Acle B.N.P.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Just now, marshman said:

Yep agreed - utter boredom with all the semantics involved????

Go to bed then and dream of your desire to see the Broads being turned into a national park, where there are no boats, no pubs (not enough customers), no industry, no rivers, and only reed beds and marshes. I bet you`d love that mm?.

[batrabill]

2 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

Go to bed then and dream of your desire to see the Broads being turned into a national park, where there are no boats, no pubs (not enough customers), no industry, no rivers, and only reed beds and marshes. I bet you`d love that mm?.

I’d be interested to see where Marshman said he wants the Broads to be a National Park. 

Shouldnt be hard to find since you seem so sure that’s what he thinks. 

 

I’ll wait. 

[JanetAnne]

On 09/01/2020 at 21:59, batrabill said:

... It should be remembered that Coniston has an annual Speed week. So basically this is a false comparison. 

Knew I had read this somewhere...

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/17567968.devastating-coniston-powerboat-records-week-not-running-this-year/

 

[batrabill]

6 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

Knew I had read this somewhere...

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/17567968.devastating-coniston-powerboat-records-week-not-running-this-year/

 

What is your point?

[D46]

29 minutes ago, batrabill said:

What is your point?

I would have thought it was pretty obvious what the point was really .

[batrabill]

Go on....

[grendel]

go on, i'll bite and say it

8 hours ago, JanetAnne said:

  On 09/01/2020 at 21:59, batrabill said:

... It should be remembered that Coniston has an annual Speed week. So basically this is a false comparison. 

if there is no speedboat event, then its not a false comparison - ergo sum cogitus

[Vaughan]

34 minutes ago, grendel said:

ergo sum cogitus

"You can't baffle me with long words!"

Peter Sellers.

[JennyMorgan]

28 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

"You can't baffle me with long words!"

Peter Sellers.

Apparently 'Je pense, donc je suis'.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

9 hours ago, batrabill said:

I’d be interested to see where Marshman said he wants the Broads to be a National Park. 

Shouldnt be hard to find since you seem so sure that’s what he thinks. 

 

I’ll wait. 

Only in MY opinion Bill, but read all his posts on every thread about this fictitious subject again and you will see he always defends the BA and the NP.

Anyway, I like go fishing with mm 

[JennyMorgan]

I wonder if the Coniston Speed Week will be going ahead in 2020?

Oulton Broad has its power boat racing and long may it continue. It is an activity that is protected by the terms of the Broads Act, showing once again that the Broads does NOT share the same status/legislation as a national park, despite claims to the contrary.

[Paladin]

The Coniston Water situation looks to be rather complicated, and to try to use it as a direct comparison with the Broads situation, is, IMO, misguided. The bed of the lake is owned by the Rawdon-Smith Trust for the Bed of Coniston Water, so exactly how the NPA can make byelaws regarding the use of the lake is beyond me (at the moment), as there doesn’t seem to be the same ‘right of navigation’ as exists on much of the tidal Broads. But there might be a correlation with Hoveton Great Broad.

The RYA decided to give up being the UK national authority for powerboat racing, wef 1 January 2019. That position was taken over by the British Power Boat Association from the same date. So why there should now be a difficulty in getting permission for the Records Week is something of a mystery. The exemption from the 10mph speed limit, which must have been granted in the past, does not have any foundation in the byelaws, so perhaps there was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, between the RYA and the NPA, which the NPA doesn’t want to continue with the BPBA.

[Paladin]

30 minutes ago, Paladin said:

The RYA decided to give up being the UK national authority for powerboat racing, wef 1 January 2019. That position was taken over by the British Power Boat Association from the same date. So why there should now be a difficulty in getting permission for the Records Week is something of a mystery. The exemption from the 10mph speed limit, which must have been granted in the past, does not have any foundation in the byelaws, so perhaps there was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, between the RYA and the NPA, which the NPA doesn’t want to continue with the BPBA.

I've found the answer...Coniston Water Byelaw No.6 says: " Byelaw No. 4 (the 10mph speed restriction) shall not apply to any person undertaking an attempt on a British National and/or World Water Speed Record, officially approved by the Lake District National Park Authority and by and held under the rules and supervision of the Royal Yachting Association and the Union Internationale Motonautique."

So the byelaw needs to be changed to substitute "British Power Boat Association" for "Royal Yachting Association", or better, just "the UK national authority for powerboat racing", which would avoid this problem in the future. I'm surprised this situation wasn't foreseen and the byelaw changed previously.

[batrabill]

The point here is this:

since I moved to the Broads from another part of the country I have been amazed by how often you hear negative views of National Parks as an idea. National Parks have good and bad aspects but on the whole they are viewed positively by people all over the country 

Here in the Broads the story which is promoted by a very vocal group of people is that National Parks are a BAD thing. Specifically for boaters. 

The speed reduction on Windemere is the most often used example to suggest NPs are anti- boating. (Is this the only example btw? Until the new plan to put 10 forty-foot boats on Grasmere )

But even this isn’t a very good example is it? 

There is tons of boating on the Lakes. Boats are everywhere. 

As a sailor I’m not fond of water skiers - they don’t mix well with other forms of boating and my personal opinion is that Jetskis are the work of the devil. 

 

Its odd odd that a group that value the peace and tranquility of the Broads use going fast in Windermere as their only go-to example of the evil power of NPs!

 

The case that The Lake District NP is anti-boating is REALLY WEAK. 

I don’t want the Broads to be a full NP.

There is no need. 

It’s already an NP in every meaningful sense, and the Broads are in fine shape  

 

 

[grendel]

9 minutes ago, batrabill said:

There is tons of boating on the Lakes. Boats are everywhere. 

 

except gentlemans yachts on grasmere apparently.

[grendel]

On 09/01/2020 at 21:59, batrabill said:

I don’t think this is a reasonable comparison at all. All the lakes in the Lake District have different regulations as regards boating. It should be remembered that Coniston has an annual Speed week. So basically this is a false comparison. 

it would appear that despite all inferences to the contrary, it was you that introduced the distraction of speed on coniston into the topic, all i contributed was the decision against 10 gentlemens yachts on grasmere

.

24 minutes ago, batrabill said:

ts odd odd that a group that value the peace and tranquility of the Broads use going fast in Windermere as their only go-to example of the evil power of NPs!

yet now you accuse your opponents of bringing this example to the table as our only go to example.

oh tut.

[marshman]

So Grendel - would it be a good idea to put that type of powered boats on the Trinities? I assume from your comments you would think that a good idea, or rather would not oppose it!

Sorry ST - guess again as to my thoughts!! ( I actually do not ever recall supporting a NP per se for this area, although I might have pointed out that legislation is required for that purpose, rather than the appearance of a road sign. Equally neither Clive's brochure nor the OS publications actually make it one either! )

I do think that sometimes my comments are perhaps taken too literally - don't forget there is a need for balance in all discussions and rather than read all posts following the "party" line, there is a need to point out the other side of the story! 

I just believe the need to point out there is another side to be considered.... ! Balance is what its called!!!!!

[batrabill]

Grendel, your Gentlemen’s yatchs case is even weaker than the speed restriction- by miles!

 

In Broads terms it’s like someone wanting to do the same on Horsey. 

 

Always difficult to compare but the comparison seem similar. 

 

How would a proposal like that be viewed by you?

 

I don’t have a strong opinion about Gentlemen’s yachts - I’m not even sure what they are - but it is you that introduced this story to back up your view about how NPs behave.  

If the speed restrictions on Windermere are a weak example, then this is wafer thin.

Whatever the planning authority, I think any scheme which would change the ambience of an entire lake would quite correctly be looked at very closely  

This proves NOTHING about NPs The Lake District or anything.

 

 

[grendel]

17 minutes ago, marshman said:

So Grendel - would it be a good idea to put that type of powered boats on the Trinities? I assume from your comments you would think that a good idea, or rather would not oppose it!

actually i am split on that one, when it first appeared in the arthur ransome facebook group, i pointed out that their major objection (all 10 of the boats moored around peel island) would never happen as they would mostly want to moor somewhere where there were electric points and other facilities. (pub), but my main point was the hypocrisy of the announcement with visit the lake district in big letters across the bottom, on an announcement saying they had rejected the application for on the water accommodation on the same lakes, surely a very mixed message for someone supposedly encouraging visitors to their NP, now do we see that as a familiar picture.

[MauriceMynah]

My take on it...

National Parks are a good thing.

The Norfolk & Suffolk Broads is not a National Park... another good thing.

[ranworthbreeze]

47 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

My take on it...

National Parks are a good thing.

The Norfolk & Suffolk Broads is not a National Park... another good thing.

Hello John,

I fully agree with you and yes there should be National Parks, if it was for campaigners as actions of trespass and the right to roam in early thirties we would not have any National Parks which were formed under the 1949 Nation Parks and  the Countryside Act.

The issues that I have with these Quango's is because they are un-elected; the public who the parks were set up for have no say in how they are managed or how Government money should be spent in that area for the people who live, work or visit the said area.

I am of course a stone throw from the Peak District Nation Park and spent many years in the Lake District and of course the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads.

Some are very well managed but there can be big issues with any planning in these areas for people living in these parks, we have seen poor decisions made in the Lake District and on the Broads even though it is not Fully a Nation Park.

Regards

Alan

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, batrabill said:

Here in the Broads the story which is promoted by a very vocal group of people is that National Parks are a BAD thing. Specifically for boaters...

 

...I don’t want the Broads to be a full NP.

There is no need. 

It’s already an NP in every meaningful sense, and the Broads are in fine shape 

The promotion in the Broads by that vocal group is that the Broads becoming a national park (as defined) is a BAD, BAD thing, not that national parks themselves are a bad thing.

True story - my daughter lives in a national park. Her neighbour  wanted to build a house for himself. The planning authority imposed conditions that it could only be later sold to either a resident of the NP, or a member of such a resident's family and that the purchaser must work within the planning authority's area. Which rather reduces the number of potential buyers. Had the neighbour built the house, literally, on the other side of the street, those restrictions would not have been imposed, as the NP boundary runs down the middle of the street.

The Broads is NOT already a national park in every meaninful sense. Unless you regard the navigation, and the BA's duty towards it, meaningless.

[batrabill]

3 minutes ago, Paladin said:

The promotion in the Broads by that vocal group is that the Broads becoming a national park (as defined) is a BAD, BAD thing, not that national parks themselves are a bad thing.

That is proven wrong on this very thread. The behaviour of NPs is used repeatedly to demonstrate how things will be worse if the Broads were a full NP.  The fact that there is b****** all evidence is exactly my point. 

The Broads is plainly a de facto NP and happily balances the principles of National Parks with the needs of navigation. 

 

[JennyMorgan]

28 minutes ago, batrabill said:

The Broads is plainly a de facto NP 

Is that a fact? It is quite plainly not de jure though.

[rightsaidfred]

4 minutes ago, batrabill said:

The Broads is plainly a de facto NP and happily balances the principles of National Parks with the needs of navigation. 

 

Wrong the National Parks are principally a conservation area and are governed by Sandford where leisure interests are secondary, the Broads are primarily  a navigation  where boating and angling often together hold equal sway with conservation and for the time being are protected as such and are by number the largest group of users which is contrary to Sandford, these also probably make up the majority of users interested in conservation and probably do more for conservation in reporting issues than the conservation lobby do.

In my experience most of us came to the Broads long before NP status was mentioned and it certainly provides no benefit in attracting people interested in boating or angling more likely the opposite, it is a totally misleading claim of no benefit to the general public.

Fred