BA Given Order Of The Boot!

[marshman]

Methinks not!!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

25 minutes ago, marshman said:

Methinks not!!!!!

So you don't host wedding receptions on Saturdays and wakes on Fridays then?

[marshman]

Why - do you want to sponsor the venue??

[Timbo]

4 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

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'm basing my comments on one of my final surveys and reports of 2018 before I officially retired. Over the thirty odd years of my career working in antiquary and landscape management, I have seen quite a dramatic change in visitor behaviour and the marketing techniques that need to be employed in order to successfully exploit that behaviour for the benefit of the landscape and stakeholders.

Be under no illusions, the visitor centre is dead in regards of examples such as the scheme proposed at Acle. It's not resting or pining. It is no more, it has kicked the bucket, dropped off it's perch and joined the choir invisible. In terms of visitor numbers Scotland is leading the charge easily outpacing England in visitor growth for the past seven years according to the most recent figures from the ONS. However, in their last published figures Visit Scotland have announced a 58% drop in footfall through their visitor centres over the past ten years. Consequently they closed 39 of their 56 visitor centres and reduced and streamlined services in the remainder.

The stock in trade of the visitor centre, books, maps and guides, in the past was in short supply. Today the visitor can find detailed information within seconds without ever having set foot inside a visitor centre. The fundamental change in visitor behaviour is that the visitor centre was a 'must visit' as soon as they arrived at a destination. Today, if they come across a visitor centre then they might pop in. If it's raining. Or they can't get a coffee anywhere else.

The Glover Report has one great flaw, among many, in compounding the outdated marketing strategies employed by National Parks,  AOB's and many of the conservation organisations. The 'build it and they will come' schemes, and don't get me started on re-branding, are thirty years past their sell by date and other than waste money in short supply only emphasise an ageing management who I'm sure hold Michael J Fox and Melanie Griffith themed office parties to give their shoulder pads an airing.

I'm sorry but best practise dictates satisfying visitor and stakeholder needs and providing value while maintaining the integrity of the landscape identity. At the most basic of levels the object of marketing for landscape managers is the dispersal of visitors out into the landscape. A visitor centre is an impediment to this fundamental process. Tourists sat in a visitor centre are not enjoying the Broadland landscape and more importantly they are not spending money with business stakeholders. You don't bring the visitor to the visitor centre you take the visitor centre to the visitor. By that I mean the front line of Broads Rangers face to face with stakeholders and people like Tom.

I have to say that I really appreciate Tom's contribution which I think is an outstanding example of best practise...in practise, as it were and long may it continue! 

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Timbo, for those valuable comments re visitor centres which I hope that both Tom and his boss will take on-board and inwardly digest.

On a recent trip to the Snowdonia Real National Park my wife and I visited several commercial attractions, but only ones that offered facilities that were of interest to us. We avoided the archetypal NP visitor centres which tend to lack any real, meaningful attraction, apart from the toilets, and nothing about Acle Bridge suggests that it will be otherwise.  Why national park authorities, both real and pseudo, feel driven to provide such facilities is one of life's little mysteries.  Best leave the provision of attractions to commercial interests where the driver tends to be profit rather than vanity.

[LizG]

In the modern world with mobile phones and the internet providing visitors any information they might want, the main use of a visitor centre is to provide toilet facilities especially when councils and authorities have removed those previously available!

Some do still help educate and provide activities for children but building actual new buildings is a huge investment and cost. An existing building renovated and tagged onto something else would just as easily do the job!
Liz

Sent from the Norfolk Broads Network mobile app

[rightsaidfred]

Looking at all the comments regarding visitor centres especially the one from Tom at the BA there seems to be a question of interpretation and reasoning that's confusing the issue.

The Hoveton office and the ones that were at Potter Heigham and Ranworth were not really Visitor centres but more information (Tourist) centres with a minimal benefit to the actual Broads, from my experience the majority of people using them were land based looking for places of interest that are mostly outside the Broads area and information that is normally available elsewhere, the exception being those taking the boat trip to Coltishall, their mane benefit to the boating community being the sale of Electricity cards and short term tolls etc. the true visitor centre at Ranworth is and always has been the NWT.

I don't have any experience of the centre at Whitlingham but would imagine that was largely specific to that area, I am all in favour of education especially the young but this is and has always been accommodated  for with field trips by school parties which in my opinion is far more beneficial and educational that sitting in some form of a classroom.

Fred

[marshman]

There is a mile of difference between the old Tourist Information Centres and what I see as a Visitors Centre - even PW uses the RSPB one in Minsmere! Actually I am a bit surprised he opened up to that.....!!!!

[MauriceMynah]

52 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am all in favour of education especially the young...

Sorry, I can't agree with that! It seems to me that education for the young is a waste, they already know everything. It's we old farts what need ejoocating.

[Bytheriver]

As an observation - is there not a world of difference between a visitor centre at a specific venue eg Stonehenge and one in the Broads. which are scattered over what is quite a large area which of course  takes days to cover by boat (bases for which are of course scattered across the area) and even quite a long time by road and even longer by the much diminished but allegedly sustainable public transport. Which with the seasonality of the Broads for other than the hardiest souls who would be unlikely to visit a centre even if open makes the need doubtful. Schools for practical reasons have quite a small window for full day or even half day trips even if they can afford the transport which seems unlikely in the reasonably near future ( as someone has said a mobile service may be more sustainable with field trips if essential for say, 6th forms and the like)

As an aside I do wonder what use the current Brown Tourism road signs are which state For the Broads follow - then different locations dependent on which direction you are coming from.

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

I don't have any experience of the centre at Whitlingham but would imagine that was largely specific to that area,

The BA information centre at Whitlingham is just that - an information centre. In size it is smaller than the Hoveton office but larger than the one at How Hill (not difficult I know!). It comes across as being an add-on to the cafe there and I suspect that many of the cafe visitors are counted as information centre visitors. I would imagine the vast majority of visitors to Whitlingham visit by car, the moorings tend to be full most times (not with hire boats) and there is no actual signage advertising Whitlingham Adventure Centre. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

There is a mile of difference between the old Tourist Information Centres and what I see as a Visitors Centre - even PW uses the RSPB one in Minsmere! Actually I am a bit surprised he opened up to that.....!!!!

When one goes to Minsmere, as I suspect Marshman has, he'll remember that the visitor centre is also the means by which folk access the reserve. An entrance fee is charged and customers are enticed into becoming RSPB members. This could not possibly apply to Acle. Effectively the RSPB visitor centre is a means of attracting new members and raising funds to pay for the upkeep of the reserve. Any Broads Authority visitor centre will depend on external funding, there is no way that a gift shop and cafe could offset the investment required although immediate running costs might be covered,  especially if volunteer staff are used. Unlike the RSPB the BA is not a charity. The RSPB can charge for admission, the BA can't. The 24hr moorings are free so why should the car park be any different? The Broads Museum and How Hill provide education for those that require it. Duplication of that does seem to be pointless. I am at a loss as to what the BA thinks that it will be able offer at the Acle Debacle. I have visited and enjoyed what is on offer at Whitlingham, although I did resent the car parking charge. My wife and I enjoyed poking around the souvenir shop but we weren't tempted into buying anything. We didn't need maps, guide books or tea towels with pictures of windmills on them. At least Whitlingham is an attraction in its own right, I don't see how this could possibly apply at Acle Bridge. 

[Bytheriver]

Here is today's EDP info

https://www.edp24.co.uk/business/what-now-for-whitlingham-country-park-1-6325279

[ranworthbreeze]

The article in the EDP mentions the site and the daffodils on the the edge of the created broad, they are the most unlikely daffodills I have ever seen, more like irises to me.

Regards

Alan 

[JennyMorgan]

It does appear that Crown Point Estates is taking the lead rather than the Charitable Trust. Probably just as well. 

[Bytheriver]

The Charity Commission website is only showing five trustees currently rather than 9 listed in the 2018 accounts (there were a number of changes that year too)

[JennyMorgan]

Have had a peep at the Charity Commissioner's page. Considering it is claimed that Whitlingham attracts half a million visitors a year I am nevertheless surprised at the relatively low income.  Doesn't bode well for the projected Acle Debacle! 

[JennyMorgan]

Tom (BA), could you please help by telling us when Authority members were first informed about emerging disagreements between the Authority and the Trust, were members involved in the negotiations or at least kept updated, and what were the reasons for the Trust wanting to sever relations? I hope that you agree and accept that this information would be in the public interest.

[grendel]

JM, the way I read it was they had a 25 year contract in 1995, by my reckoning that is ending and is just not being renewed, no mystery there.

[JennyMorgan]

45 minutes ago, grendel said:

JM, the way I read it was they had a 25 year contract in 1995, by my reckoning that is ending and is just not being renewed, no mystery there.

Got to say that the contract has already exceeded 25 years and so far no one else has read things as you have. Not to say that you are wrong, over to Tom on that one. It has been suggested that the BA will hide behind commercial confidentiality but since the Charity Commission has published the Trust's accounts I fail to see how that applies. To be honest, the information that I have asked of Tom has public interest and I'm quite prepared to take the FOI route if my question is not willingly answered. The BA was recently ordered to release information that they claimed was commercially sensitive. I would hope that the BA will have the good grace to release this information and if there is no mystery then there should be no problem.  A full statement of fact from Dr Packman would not go amiss.

[Smoggy]

13 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

A full statement of fact from Dr Packman would not go amiss.

You appear to have mis-spelt fantasy.

[marshman]

Come on PW - you cannot really expect either the BA or the Charitable Trust to go further into what would have been private negotiations? You can argue all you like that a charity is "public" but would you really expect any Charity to go into  the details behind such a decision - can you expect to hear the National Trust, RNLI, or the RSPB go into details behind their decisions, especially ones that MAY have an element of controversy attached?. 

I suspect all you will get is what we heard from James Colman - that they thought it the right time to have a  change. There are many reasons why charities change advisers and even if you knew, it would make little difference. I suspect some would wish to hear the detail so they could pick holes in what the Authority did, or did not do.

I doubt those will be given that opportunity!!

[JennyMorgan]

Marshman, you might be right but nevertheless it was a charitable body's appointment of what is effectively a public body, one that may not be publicly accountable but nevertheless is accountable to Broads Authority members. I may not have worded that as well as I might but I suspect that you will get my drift.

Dr Packman is undeniably accountable to the committee that is effectively the Broads Authority. The question is simple, were Authority members kept informed of developments at Whitlingham. Simple answer, yes or no. It was not a personal appointment, the appointment was of the Broads Authority thus surely the members should be aware of developments, should have been made aware of relevant discussions. If all parties are innocent so to speak then an open and frank statement shouldn't present a problem. In a nutshell this all relates to the thorny subject of governance. 

The charity in question has made a perfectly acceptable statement, I expect nothing more. However Dr Packman is accountable to the Authority thus to stakeholders.

[MauriceMynah]

It might be possible that the BA might not know all the reasons they have been "given the order of the boot" as you put it. I read the article (and yes, the link crashed my machine again) but concluded that the trust is being run by folk who like to use 'buzz speak' to big themselves up. 

I care not for phrases like

"They said it would present fresh opportunities for the park and "enhance the visitor offer" of it."

and

"Once completed, this will make the area more accessible for visitors and provide a broader range of core facilities."

I rather feel that on this occasion, the BA| may be blameless.  Sorry about that Peter!

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I rather feel that on this occasion, the BA| may be blameless.  Sorry about that Peter!

They probably are, thus a public statement should be no problem. The emerging problem does now appear to be as to whether Authority members were kept informed of developments or not. It may well be that members could have advised the executive and perhaps the decision of the Trust might thus have been in favour of retaining the Authority. A  small yet important matter of governance.