The Authority's Response To The Glover Report.

[marshman]

If they had even the vaguest intention of closing down the area above Potter, then I wonder why over most of the last 10 winters, have they done so much dredging up there?

I know - its just to lull us all into a false sense of security!!!!

[batrabill]

I think you have to accept that john Packman’s plan is so cunning and so secret he doesn’t even understand it himself. 

[JennyMorgan]

28 minutes ago, marshman said:

If they had even the vaguest intention of closing down the area above Potter, then I wonder why over most of the last 10 winters, have they done so much dredging up there?

I know - its just to lull us all into a false sense of security!!!!

Not a security issue, I'm sure! It is just a shame that the Authority had to be dragged kicking and screaming into dredging. Once it was realized that there were conservation advantages, reedbed re-creation and an increase in the flushing factor, the Authority pulled its finger out and now appears to be doing a good job! Surely you remember the hoo-ha from the sailing fraternity over the reluctance by the Authority in dredging The Sound? Anyway, a welcome change of heart.

Ten years, are you sure? How time flies!

[Stationerystill]

This is Thorpe St Andrews response to the Glover review.

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, Stationerystill said:

Thorpe St Andrews response to the Glover review.

Excellent and wholly reasonable.

[ChrisB]

If the data concerning the accelerating melt in Antarctica is correct the report, as far as The Broads are concerned will be academic.

If there never was a "Great Estuary" we are heading for one now.

[Vaughan]

10 hours ago, marshman said:

If they had even the vaguest intention of closing down the area above Potter, then I wonder why over most of the last 10 winters, have they done so much dredging up there?

I take your point but I understand that the dredging project on Hickling at the moment is more about maintaining the water quality for wildlife and using the mud to restore an ancient reed bed.

[marshman]

Not necessarily Vaughan - the mud is coming out of the channel! As it has been since they started dredging Heigham Sound about 8 years ago. They are NOT specifically improving water quality unlike Barton where they put in huge barriers to, initially, keep the fish out of certain areas.

[MauriceMynah]

Marshman, I don't know what plans the BA have for Hickling, I used it purely as an example.

In my mind I still believe the "clause" is the problem of poorly written documents. Whether the mighty Dr. would take advantage of this illiteracy is pure speculation, but why wouldn't he if (note "IF") it suited his purposes?

[Polly]

I think objective success criteria should have been appended to this clause.

[MauriceMynah]

3 minutes ago, Polly said:

I think objective success criteria should have been appended to this clause.

You took the words straight out of my mouth there Polly, which just goes to prove... I don't know what I'm talking about!

[Paladin]

On 15/01/2019 at 12:12, MauriceMynah said:

So, if we agree that it cannot (or should not), by it's nature, be an elected authority, we have to agree on to whom the leader of that authority should be answerable. It seems to me that the head of whichever department selects the leader, should be the person to whom that leader is answerable. I strongly suspect that this is already the case, and it is to that person all complaints should be addressed.

 

I have just happened across the Authority's recruitment policy (Human Resources Policy No. 16 - Recruitment and Selection). This covers recruitment at every level.

Paragraph 5 reads:

5.         Selection and Appointment of the Chief Executive

5.1       The selection and appointment of the Chief Executive will be made by a panel of Members in consultation with Natural England. The panel has the opportunity to seek advice on the process from the HR Team, as they consider appropriate.

[MauriceMynah]

For the first time I find myself worried. Paladin, does that mean that the mighty Dr cannot be controlled/disciplined ? Is he really answerable to nobody (within the civil service?

[vanessan]

40 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

For the first time I find myself worried. Paladin, does that mean that the mighty Dr cannot be controlled/disciplined ? Is he really answerable to nobody (within the civil service?

It seems you may have summed it up rather nicely! 

[batrabill]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

For the first time I find myself worried. Paladin, does that mean that the mighty Dr cannot be controlled/disciplined ? Is he really answerable to nobody (within the civil service?

For the first time??? After all the warnings that have been posted here, now you are worried???

 

Or, to put it another way, nothing has changed, the rivers are still beautiful, there are plentiful moorings and all the hire boats are hidden away. 

[MauriceMynah]

Perhaps "worried" is too strong a word for it. Till now there have been warnings, and counter arguments against those warnings. I have been reasonably happy that good, well read people on both sides  have balanced the debate. Now, someone with legal credentials has put far more weight on the "warnings" side, so I am more concerned than I had been.

Nothing has changed YET, but that doesn't mean that it cannot, and therefore might. What for example, can we do if the mighty Dr retires and someone even worst takes charge. Dr Packman will not be in his current position for ever and when he goes that will herald change. Do we wait for that to happen?

Yes the rivers are still beautiful, and for now, we are allowed on them!

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

For the first time I find myself worried. Paladin, does that mean that the mighty Dr cannot be controlled/disciplined ? Is he really answerable to nobody (within the civil service?

I'm sure that he can be but the harsh reality is that it appears that he isn't. DEFRA has certainly made it clear that it won't interfere with the running of the BA. Thankfully three of our local MPs are on side, acknowledging the democratic deficit of the Authority. However, if 'he' is answerable to anyone in the civil service then I can't tell you who that is. 

[JennyMorgan]

This combined response from ALL of Norfolk District Councils to the Glover Review makes interesting reading: 

19 February 2019

The Rt. Hon Michael Gove MP Secretary of State at the Department of Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square LONDON SW1P 3JR. 

Dear Minister,

 
Glover Review of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Detailed Representation made on behalf of Norfolk local authorities regarding submission made by The Broads Authority I refer to the above consultation which closed on 18th December 2018 and the holding letter sent to you dated 4th January 2019 from Cllr William Nunn, Chair of the Norfolk Leaders Group, outlining the concerns of Norfolk local authorities over the comments submitted to the consultation by the Broads Authority. The Norfolk Leaders recognise and acknowledge that the Broads Authority has a very direct and legitimate interest in the Glover Review. However, as a group, we are concerned that the Authority’s comments have been submitted without any prior discussion with us, as local authority partners, or indeed local communities across The Broads area. We do not therefore understand the basis on which, or with what mandate, the comments made about changes to the Broads Authority boundary and to reduce the number of members of the Authority through removing local authority representatives, have been made. We are concerned that this lack of engagement at a strategic partner and local community level reflects wider, and long-held, views that the Broads Authority acts independently of and without reference to established democratic structures locally, such that it is detached from the area it serves and operates within. This issue featured prominently in the LGA Peer Review of the Broads Authority conducted in October 2017, when a principal conclusion of the Peer Review was that the Broads Authority should “re-engage with local authority partners to help the leadership of the organisation to navigate the changing local authority landscape and take a more active role in place shaping”. 

The Peer Review Team also commented:- ? “that the organisation needs to have a greater external focus on its work with partners, in particular local authorities, in a more collaborative and strategic way”; ? “that there is a complex piece of work around stakeholder engagement that needs to be carried out”; and that ? “building on these relationships will also provide both the Broads Authority and the relevant local authority an opportunity to jointly deal with any issues that arise on shared boundaries which will be more effective and efficient for all”. We understood that in response to the Peer Review recommendations, Broads Authority leaders had made a commitment to improve engagement with local communities and partners through more strategic and collaborative working. We are therefore disappointed that the quite radical comments submitted by the Authority to the Glover Review consultation proposing a significant extension of the area covered by the Authority and the removal of local authority appointments to serve on the Broads Authority Board, have not previously been shared with local authority partners or local communities.

The first of these proposals, to extend the Broads Authority area, has generated concern and a degree of anger, from a large number of parish councils across the Broads area, and, as local authority leaders, we share the concerns of our local communities in this regard. We are also concerned over the second proposal which suggests a reduction in the size of the Broads Authority Board to “between 9 and 12 Members”, all of whom would be appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their skills and knowledge. We believe that, if this proposal was to be adopted, the Broads Authority would be seen as even more remote and detached from the local communities within its Executive Area and would result in a very serious issue of democratic deficit in terms of how local community interests would be represented in its governance arrangements and issues of policy development and implementation. Whilst a number of our authorities have made independent responses to the formal process of consultation on the Glover review, we have genuine concerns over the lack of engagement by the Broads Authority in discussing what represent quite significant proposals for change in their remit, geography and governance arrangements without prior conversation and discussion with key local stakeholders at a community and strategic level within Norfolk and Suffolk. 

We therefore ask that this further correspondence be considered by the Review Panel in their work and recommendations to Government on the future of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

Yours sincerely

Councillor William Nunn

Leader, Breckland Council Chairman Norfolk Leaders Group

Our Ref:- Glover Review 19 02 19 

[scaniaman]

It looks as though a rather large worm is turning. Have any of the individual authority submissions been published ? Should be an interesting few months. Thanks Peter.

Paul

[JennyMorgan]

Paul, the above letter states that a number of councils have also submitted their individual responses. That ALL the Norfolk councils have chosen to responded as a group is pretty indicative that JP is widely considered to have overstepped the mark as surely he has.