Acle B.N.P.

[rightsaidfred]

34 minutes ago, marshman said:

Presumably as they envisaged "road signs" it cam out of the Navigation budget!! Whatever next!!!

Presumably as they persist in Advertising something for what it is clearly not and engaging in areas outside their remit at considerable expense from public funds whichever budget they came from the next step will be ??????? you decide, sorry no prize for the best answer.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

Old Wossie mentions mission creep and that does raise concerns. If we take Acle as an example, it is largely and clearly outside the Broads Authority's area of control. A quick peep at BA spin shows that the Authority claims that it takes care of the BNP, thus we have to presume that since Acle is now a declared part of the BNP it has now acquiesced its decision making to Yare House.  Well, if it hasn't then the BA is not looking after the entire NP, despite its claim that it does. A national park with no boundaries, a national park with inconsistent planning policies from a multitude of different local planning authorities. Extreme thought, maybe, but potentially possible, sheds must be green in South Norfolk and yellow in East Suffolk, laughable situation. Mission creep, or underhand boundary creep? 

[Paladin]

A question in the Glover Review was: Is the governance structure of the National Parks fit for the future?

The BA’s response:...the boundaries of the Broads National Park should be reviewed to include whole parishes...

This was met with considerable resistance from parish and district councils alike. So, softly, softly, first step, put up signs in the acquiescent parish council areas, to give the impression to all and sundry that such a parish is now within the Broads executive area. Leave it like that for a while, until everyone (including the parish, district and county councillors) are brainwashed into believing it to be the status quo, then suggest to Glover/Defra/whoever that it has been universally accepted that those areas ARE de facto within the BA’s control, so let’s make it official.

Fantasy? Just remember, you read it first here.

[floydraser]

I'm trying to stay on the fence here because until I read Peter's original post on this thread, I had no idea about this issue. It's fair to say though, if I had not seen it, when I saw the signs I and probably every other tourist would probably just accept the existence of the BNP.

The original post doesn't come over as a call to arms, more a chuck it out there and see what happens. But it looks like there's quite a bit of emotion and strong feeling out there!

Unfortunately though, from up here on the fence it's looking a bit 48/52, or even 52/48 which could be better, or worse.

My earlier comment regarding a government petition wasn't me taking the p for once but I know, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes!

https://petition.parliament.uk/

If someone could come up with a carefully worded petition it could actually get something done in a direct or subtle way. With 10k signatures government would be notified, 100k and it would be debated in the Commons. Of course if it contained reference to a “Broads National Park” and got rejected by the government because it doesn't exist....

Staying on the fence but getting splinters.

[JennyMorgan]

The petitions route might work, but I doubt it. Problem is that it would be open to all and that includes those without a clue as to the detail. If a petition could be limited to stakeholder groups then it probably would have value, trouble is I doubt that there would be 100k responses let alone a 100k one way or the other. In government terms the Broads is unfortunately too small to bother with, especially with Brexit on its plate. The call really has to be for democracy and a rethink in the manner in which the Authority is led.

 

[JanetAnne]

I was surprised to see that the old Oulton Broad swimming pool site has needed Broads Authority approval to be filled in. 

For some reason I would have expected that to be an Oulton Broad Parish Council decision. 

Its those little things that make you suddenly aware of how far the BA actually reaches. Waterside I can understand but just how far away from 'The Broads' do they have such control ? 

[JennyMorgan]

3 hours ago, Paladin said:

Both sums were placed in the "Conservation of Cultural Heritage" category in the accounts.

How on earth can the BA justify 'Conservation of Cultural Heritage' in relation to the bogus BNP for heaven's sakes? Does the Broads really have such a culture to conserve? Why don't Authority members question this guff and the sheare waste of public money by the executive? Surely it's a gross misappropriation of funds? This is a serious matter, BA Tom, any comments?

[Paladin]

14 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

How on earth can the BA justify 'Conservation of Cultural Heritage' in relation to the bogus BNP for heaven's sakes? Does the Broads really have such a culture to conserve? Why don't Authority members question this guff and the sheare waste of public money by the executive? Surely it's a gross misappropriation of funds? This is a serious matter, BA Tom, any comments?

I refer the Honorable Gentleman to the answer that was given earlier.

On 03/01/2020 at 12:25, BroadsAuthority said:

...Regarding the signs, an official response on the Broads Authority's rationale has been previously provided in this thread. If there's any further genuine questions can I kindly ask these to be directed through our official communications channels.

Thanks,

Tom

 

[Bytheriver]

On 13/01/2020 at 11:36, Vaughan said:

I may be confusing Highways England with the Local Highways Authority. One has to be so careful these days, when talking of all these official bodies (elected or otherwise) who purport to tell us what to do with our lives.

To be fair there was talk of a HA comment in the correspondence for the Pedros Planning Application but no formal submission from them - That said the BA Officers Report said the the location is in Acle Parish when it is actually Upton with Fishley

[Bytheriver]

15 hours ago, JanetAnne said:

I was surprised to see that the old Oulton Broad swimming pool site has needed Broads Authority approval to be filled in. 

For some reason I would have expected that to be an Oulton Broad Parish Council decision. 

Its those little things that make you suddenly aware of how far the BA actually reaches. Waterside I can understand but just how far away from 'The Broads' do they have such control ? 

This far 

[vanessan]

Where exactly is the old Oulton Broad swimming pool site?

[NorfolkNog]

[JennyMorgan]

There has to be a boundary to an executive area, unlike the BNP, and unfortunately, or inevitably, Oulton Broad falls within that boundary, which really should make sense! The downside being that as far as planning is concerned we have people making decisions for Oulton Broad who have never visited the place, or in some instances don't even know where it is. Still, hey ho, they can take their leads from the Officer's Reports!

[grendel]

I believe their boundary follows that of the flood plains - eg

from the government flood risk map - https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map

 

[JennyMorgan]

A great deal of the North bank of Oulton Broad is well above the floodplain. There has to be a boundary and some of it, in Horning as well as Oulton Broad, is not entirely logical although it is inevitable that there will be oddities and exceptions. Luck of the draw for homeowners!

[JennyMorgan]

Seems that the Martham sign/lie has also been rejected!

[Paladin]

Oh dear, whoops. But perhaps it would be more interesting if the location wasn't shown or given away, then we could all play "Find the covered sign". 

[JanetAnne]

On 14/01/2020 at 12:47, Bytheriver said:

This far 

Oooh.. I shall look forward to seeing that lot dredged! Bungay here we come 

[Bytheriver]

On 14/01/2020 at 15:05, JennyMorgan said:

There has to be a boundary to an executive area, unlike the BNP, and unfortunately, or inevitably, Oulton Broad falls within that boundary, which really should make sense! The downside being that as far as planning is concerned we have people making decisions for Oulton Broad who have never visited the place, or in some instances don't even know where it is. Still, hey ho, they can take their leads from the Officer's Reports!

For the avoidance of doubt and for the information of forum members who are not aware, in all planning authorities, Planning Officers make the decisions on most applications using the  Local Plan and National Guidance and Neighbourhood Plans.and any "material planning considerations" raised as part of the consultation  They frequently have discussions with applicants and even objectors and often make site visits. Whether an application is going to a Committee or not they produce a report which includes a resume of objections They are present when committee meets to assist in their deliberations. Sometimes committees make site visits,  the BA Planning Ctte for example had a site meeting prior to the Broadland Marina (Oulton Broad) decision last year.    Hope this helps!

[johnb]

If new signs are damaged by objectors, are those causing the damage liable under criminal or civil law? If the signs are not legal, could those placing them there in all conscience use the law to take the objectors to court? Some public bodies seem willing to spend the money given (charged) for other purposes to prove their point. Whilst I have no objection to any peaceful reaction to the signs, they are costing money, will some authority resort to putting a camera to identify the perpetrators? I think we should be very careful in case someone thinks they have the backing of this forum to take action-much as many of us enjoy the pictures!

 

 

[ModeratorTeam]

Just to make it crystal clear; the NBN does not in any way support or sanction the defacing of public property, including roadsigns. 
 

[Paladin]

30 minutes ago, ModeratorTeam said:

Just to make it crystal clear; the NBN does not in any way support or sanction the defacing of public property, including roadsigns. 
 

I doubt that any member would support damaging anyone's property, particularly as that could lead to a criminal prosecution for that person and for anyone aiding and abetting them. But I very much doubt that covering something with a piece of plastic(?) would cause any damage, unless the plastic was glued or nailed on.

[batrabill]

Just now, Paladin said:

I doubt that any member would support damaging anyone's property, particularly as that could lead to a criminal prosecution for that person and for anyone aiding and abetting them. But I very much doubt that covering something with a piece of plastic(?) would cause any damage, unless the plastic was glued or nailed on.

And what happens then?

 

Someone has to go and remove the "bit of plastic". That someone has to be paid.

There's a cost to jolly japes.

 

 

[Paladin]

43 minutes ago, johnb said:

If the signs are not legal...

The placement of these signs is governed by either the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 or planning law, depending on whether they are classified as boundary, tourist signs, gateway signs, town/village signs etc, or advertising signs. I really don't know which these are, but they have been installed with the consent of the Norfolk County Council. The legality of the signs has yet to be established.

[Paladin]

3 minutes ago, batrabill said:

And what happens then?

 

Someone has to go and remove the "bit of plastic". That someone has to be paid.

There's a cost to jolly japes.

 

 

Yes they do and yes there is. Someone also has to be paid to clean up the streets when rubbish is strewn around (perhaps wind-blown rather than littered), and sweep the leaves up in the autumn. There is a statue of a venerable judge in the centre of Chelmsford, for example, that is often to be seen wearing a traffic cone on its head, particularly at weekends. Someone has to come along with a ladder to climb up and remove it.

Jolly japes indeed. If we don't have a sense of humour, we turn into Victor Meldrews.