BA Given Order Of The Boot!

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/colman-family-end-contract-with-broads-authority-over-whitlingham-1-6322559

[JennyMorgan]

Hopefully we will eventually hear from the Whitlingham Charitable Trust as to the real reason why they have dumped the Authority. It will be interesting to see what transpires, yurts and lodges perhaps? At the moment both are posting what appears to be a very similar joint statement.

[vanessan]

I wonder what will happen to the BA 24 hour moorings, those which are used by liveaboards for well in excess of 24 hours very regularly. 

[FairTmiddlin]

RA back to Barton probably

 

[ChrisB]

Hopefully Ra can return to Barton.

[JennyMorgan]

Ra was built in Germany, bit of a snub to Broads yards, and came to the Broads in 2000. Technology has moved on a pace or two since then and perhaps her batteries now need expensive replacement. Twenty years old, I expect that she's been written down in value to the extent that maybe she's ready to be sold on at no great loss.  Perhaps she could return to Barton but my understanding is that she had become something of a liability whilst there. She came to Oulton Broad just once, a couple of trips from one end to the other and then she had to be towed back behind a ranger's launch, much to the amusement of the cynics on the shore!

 

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Did the BA ever take any money from tolls to fund this joint venture, and if so, seeing as they`re now no longer supporting them, will we see a reduction in tolls?. 

Also, one factual inaccuracy in that statement, the Broads are NOT, and never HAVE BEEN an NP.

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Did the BA ever take any money from tolls to fund this joint venture, and if so, seeing as they`re now no longer supporting them, will we see a reduction in tolls?. 

Also, one factual inaccuracy in that statement, the Broads are NOT, and never HAVE BEEN an NP.

I believe that it was largely funded from the DEFRA Grant, not navigation although I don't doubt that the 24hr mooring was charged to the toll account. I don't see anything untoward there.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Have given this one some serious thought. The otherwise surprising loss of Whitlingham can only strengthen any personal crusade to build the Acle Debacle vanity project. The possibly engineered, certainly convenient loss of Whitlingham couldn't have come at a more opportune moment. Just a mere coincidence? I seriously doubt it.

[MauriceMynah]

Another typical EDP article, big on words, little on content. I wouldn't read too much into it based on that article alone.

 

[marshman]

I think MM is probably right - my guess, for what it is worth, is that Sir Timothy thought it was worth a change, the Trustees feel that it could be now be done in house by themselves and that it would be cheaper. Somewhere in the equation cost would probably be involved and that was I guess the cruncher. More will emerge in due course I suspect.

I doubt the 24 hr moorings would be affected - I would presume that this would be the subject of the usual type of lease and a separate issue.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Another typical EDP article, big on words, little on content. I wouldn't read too much into it based on that article alone.

 

If you were to check the Whitlingham Charitable Trust's website, also that of the BA and compare them with the EDP then it becomes pretty obvious that a mutually agreed press release was sent to and regurgitated by the EDP.

I don't suppose any of us will ever know what was said and agreed behind closed doors. Whether it was a mutually agreed or a cynically manouvered situation is obviously open to debate. I know where my money is on this one!

I also doubt that the 24 hr mooring will be affected, at least until the present lease expires. It does provide a waterborne gateway to Whitlingham so I doubt that a further lease would be agreed but I feel sure that the present one will run its course.

Interestingly the Authority wishes to take its staff away with them rather than Whitlingham taking them on. A clean slate job for the Trust perhaps?

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi everyone, Tom here to clarify a few points:

1. The nearby 24 hour moorings are leased to us and we are working towards retaining them as part of our network.

2. Ra was enjoyed by around 3,500 visitors during the 2018 season, including many disabled visitors and groups. We are currently exploring alternative locations to redeploy Ra and continue offering the trip.

3. Given the Trusts decision, we are now considering alternative locations for a visitor centre and education activities. However, we would like to stress that the outcome of negotiations at Whitlingham is totally independent from the project at Acle.

Whilst we have expressed a desire to build a visitor and education centre there, it would be impossible to have such a building constructed and ready to use by April 2020 (even if funding for such a building could be found).

Our current priority is the immediate need to have replacement Tourist Information facilities in place for next season.

4. You are correct JennyMorgan, the statement was mutually agreed by us and the Trust. Any enquiries on their future plans should be directed to them.

Thanks

[dnks34]

Wont the visitor centre in Hoveton satisfy tourism requirements removing the need for any expenditure on new premises. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

3 hours ago, dnks34 said:

Wont the visitor centre in Hoveton satisfy tourism requirements removing the need for any expenditure on new premises. 

Also, the one at Beccles that was closed, so why close them if you are looking to open others?. 

[JennyMorgan]

There is a growing list of abandoned or lost for whatever reason BA Tourist Information facilities across Broadland to which Whitlingham is now to be added. With the advent of the World Wide Web I rather suspect that such facilities are now largely redundant. Shared facilities at Carlton Marshes Nature Reserve might be a possibility. As to the future, an ideal opportunity was lost at Yarmouth with the Marina Keys. Could the Authority return to Potter Heigham, that would an ideal hub in my opinion?  However it does boil down to actual need. How Hill does a grand job so is there really a need for the BA to have its own, independent facility? As for education, why not have a double decker bus that can visit schools and shopping centre car parks? Now that is a good idea, so long as it doesn't promote the lie that the Broads is a national park!!

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all, 

It's worth noting that a number of the aforementioned visitor centres were closed when the government cuts took place a few years ago, rather than them not being successful/financially viable/well visited.

Please be assured that a suitable location will be a key consideration for any longer term visitor centre plans.

It wouldn't really be fair to say that Visitor Centres have had their day. We still receive visits from tens of thousands of people each year in our centres who are looking for information about the local area, things to do etc. We currently see websites and other digital media working in tandem with physical visitor centres, rather than replacing them. This is largely the model across the rest of the UK National Parks family too.

[CambridgeCabby]

A figure of “tens of thousands” visiting your existing centres seems to signify there is little or no unmet demand warranting expenditure on a new centre being commissioned , the BA funds would be far better directed to reinstating the collection points for refuse so helping to maintain the beauty and vista of the entire Broads network which was enjoyed by c. 7.6m visitors last year alone.

[Ray]

1 hour ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi all, 

It's worth noting that a number of the aforementioned visitor centres were closed when the government cuts took place a few years ago, rather than them not being successful/financially viable/well visited.

Please be assured that a suitable location will be a key consideration for any longer term visitor centre plans.

It wouldn't really be fair to say that Visitor Centres have had their day. We still receive visits from tens of thousands of people each year in our centres who are looking for information about the local area, things to do etc. We currently see websites and other digital media working in tandem with physical visitor centres, rather than replacing them. This is largely the model across the rest of the UK National Parks family too.

I'd just like to thank Tom for giving us the view from BA. Everyone is being polite of course but I bet it still feels a bit like sticking your head over the parapet being the messenger where everyone is so invested in The Broads and strong opinions are held!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, BroadsAuthority said:

It's worth noting that a number of the aforementioned visitor centres were closed when the government cuts took place a few years ago, rather than them not being successful/financially viable/well visited.

Those cuts were clearly felt necessary by HMG in order to curb overspending by such as the Authority. I can only assume that the Authority chose to close those information centres because they were the least necessary service that they offered and therefor an obvious candidate for a cash saving.  In the context of the proposed Acle Bridge Information Centre, and now a replacement of Whitlingham,  I would have thought that those self same constraints, and the reasons behind them, still applied. 

[marshman]

There is always two sides to every story as ST knows only too well - you should remember that for every negative side ,there is a positive!!

Oh and just to pick PW up on a point about visitor centres generally - far from having had their day I see an even bigger role for these types of Centres. Look for example at the RSPB, an organisation you all love so dearly, they have tremendous success with theirs and commit to building even more; even the Earl of Leicester has seen their benefits and has just built a very big one up at Holkham by Queen Annes Drive.  The National Trust too seem to see some benefits methinks . Or perhaps they are all wrong? People like these "one stop, meets all needs" type of place and to suggest the existing one in Wroxham would suit is way off the mark - thats no bigger than my front room!! Others will of course vehemently disagree with me;  but remember two sides to every.....!!!

[dnks34]

Way off the mark?

Its a functional information point in a central location that might well be one of the most visited places on the Broads. 

What more is required?

 

[JennyMorgan]

Some fair comment there Marsh but 'hold yew hard Bor'! Whilst I am no great fan of the RSPB I do appreciate what they offer, me being a great fan of Minsmere for example. Their Minsmere visitor centre is a great success, well worth a visit. Plenty of car parking and miles of delightful walks. The shop and the cafe are well run and probably big enough to be sustainable, with a volunteer staff, even I have spent too much money there. Mind you, it is also a great draw for potential new members.

So why shouldn't  the Authority have its visitor centre? Unlike such as the RSPB, a registered charity, the BA has no willing 'membership' to prop up such ventures, the RSPB is hugely profitable. There is little or no commercial acumen at Yare House, that much must surely be obvious by now.  Beyond that there is no great requirement for the Authority to provide such facilities. 

Comparing Holkham Hall with the potential Acle Debacle, surely you are having a laugh, you have to be!! 

[JennyMorgan]

48 minutes ago, dnks34 said:

Way off the mark?

Its a functional information point in a central location that might well be one of the most visited places on the Broads. 

What more is required?

 

If it's only as big as Marshman's front room then it is hardly likely to pander to the vainglorious aspirations of the good doctor!

[dnks34]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

If it's only as big as Marshman's front room then it is hardly likely to pander to the vainglorious aspirations of the good doctor!

For all we know Marshman’s abode could be palatial!