Acle B.N.P.

[ranworthbreeze]

35 minutes ago, batrabill said:

OK, but since I see many, many planning applications here in the Broads and pretty much every single one has to consider conservation and the natural environment, I could just glibly say, all off them.

 

Here's a few of the top of my head, some relevant to open water.

 

The Windermere Speed restriction, and the Thirlmere Zip wire.

The recent Gentlemens Yachts last Grasmere, and also the passing of the Zip wire at Honister which has now been passed despite there being all sorts of rare plants.... Its not exactly Sandfordaggeddon is it?

 

Hello batrabill,

The speed restriction had nothing to do with Sandford, it was perceived over 30 year that there was an issue with speedboat and jet skies in the last 5 years prior to the introduction of the ban. Even though the lake was policed the quango would not be swayed by public opinion over 20 years plus of campaigning against the ban.

Regards

Alan 

[Bytheriver]

A few points for those new to the debate -

On Planning BA have a fairly new Local Plan (2019 despite what it says at the top of the cover) which lays the ground rules for applications

The Lake District have 4,500 powered craft + non powered but with high annual registration fees (just no tides or dredging).

Glover as it evolves lays the basis England wide so the more the local MPs know the better but without trying to brainwash.

BA are currently awaiting info from Government on the way forward - there was a paper presented to the last BA meeting laying the 27 points out.

(Sorry no time to ad links just now)

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

OK, but since I see many, many planning applications here in the Broads

Just curious, how many is many, many? It's just that there aren't that many applications within the Broads area. Anyway, conservation issues seem to apply pretty much wherever, not just in NPs and the Broads.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

One yard in Womack is just about to extend its basin and that will involve digging out peat I suspect, and that application was not refused, so perhaps that was NOT the specific point in issue as far as the proposed Richardson's development was concerned!

As the land in question  was to extend the existing basin and contains the derilict Wilds building and is surrounded by other property I cant think of another reason.

Fred

[batrabill]

5 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Not sure whether Sanford was directly applied but I know Richardsons were told not to bother applying for planning permision as it involved the removal of peat from what is basically  derilict land and would be refused.

Fred

Sandford does not apply here. Neither would it be needed in any other NP

 

5 hours ago, Paladin said:

Out of the hundreds of applications you mentioned, only these?

Since when did the Sandford Principle apply to the Broads?

Incidentally, the Welsh Assembly's recent (2017) review of national parks and AONBs didn't even mention Sandford, much to the dismay of the opposition.

What on earth do you mean “only these” you asked for examples. 

My point, which perhaps I didn’t make clearly enough is that Sandford is almost never invoked anywhere. 

In fact the go-to example here on this forum for how NPs were bad for boats was the speed restriction on Windermere. 

I’ve read the judgements and Sandford is not part of the reasoning for the speed limit. 

 

Lets be clear. I have read 100 times here and other places that if the Broads became a full NP then “Sandford would apply”. 

From that we are supposed to infer that in those circumstance boating would suffer as a result. Sometimes it has been explicitly stated that Sandford would be bad for boating  

I think that’s backed up by almost zero evidence. 

But there doesn’t have to be much evidence for the Boogie Man to scare people does there??

[batrabill]

4 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just curious, how many is many, many? It's just that there aren't that many applications within the Broads area. Anyway, conservation issues seem to apply pretty much wherever, not just in NPs and the Broads.

Do you want me to prove that I have read many planning applications ? Bizarre.

I’ve read many even quite a few around Oulton. 

[Ray]

 

7 minutes ago, batrabill said:

But there doesn’t have to be much evidence for the Boogie Man to scare people does there??

Throughout every aspect of life and in every era of history there has been Boogie Men, being prepared and being forewarned are a well learnt lesson, not the act of the scared, but of the ready!

[JennyMorgan]

11 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Do you want me to prove that I have read many planning applications ? Bizarre.

I’ve read many even quite a few around Oulton. 

I don't doubt that you have read them, please re-read my previous, bizarre question.

One of the real similarities between the Broads Act and the National Parks Act relates to planning, as I expect that you already know.

[batrabill]

5 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just curious, how many is many, many? It's just that there aren't that many applications within the Broads area. Anyway, conservation issues seem to apply pretty much wherever, not just in NPs and the Broads.

I looked back at your question and your question was ‘how many is many’

Not sure why I should have to put a number on it and why it would matter?

I was thinking of going back through the planning portal and seeing how many of the current ones I’d seen, extrapolating back over time. and then I thought... nah

 

Perhaps you would answer a question? 

What is it about being a full NP that is an actual threat to the Broads since Sandford is obviously not?

[BroadAmbition]

I would offer that  Sandford definitely is 

Griff

[grendel]

7 hours ago, batrabill said:

Sometimes it has been explicitly stated that Sandford would be bad for boating  

I think that’s backed up by almost zero evidence. 

I have seen zero evidence that it would be good for boating either.

[MauriceMynah]

We have "The Broads Authority" does each of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority? or do ANY of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority?

[batrabill]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

I have seen zero evidence that it would be good for boating either.

True, but there are 2.3 billion posts on the NBN saying it will be bad for boating and zero saying it will be good for boating so that puts the onus on you to find evidence that support that argument doesn’t it ?

 

If people were posting here every day saying “we’ll get Sandford and that will be great for boating” you might ask, where is the evidence for that ?

 

I am asking, where is the evidence that Sandford would be bad for boating? Not an unreasonable question is it?

[batrabill]

19 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

We have "The Broads Authority" does each of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority? or do ANY of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority?

Yes I think they all have an organisation called things like The Cairngorms National Park Authority. 

I don’t think they have elected members anywhere, which is a reason that there will never be elected members here in my opinion as DEFRA view the 15 NPs as one thing and are very unlikely to do anything different for one area. 

[MauriceMynah]

The way I see it Batrabill, is that if the interests of navigation are at odds with the interests of conservation, conservation will take precedence. This cannot in any way  be good for boating but could very easily be bad for it.

Further, it is logical to suggest that conservation is, generally speaking, cheaper than maintenance.

Consider those two thoughts and add that the BA is a quango that has tight budgets and I think you have our thoughts in a nutshell.

Do we have proof? No! Can we lay our hands on evidence? No! …  Does that mean we are wrong and are worrying unnecessarily ?

Well you seem to think so, but to be honest I don't 

[grendel]

a slight exaggeration, i dont think the forum is up to 2.3 billion posts just yet, though it is a popular forum.

to be fair the onus is on both sides of the argument to put up their evidence one way or another.

plus to quote that you have not seen Sandford applied to any planning applications in broadlands is a fallacy, because at present sandford doesnt apply here.

 any evidence that it has been applied and the results / reasons will be found at one of the real National Parks and in their planning applications.

I believe that if the Glover report is taken up as per Tims post then the Sandford prinicple will have to be updated to allow for the new variances between the various lands and locales that will then be represented, and in that some controls regarding the navigation will have to be allowed for the Broads, I would hope that at this point some input from the affected parties would be considered, and some historic responsibilities would be maintained and improved.

[batrabill]

1 minute ago, grendel said:

plus to quote that you have not seen Sandford applied to any planning applications in broadlands is a fallacy, because at present sandford doesnt apply here.

I have never said that Sandford applies here!

I am making 2 points

1. It is almost never invoked in the other 14 National Parks. 

2. All the 15 National Parks have to take conservation issues into account on every planning application, and have all sorts of powers to rule against things they don’t think are right for the area - exactly as the BA do now. 

Sandford is a mythical boogie man that has been used by activists here in the Broads to create a myth.  

[MauriceMynah]

2 minutes ago, batrabill said:

1. It is almost never invoked in the other 14 National Parks. 

I'll let Peter answer that one 

4 minutes ago, batrabill said:

2. All the 15 National Parks have to take conservation issues into account on every planning application, and have all sorts of powers to rule against things they don’t think are right for the area - exactly as the BA do now. 

All planning authorities have to do that, NP or not. What they are not obliged to do is give conservation priority.

[BigCheese]

1 minute ago, MauriceMynah said:

The way I see it Batrabill, is that if the interests of navigation are at odds with the interests of conservation, conservation will take precedence. This cannot in any way  be good for boating but could very easily be bad for it.

Further, it is logical to suggest that conservation is, generally speaking, cheaper than maintenance.

Consider those two thoughts and add that the BA is a quango that has tight budgets and I think you have our thoughts in a nutshell.

Do we have proof? No! Can we lay our hands on evidence? No! …  Does that mean we are wrong and are worrying unnecessarily ?

Well you seem to think so, but to be honest I don't 

Guys, we're at risk of replacing the 'B' word with the 'S' word here.

The third purpose is unique to the Broads. While there is a precedent on Windemere, those circumstances are significantly different to ours. My point, therefore, is there will effectively be no evidence either way until after the event, should it ever happen.

There is also the question of what is to be gained or lost. As both a tollpayer and naturalist, I feel there is little to be gained but a great deal to be lost.

My level of mistrust in he-who-shall-not-be-named gives me no confidence whatsoever that such powers would not be abused - after all, so many others already are. I therefore feel any move towards Sandford should be resisted all the way. Which is why I submitted my piece originally.

[batrabill]

 

I may have mentioned this before....

[Poppy]

43 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

We have "The Broads Authority" does each of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority? or do ANY of the "other" National Parks have it's own authority?

Indeed all do. Where they differ from the Broads Authority is that they all have a number of directly elected members, whose position can not be challenged, overidden or in any other way influenced by their CEOs.

[Woodie]

Different tangent, the Lake District National Park Authority are facing a legal challenge from a pressure group because they didn’t apply Sandford in reaching a decision. 
 

Really  didn’t want to stop you boating on HIckling, but we were forced  to apply Sandford, even though we had no intention.

Sorry

Honest.......

[batrabill]

1 minute ago, Poppy said:

Indeed all do. Where they differ from the Broads Authority is that they all have a number of directly elected members, whose position can not be challenged, overidden or in any other way influenced by their CEOs.

Do they ? I didn’t know that. 

 

So the Broads would be much better off if it was a full NP then???

[Paladin]

29 minutes ago, batrabill said:

So the Broads would be much better off if it was a full NP then???

Not if it came at the expense of the navigation.

[MauriceMynah]

One of the things often asked for is evidence of "Sandford" having been invoked.

Would it be totally unreasonable of me to suggest that "Sandford" is shorthand for "The Sandford Principle". One does not have to "invoke" it, just apply it. It follows therefor that any instance where something has happened where greater weight has been given to conservation over another consideration, the Sandford Principle has been applied very probably without Sandford's name being mentioned.