of us, is abundantly  clear, CONTROL. Not only that but he would lose the requirements associated with being a Harbour Authority. Do you really and honestly believe that that would be good for Broadland? Do you not accept that it would bring fundamental changes to the Broads? Dr Packman has very clearly laid his cards on the table, he couldn't make his intentions any more clear if he tried! Is that really what you want for the Broads? 

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

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

...why would Dr Packman wish to make this change?

I have asked that explicit question of the Authority members. I don't expect to get any replies.

"Attempts to remove that general duty [of protecting the interests of navigation], or to bury it within another, to bring the duties in line with those of national parks, simply reinforces the suspicion that, despite all protestations to the contrary, the executive and members of the Broads Authority still harbour ambitions for the Broads to become legally a national park. What other reason could there possibly be?"

I must point out, though, that, while the covering report is by the CEO, the Draft Response to the National Park Review is the result of two meetings of the Chairs' Group (and the CEO), which, I understand, is a group comprised of chairs and vice-chairs of committees, the role of which is to support the CEO. Make of that what you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Peter, the problem here is only going to be debatable if we keep away from terms like "poodles". I fully understand and of course agree with your sentiments, but we need to try to keep to non inflammatory language. Sorry mate, but that's how I see it.

 

 

The problem with trying to be polite and not "upsetting people with language" is that when people ARE nice and polite, it achieves NOTHING, and you never get anywhere because authority knows you won`t want to upset anybody. My own experiences tells me that people in authority will only learn from hard actions and words, that way they know they will have to be very careful about what they want to do. 

Life in this country has become a life of extremes, where nobody wants to find a middle ground, and will abuse authority til they get what they want, and then the public will be told "it`s in the interests of the public" when in reality, it`s only in the interests of a few in authority.

I still say, and i hope i`m not alone, in believing the BA is long overdue for a radical change, so that it becomes an elected authority that is run by local residents, business, and local leisure groups. That way, it "should" be run for the best interests of the broads themselves.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

I still say, and i hope i`m not alone, in believing the BA is long overdue for a radical change, so that it becomes an elected authority that is run by local residents, business, and local leisure groups. That way, it "should" be run for the best interests of the broads themselves.

 

That aspiration is painted with a very broad brush. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard the call for an elected authority, but I have never seen a detailed proposal of exactly who the electorate would be.

There are very few residents of the executive area, it would be impossible to ensure that businesses and local leisure groups would be adequately represented (without rigging the vote). Would it be expected that, as an elected authority, they could impose and collect rates from the residents, etc., etc? So many questions, so few answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Paladin, I had got as far as typing

"No SpeedTriple, I cannot agree with that. An elected BA is not the way forwards. Elected by whom? Those who live there? Those who own boats there? Those who regularly hire boats there? Twitchers? Holders of rod licenses? There is an enormous list of “stakeholders” each with their own agenda, each with their own priorities. Power would go to the likes of the RSPB who have massive membership. Boat owners would be quite a small minority, riverside residents even smaller. Disaster would be the result as far as our needs went."

by the time you had replied.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An elected authority would be the WORST thing that could happen to the Broads!

You have only to look at the Brexit issue to see that - ask most of the people to make a decision and you can see that they may not always get it right! It is not so much that that they cannot make the right decision but the information fed to them is often wrong and it is that that can lead to the wrong decision. And sadly, it is those who could muster enough votes from their own pressure groups etc who may get elected - ok that may mean they know a lot about what they spout about most, but do they know enough about the rest or indeed could they even organise a p*ss up in a brewery? Probably not!

And then you come to the worst problem, that which my erstwhile name sake MM has so eloquently alluded to! I would certainly ban from voting all those who did not live here  - that premise would eliminate most of you lot! But seriously, how on earth could you possibly decide who could and could not vote?

Like it or not, if you got rid of the BA you would get as an alternative a like minded quango, and the only positive thing is that you  should have a body you can work with. The trouble is these days, we all believe that, what we as individuals believe, is often the best solution and we also have the power to express it and spread our beliefs, often mistaken in retrospect, to others. 

Listening to all comments made is the big problem with most voluntary organisations - we just cannot accommodate every single idea that everybody promotes and without leadership you just end up wallowing in thick treacle never getting anywhere. Somewhere somehow you really do have to have someone who can manage and run an organisation - but you can guarantee that someone won't like the decisions he makes!!

Sounds a bit like the BA really!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marshman said:

 Somewhere somehow you really do have to have someone who can manage and run an organisation - but you can guarantee that someone won't like the decisions he makes!!

Sounds a bit like the BA really!!

And here I was, thinking it was the members who made the decisions. Silly old me!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves why people are calling for elections. If I am yer average, typical voter then I don't generally vote people in, I tend to vote people out. In the case of the the Authority, back in the days of Professor Aitken Clark (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/19/michael-aitken-obituary) I don't recollect any calls for elections, there was no need. Are we really asking for the ability to elect, or are we asking for the ability to get rid of people who we perceive to be wrongly employed or positioned? 

Who should be able to vote? Members of relevant clubs and people who live and work here. It would be up to each club or association to vote for a representative. Such elections have to be entirely independent of the BA and more so the BA CEO.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

Who should be able to vote? Members of relevant clubs and people who live and work here. It would be up to each club or association to vote for a representative. Such elections have to be entirely independent of the BA and more so the BA CEO.

That seems to be the unanswerable question. How many members of "relevant clubs" actually live in the Broads. I am such a member and I have a boat, but I live about 200 yards outside the Broads. Do I get a vote?

I don't actually think that elections are the answer. I think the Landscapes Review is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get our points across. We can moan all we like on here, and we achieve absolutely nothing. Put those concerns into the review and they WILL be read. How much notice will be taken of them I don't know, but I've got my draft ready to top-and-tail and submit.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
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.

  • Sponsors

    Norfolk Broads Network is run by volunteers - You can help us run it by making a donation

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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