BA Given Order Of The Boot!

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Whatever plans they do have I reckon the BA would oppose them, otherwise the partnership would have continued.

Just what I was thinking myself!

They might not find the BA as amenable now as they were 30 years ago when they allowed un-opposed, the total desecration of a beautiful area of Broads river valley for the naked, commercial exploitation of its natural mineral resources. Oh but it's all right though, because when it's finished, all will be forgiven as we're going to call it a "new broad".

I grew up in that very part of the river valley. I remember how beautiful it was, before financial gain and political influence literally dug it up.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Probably some sort of 'Theme park"?. I can just see some sort of huge scary roller-coaster with cars like broads cruisers hammering round an ariel curve above the Yare?. 

Seriously though, I ca' t help thinking the BA may have been stabbed in the back on this one, especially when you consider any financial investments they've probably made?. I think this is the reason why we need to know the details, not to criticise the BA, but the trustees. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Whatever plans they do have I reckon the BA would oppose them, otherwise the partnership would have continued. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

Exactly right. 

Personally I'd like to see a sympathetic development as I suspect it will be but I do think that the Authority will have to play this one with scrupulous caution, as I suspect that it sensibility will, I hope. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

I think this is the reason why we need to know the details . . . . . . . . . 

Hence both my questions and my suspicions. I'm pretty darned certain that there was a breakdown in the relationship otherwise the agreement, as it has been suggested, would probably still be in situ. Are we criticising, or are we just asking concerned questions at this moment? 

In the future I suspect that the Trust is going to have to pay its own way so yes, there will be changes. 

So far there has been a guarded joint statement, probably to avoid any nastiness's, but all things considered I don't think that that is enough. 

[Vaughan]

Am I not right in thinking that this area forms part of a BA declared conservation area, which includes (for some reason) Thorpe Island? I would think that NO development would be allowed in what is left of this piece of rural Broads river valley. The BA planning department are delighted to refuse development in other places. Let's see them apply that same principle here. That is, if they wish to be thought of as in any way, consistent?

[MauriceMynah]

59 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Let's see them apply that same principle here. That is, if they wish to be thought of as in any way, consistent?

 

I find myself thinking along some fairly argumentative lines here, and I am far from sure on which side I stand. Consistency or individuality. On the one hand, we like to think that any case is judged on it's individual circumstances and merits.

Example...    I'm having a picnic with a friend. she has a heart attack but I'm over the drink drive limit. We  left our mobiles at home. Do I drive my friend to get help or just sit there and let whatever happens run it's course. And how do I stand if I drive and am caught?

I would like to think my case would be judged on it's merits

However that's massively at odds with consistency in the courts for which I would also argue in favour.

Go on then... chew that one over. :-)

 

[Ray]

You drive your friend and accept the penalty laid down by the court.

[quo vadis]

Take your friend for a picnic on hospital grounds 

[JennyMorgan]

6 hours ago, Vaughan said:

The BA planning department are delighted to refuse development in other places. Let's see them apply that same principle here.

And also at Acle Bridge & the adjoining marshes.  

Building in wood does not make a building 'green', just wooden.  

[Vaughan]

5 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I find myself thinking along some fairly argumentative lines here, and I am far from sure on which side I stand. Consistency or individuality. On the one hand, we like to think that any case is judged on it's individual circumstances and merits.

Example...    I'm having a picnic with a friend. she has a heart attack but I'm over the drink drive limit. We  left our mobiles at home. Do I drive my friend to get help or just sit there and let whatever happens run it's course. And how do I stand if I drive and am caught?

I would like to think my case would be judged on it's merits

However that's massively at odds with consistency in the courts for which I would also argue in favour.

Go on then... chew that one over. :-)

Sorry MM but since you quoted me when making that post, I don't see that your example has anything to do with a planning decision.

[MauriceMynah]

Fair enough Vaughan, my thinking was in consideration of consistency. my example illustrated when consistency should not necessarily be applied. The BA's planning authority might hold similar ideas with some plans passed because of individual merits where others may be refused owing to "company policy".

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Fair enough Vaughan, my thinking was in consideration of consistency. my example illustrated when consistency should not necessarily be applied. The BA's planning authority might hold similar ideas with some plans passed because of individual merits where others may be refused owing to "company policy".

Consistency in the way that laws and policies are upheld would seem reasonable. Perhaps we should replace consistency with fairness. Would it be fair for a development at Acle but then refusing something similar at Whitlingham? Possibly, possibly not, the locations and surroundings are different.  This is where both judgement and fairness come in, and perhaps mite of honesty. If the Authority professes to being 'green' then it should not pick and choose when it is convenient to ignore what it has signed up to. Perhaps at Whitlingham the BA has done just that, stood up for its general policies. If that is the case then they are to be commended. Just my muddled thoughts but can the Authority really be green?   It is not a very fair world.

[rightsaidfred]

8 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Consistency in the way that laws and policies are upheld would seem reasonable. Perhaps we should replace consistency with fairness. Would it be fair for a development at Acle but then refusing something similar at Whitlingham? Possibly, possibly not, the locations and surroundings are different.  This is where both judgement and fairness come in, and perhaps mite of honesty. If the Authority professes to being 'green' then it should not pick and choose when it is convenient to ignore what it has signed up to. Perhaps at Whitlingham the BA has done just that, stood up for its general policies. If that is the case then they are to be commended. Just my muddled thoughts but can the Authority really be green?   It is not a very fair world.

This is where life gets complicated, in the ideal world consistency should be just that with all decisions complying to the same set of parameters unfortunately in the real world that doesn't apply with individuals in authority putting their own interpretation on whatever matter is at hand and fits in with their own priorities something we see in all areas of life and we will never change.

As for any individual or organisation claiming to be  green it is  something I have a problem coming to terms with, apart from the don't do what I do but do what I say aspect what does green really mean in practical terms because as far as I can see in most instances it is window dressing, while I am in favour of using modern technology to be more efficient and reduce pollution etc where practical every new process  has some effect either visual or hidden maybe better maybe worse than the one it is replacing but none the less not truly green as I understand the definition.

As far as Whitlingham is concerned the BA are now just the planning authority and should only be considered as such and not blamed for decisions outside that remit, however as such they must surely apply the constraints that exist within those powers to allow reasonable changes that retain the area as part of the local ecology without allowing changes for purely commercial reasons this is where consistency comes in.

Fred

 

[marshman]

I think you are all probably reading too much into this change from the information that is currently available - we do not know for example if the Trustees have even talked about it reviewing the arrangement earlier in the BA's tenure? They may well have done for all you know.

Nor do I know what the terms of the original setup where? Trustees have a duty to review regularly their professional advisers and I do not see a lot of difference here - the BA were merely "managing" an asset and  although they were pretty embedded through the use of "their" volunteers, perhaps it was felt that they were just too cosy and they had received advice to review? All things are possible - we just do not know!

Many years ago the BA were more directly involved in some of the Broadland historic craft - they used to provide direct support but that has long long gone. I am not sure how much input or support they gave - but Vaughan could probably .  Perhaps some thought it all too cosy and felt an element of "competition" would produce a better result.

I am sure that we will learn more as time progresses but in reality there is little or no substance in sight, despite 4 pages of not a lot - it couldn't really be a lot else given whats currently available to the interested public, and before I get picked up on that, that includes my contributions as well!!

 

[JennyMorgan]

Very wise words, Fred. 

As far as Whitlingham is concerned hopefully my last words will be these! First of all, over the years, it has become increasingly thought that BA policy has been set and driven by Officers rather than by Authority members,  this has lead to resentment & a loss of trust. Does that apply to Whitlingham, probably not but it might. If the Trust wanted to go one way & the BA another over the issue of agenda, personal or otherwise, then I do believe that the Authority members should, even just as a matter of common courtesy, have been kept informed of developments, that is presuming that they weren't. I have asked the question, I remain curious as to the the detail. However I am reliably informed that Authority Members were not generally aware of what was going on regarding the management agreement. I do question that. My view is that the Authority should set policy, the duty of the Officers is then to the members and thus to stakeholders. It does concern me that the Whitlingham Trust and the Authority have not been able to move forward together, for whatever reason. Granted that the final decision is that of the Trust but nevertheless I do question what finally triggered the parting of their ways. Mountain out of a molehill, maybe but I still have my concerns and suspicions.

[JennyMorgan]

54 minutes ago, marshman said:

I think you are all probably reading too much into this change from the information that is currently available - we do not know for example if the Trustees have even talked about it reviewing the arrangement earlier in the BA's tenure? They may well have done for all you know.

Nor do I know what the terms of the original setup where? Trustees have a duty to review regularly their professional advisers and I do not see a lot of difference here - the BA were merely "managing" an asset and  although they were pretty embedded through the use of "their" volunteers, perhaps it was felt that they were just too cosy and they had received advice to review? All things are possible - we just do not know!

Many years ago the BA were more directly involved in some of the Broadland historic craft - they used to provide direct support but that has long long gone. I am not sure how much input or support they gave - but Vaughan could probably .  Perhaps some thought it all too cosy and felt an element of "competition" would produce a better result.

I am sure that we will learn more as time progresses but in reality there is little or no substance in sight, despite 4 pages of not a lot - it couldn't really be a lot else given whats currently available to the interested public, and before I get picked up on that, that includes my contributions as well!!

 

Marshman, the Charity Commission, as well as Companies House, are duty bound to publish details, past and present, of trustees, directors, members, secretaries and the like, interesting reading. The Authority were more than just managing an asset. I thoroughly recommend Google to you!! 

[Smoggy]

On 19/10/2019 at 07:58, Vaughan said:

commercial exploitation of its natural mineral resources. Oh but it's all right though, because when it's finished, all will be forgiven as we're going to call it a "new broad".

Is that not how all the other broads came to be along with most of the linking cuts??

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Smoggy said:

Is that not how all the other broads came to be along with most of the linking cuts??

Well spotted! I wondered who would make that connection!   

This was, indeed, how almost all of the broads were originally created. The difference, as I see it, is not just the time span (of several hundred years) but the manner in which it was done.

I have posted this article before on the forum but perhaps I should do it again and you can judge for yourselves. It may also confirm some of what JM is suggesting.

 

 

 

 

 

[Poppy]

Then there's University 'Broad'. Another gravel pit.