The Authority's Response To The Glover Report.

[Simondo]

9 minutes ago, vanessan said:

The right to navigate would remain but access would probably reduce slowly (ie through lack of dredging, weed clearing or tree pruning) leading to canoe/dinghy  access only and eventually nothing at all. 

Given the proposed wording could the BA reasonably argue that this is maintaining, improving and developing the said navigation?

 

5 minutes ago, Paladin said:

hat sounds very reasonable, doesn't it? But the dyke is becoming more and more neglected and soon even canoes won't be able to use it. Another bit ofthe navigation abandoned, even though the right to navigate will persist.

So have we any current comeback on this? and would the new wording not be better for us?

[JawsOrca]

Guld this stuff is so confusing and I'm not going to pretend for one moment I understand this but appreciate those fighting the fight. I clearly believe that something strange is going on with the BA and with JP but I've one question:

What has JP got to gain from restricting the rights of navigation and undermining the Broads? Surely he will want to be remembered for improving the broads whilst in office?

[vanessan]

5 minutes ago, Simondo said:

Given the proposed wording could the BA reasonably argue that this is maintaining, improving and developing the said navigation?

How could a navigation area that is being left to grow untended be classed as being maintained, improved or developed? I don’t think I understand what you are getting at.

[rightsaidfred]

6 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

Guld this stuff is so confusing and I'm not going to pretend for one moment I understand this but appreciate those fighting the fight. I clearly believe that something strange is going on with the BA and with JP but I've one question:

What has JP got to gain from restricting the rights of navigation and undermining the Broads? Surely he will want to be remembered for improving the broads whilst in office?

Or gaining full status as a National Park

Fred

[vanessan]

8 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

Guld this stuff is so confusing and I'm not going to pretend for one moment I understand this but appreciate those fighting the fight. I clearly believe that something strange is going on with the BA and with JP but I've one question:

What has JP got to gain from restricting the rights of navigation and undermining the Broads? Surely he will want to be remembered for improving the broads whilst in office?

But improving the Broads for whom?

[Paladin]

19 minutes ago, grendel said:

that would be good for the hikers then

Only if they come armed with very sharp machetes!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

I thought it was the whole Broads Authority, not just the chairman.

Theoretically but events suggest otherwise. The Authority might well choose it chairman, in principle, but let's put it another way, who chooses, or at least has a great deal of input into the choice of the members? 

[Paladin]

21 minutes ago, Simondo said:

So have we any current comeback on this? and would the new wording not be better for us?

No, it was the Authority's response to a consultation. I've seen several responses, none of which was complimentary about the Authority and the Authority has no comeback on them, either. 'Comeback' time is when the result of the review is published.

Is the proposed wording any better? If you're a boater, no, it isn't in my opinion. If your interests lie elsewhere, perhaps.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

No, the next question is "To whom is the chairman answerable?"

No, it's who controls the chairman? I could tell you!

[Paladin]

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Theoretically but events suggest otherwise. The Authority might well choose it chairman, in principle, but let's put it another way, who chooses, or at least has a great deal of input into the choice of the members? 

JM, once again your bias is showing. While there may be influence over the Secretary of State appointees, I think that Broadland District Council has demonstrated that the local authorities are not so easily swayed.

[JennyMorgan]

Just now, Paladin said:

JM, once again your bias is showing. While there may be influence over the Secretary of State appointees, I think that Broadland District Council has demonstrated that the local authorities are not so easily swayed.

Very true, but there have been recent moves to exclude local authority members. Indeed James Knight has been manouvered out of the door and Lana Hempsell only just managed to hang in there. As has been suggested elsewhere 'he' is growing bolder'. 

 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Very true, but there have been recent moves to exclude local authority members. Indeed James Knight has been manouvered out of the door and Lana Hempsell only just managed to hang in there. As has been suggested elsewhere 'he' is growing bolder'.

James Knight wasn't a local authority appointee and was rather the author of his own fate. He has decided to give up the fight, on financial grounds. It is not for me to comment further on his decision.

That Lana remains on the BA is testament to my comment that her local authority will not be bullied.

However, there is no doubt that the local authority members are under threat. This is from the Authority's response: "The Broads Authority’s Board should be reduced in size to between 9 and 12 Members all of whom are appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their skills and knowledge so that they are equipped to make objective decisions in the best interest of the area."

I would have thought those with the local knowledge to make objective decisions in the best interests of the area are those who have been elected by local residents to do exactly that.

[JennyMorgan]

You are quite right about James, my comment was quickly and poorly worded but nevertheless made in order to illustrate the apparent fact that if your face does not fit then, one way or another, then you'll be out.  

[MauriceMynah]

15 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I would have thought those with the local knowledge to make objective decisions in the best interests of the area are those who have been elected by local residents to do exactly that.

Agreed!

 

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

made in order to illustrate the apparent fact that if your face does not fit then, one way or another, then you'll be out

Best not write National Pike articles then !!  If you say balls to the witch doctor, expect to wake up with warts!

 

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

4 hours ago, grendel said:

so do we know who this mythical being might be?

Yes Michael Gove Secretary of State DEFRA

I think you will find that Mr Gove is very much otherwise occupied today, and may well be in the months to come!

This is a very interesting forum discussion and I very much appreciate all contributions, including those who have offered professional advice. I think overall, that it shows that JM is quite right to keep banging his drum. We tend to forget that he was himself, a member of the navigation committee of the B.A.

Speaking as a "Broadsman" (which used to be defined by the River Commissioners as a Yachtsman) I have a general question :

What do you call "the navigation"? I have made the point before that today, we are only using about a third of the navigations which existed in Norfolk and Suffolk in the early 1800's. So when you pay your annual river toll, you have the right to navigate "The Norfolk Broads".

Does this mean the miles of navigable water which exist today, or does "as the Authority sees fit" mean that we will end up cruising the Yare, the Bure, the Ant and the Waveney while other areas will be allowed to "fall into dis-use" under increasing pressure from all the ramblers, cyclists, twitchers, canoodlers and little Curly Ramshorn Snail - huggers?

I get the distinct impression that the lack of water under Potter Heigham and Wroxham bridges may well suit the agenda of other interested factions in future and this is maybe what we should be guarding against. Such a situation may well suit the aspirations of "National Park" thinking but it does not protect what I think of as navigation.

I would very much like to know what Dr Packman actually defines as "navigation". If the navigable area of the Broads should be allowed to decrease, then so should the annual river toll.

 

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Best not write National Pike articles then !!  If you say balls to the witch doctor, expect to wake up with warts!

 

Or at least being shown the door for which there is plenty of evidence to show that it happens, e.g. the outspoken Allan Mallett, one time vice chairman of the Authority. 

[Simondo]

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I would very much like to know what Dr Packman actually defines as "navigation". If the navigable area of the Broads should be allowed to decrease, then so should the annual river toll. 

I thought the navigation area is set out in the BA Act 1988 and can only be changed by a formal process which the BA can propose?

[JennyMorgan]

38 minutes ago, Simondo said:

I thought the navigation area is set out in the BA Act 1988 and can only be changed by a formal process which the BA can propose?

Quite right, and the Authority is at present duty bound to maintain it. However the wording of the Glover Response appears to make it quite clear that the Authority now seeks to be able to limit maintenance to what it, the Authority, decides and declares to be reasonable. In other words a wriggle out clause that would allow the Authority to decide that there is no reasonable need to dredge a particular area of water thus exclusion by abandonment.  Why else would the Authority seek to restrict maintenance to what it considers reasonable? The obvious conclusion has to be that it would ignore that that it does not consider reasonable to maintain, for whatever reason, perhaps Sandford by the back door? 

[Simondo]

38 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Quite right, and the Authority is at present duty bound to maintain it. However the wording of the Glover Response appears to make it quite clear that the Authority now seeks to be able to limit maintenance to what it, the Authority, decides and declares to be reasonable. In other words a wriggle out clause that would allow the Authority to decide that there is no reasonable need to dredge a particular area of water thus exclusion by abandonment.  Why else would the Authority seek to restrict maintenance to what it considers reasonable? The obvious conclusion has to be that it would ignore that that it does not consider reasonable to maintain, for whatever reason, perhaps Sandford by the back door? 

I fully understand what you are saying but you are being selective with your words in the proposed amended clause. You have to use maintenance alongside 'improvement and development' (inclusive). So to use your analogy if the Authority decide there is no reasonable need to dredge a particular area surely that CANNOT be argued with any amount of reasonableness to be an improvement or development. I’ve mentioned this a few times as have others am I misreading it?

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Simondo said:

I thought the navigation area is set out in the BA Act 1988 and can only be changed by a formal process which the BA can propose?

That's as may be, but it is Dr Packman who is now seeking to circumvent that act by adding a significant phrase in his response to the Glover report.

He now suggests that he is not just responsible for the interests of navigation as laid down in the act but seeks to introduce the codicil that that responsibility will only be discharged as he sees fit. I see this as an insidious and political manoeuvre and JM is quite right to draw our attention to it.

[Simondo]

8 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

He now suggests that he is not just responsible for the interests of navigation as laid down in the act but seeks to introduce the codicil that that responsibility will only be discharged as he sees fit. I see this as an insidious and political manoeuvre and JM is quite right to draw our attention to it.

I also think JM does good work in bringing to our attention these matters and have said that before. I have a differing opinion on this particular clause though and if that's what you are referring to in the quoted text above I don't see it.

[batrabill]

Let’s call a spade a spade. What JM does incredibly successfully is what phsychologists call ‘framing’. 

By representing the debate in the most extreme terms the debate is framed about how wicked JP is. 

This phrase being debated seems fairly innocuous to me, but now the debate is all about closing the navigation for hidden reasons. As young people would say what the flip?

This is paranoia based on mischief making. 

My personal concern is about the composition of the authority. I think that is worth worrying about. James Knight has made himself as unpopular as he can be so it’s hard to have much sympathy. But the composition of the authority is concerning. 

However, it does not mean that the authority is plotting the end of boating. That is loony tunes. 

[MauriceMynah]

Bill, are you not doing the same thing (framing) ?

We have been talking about his limiting navigation, not ending boating. Take the example I gave with Potter bridge and lets say that lack dredging is the cause . If he can give sufficient evidence that to do what is needed to restore the clearance of 20 years ago would cost so much, he could say it makes it economic sense to leave well alone. this begs the question of where lines should be drawn.

The above is, as I say an example.  

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, please note that I have included, verbatim, the wording of the BA's submission to the Glover Report. Agreed that I have highlighted areas that I believe to be worthy of concern but nevertheless the information is there, surely sufficient for those who wish to decide for themselves.

I would ask people to consider the campaign and conduct of the BA in relation to its quest to be a national park. Experience suggests that if there is any latitude in legislation or policy then it will be taken advantage of.  Does that make Dr Packman wicked? Not a question that had crossed my mind. Clever certainly, sometimes manipulative,  not to be trusted in my opinion, but wicked, your words not mine. 

[batrabill]

Re-framing to balance a quite deliberate spin.