Acle B.N.P.

[JennyMorgan]

1 minute ago, batrabill said:

No one going to answer the question ?

I did!!

[batrabill]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Please note the address of National Parks UK and draw the obvious conclusion!

https://nationalparks.uk/about-us/contact-us

What is the obvious conclusion. JP

you do love a nudge nudge wink wink. An answer would be better. 

[D46]

31 minutes ago, batrabill said:

No one going to answer the question ?

I thought I had but hey Never mind .

[grendel]

well thats 4 of us that think we answered the question, maybe not the answers that you wanted to hear.

[batrabill]

4 hours ago, grendel said:

one step at a time.

 

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Please note the address of National Parks UK and draw the obvious conclusion!

 

3 hours ago, D46 said:

LEGALLY  ???????? It is not a national park it's a member and only a member of the national parks nothing more .

Sorry, I’m really thick, but which of the above is an answer to the question?

[JawsOrca]

4 hours ago, batrabill said:

Genuine question: if you are serious about all this stuff, don’t you have to sort this....

The National Parks website lists 15 NPs. 

Since the objective I assume, is to never have anyone refer to the Broads as an NP, aren’t you on a hiding to nothing is the UK National Parks does exactly that?

Considering in the about us section of that website: https://nationalparks.uk/about-us there seems to be a few exceptions mentioned about the broads.. So from that alone it certainly seems that the Broads isn't a national park in the same sense as the rest... Perhaps it should be referred to as "Kinda a National Park but with some exceptions and legally maybe for advertising purpose only"..

[batrabill]

1 minute ago, JawsOrca said:

Considering in the about us section of that website: https://nationalparks.uk/about-us there seems to be a few exceptions mentioned about the broads.. So from that alone it certainly seems that the Broads isn't a national park in the same sense as the rest... Perhaps it should be referred to as "Kinda a National Park but with some exceptions and legally maybe for advertising purpose only"..

But if the objective (I assume) is to stop people thinking the Broads is a NP, doesn’t this have to be solved???

This is a genuine question. How can you ever stop people thinking it’s a NP if the NP website says it is??

[JawsOrca]

1 minute ago, batrabill said:

But if the objective (I assume) is to stop people thinking the Broads is a NP, doesn’t this have to be solved???

This is a genuine question. How can you ever stop people thinking it’s a NP if the NP website says it is??

I think genuine concerns people (Including myself) have includes (I'm sure others have different reasons though), to what costs is this BNP thing costing? Is this really the best use of such public funds? As certain others have suggested will this affect the rights of navigation despite with the current official statements are from the BA - perhaps not today but in the future. 

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, since you insist, it is a fact that the UK National Parks had to change their constitution to include the Broads within its membership. Perhaps that was because the Broads is not actually and legally a national park.

It is a fact that JP has a full time job as CEO of the BA yet here he is dabbling in this UKNP thing. Is the BA not enough for a man entering his twilight years? Surely preferable that he devotes his time to Broads matters, after all he is well paid and will have a healthy pension from BA coffers.

Coincidently both organisations are run from the same address, indeed are sharing office space. Why is JP ingratiating himself in with the UK NP organisation? For the same reason that he's having these blessed road signs erected perhaps? In both cases both mission and boundary creep, probably? Oh, I nearly forgot, and the sheer vanity of the man.

I accept that the costs are probably being shared with other NP's and that an individual has been employed thus there is some independence from the BA but knowing JP I feel sure his thumb print will be in evidence.

The cost issue, I have no doubt that it's being met from the DEFRA/NP grant but equally I have no doubt that that money could be spent a great deal more wisely, especially on infrastructure projects.  

[D46]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

But if the objective (I assume) is to stop people thinking the Broads is a NP, doesn’t this have to be solved???

This is a genuine question. How can you ever stop people thinking it’s a NP if the NP website says it is??

Ok so this could be technically classed as marketing the Broads NP , but it is misleading people as it not made clear that they are only a member of the national park family , having the ability to use term is one thing , misleading people is entirely different and illegal , it's totally misrepresentation or fraud n last time I looked that's a criminal offense .

Yes this bit of it needs sorting out first I'll agree there but this is totally wrong to mislead anyone who clicks in that site and that is a far bigger issue .

Who to turn to for sorting this , well definitely not BA maybe defra or local MPs raising it in the house who knows , but one things for sure it's not right and it's not legal .

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Bill, since you insist, it is a fact that the UK National Parks had to change their constitution to include the Broads within its membership. Perhaps that was because the Broads is not actually and legally a national park.

Just to make it clear, it was the UK National Parks Charity Foundation that had to change its constitution to enable the Broads Authority to join. And that was because the Broads isn't a national park. The way it was done was they changed the definition of 'national park' in the constitution to:

“National Park” means a geographic territory of England, Wales and / or Scotland which the Trustees deem to fit into the public perception of the time as a territory with special landscape, heritage and / or cultural characteristics which carries the publicly recognised label of “national park”.  In England, Wales and Scotland this will include those areas designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1947, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.”

Previously, the constitution had referred only to National Parks and National Park Authorities.

Obviously, that definition only holds good for the purposes of the charity. It does not change the legal status of the Broads in the slightest.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Just to make it clear, it was the UK National Parks Charity Foundation that had to change its constitution to enable the Broads Authority to join.

My information, maybe wrongly, was that both organisations had had to change their constitutions. Whatever, thanks for the clarification.

[batrabill]

Are you suggesting that the BA has pulled off a sort of reverse takeover of UK National Parks?

Still not sure you have answered my question, but happy to leave it there. Life is too short. 

[batrabill]

I hadn’t read this before. It seems to set out very clearly what Defra think and expect. 

It is very clear about the legal situation and the expectation of what objectives should be pursued. 

“33. The waterways of the Broads are important for navigation, biodiversity and outdoor recreation. They also support the adjacent wetland habitats and the local economy, and provide wider ecosystem services such as mitigating flood risk, and providing drinking water for the adjacent urban areas. The Government expects the Broads Authority to maximise the benefits available from these resources by continuing with its holistic approach to ensure its management of navigation is integrated into all the aspects of the Authority’s management of the Broads. In particular, the Government expects the Broads Authority to continue to encourage a greater range of people to take up sailing, canoeing and fishing and other water related activities and to work with the local tourist industry to promote the area.”

Promote?

pb13387-vision-circular2010.pdf

[JawsOrca]

Interesting to see that report refer as "National parks and the broads" and no where is there mentioned of "Broads national Park"..

[batrabill]

4 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

Interesting to see that report refer as "National parks and the broads" and no where is there mentioned of "Broads national Park"..

No it’s very clear. In fact it answers, in my view many of the points do endlessly debated on here. 

What is also clear, is that it is a de facto NP as far as the Government are concerned, with additional responsibilities for navigation.  

[JawsOrca]

3 minutes ago, batrabill said:

No it’s very clear. In fact it answers, in my view many of the points do endlessly debated on here. 

What is also clear, is that it is a de facto NP as far as the Government are concerned, with additional responsibilities for navigation.  

It was written in 2010 though, is it still the current vision considering it seems to be a 5 year vision? If so it does (also) still clearly indicate that the broads don't seem to be a "real" national park but indeed as you mention it appears to be some kind of NP but is that a good thing?

This debate certainly is a bit like the Flat earth debate/debacle, despite many facts some people will never change their opinion  ;) 

[grendel]

10 hours ago, batrabill said:

This is a genuine question. How can you ever stop people thinking it’s a NP if the NP website says it is??

more a case of if the NP website hosted from Yare House, Headquarters of the Broads Authority says it is.

which puts a whole different complexion on the point in case.

your very example shows the whole point of the argument for your opposition, rather than questioning us why we are not doing anything about it, it proves our point of why we should be trying.

[Paladin]

35 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I hadn’t read this before. It seems to set out very clearly what Defra think and expect. 

It is very clear about the legal situation and the expectation of what objectives should be pursued...

33...In particular, the Government expects the Broads Authority to continue to encourage a greater range of people to take up sailing, canoeing and fishing and other water related activities and to work with the local tourist industry to promote the area.”

Promote?

pb13387-vision-circular2010.pdf 1.01 MB · 3 downloads

I can’t see what your point is. I think we all agree that the 1988 legislation (which, in the event of any dispute, trumps any government circular)is still valid. The second general duty of the BA under that Act is “promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public.”

But I would point out it is the “opportunities for the understanding etc.” that must be promoted, not some mythical never-neverland.

[ranworthbreeze]

The section regarding the Broads makes interesting reading

Regards

Alan

[Smoggy]

10 hours ago, JawsOrca said:

Perhaps it should be referred to as "Kinda a National Park but with some exceptions and legally maybe for advertising purpose only"..

Oh dear, they're gonna need some longer signs..............

[Paladin]

29 minutes ago, batrabill said:

No it’s very clear. In fact it answers, in my view many of the points do endlessly debated on here. 

What is also clear, is that it is a de facto NP as far as the Government are concerned, with additional responsibilities for navigation.  

What you continually ignore is the fact that successive government ministers have said, categorically, explicitly and in writing, that the Broads is NOT legally a National Park.

[batrabill]

17 minutes ago, Paladin said:

What you continually ignore is the fact that successive government ministers have said, categorically, explicitly and in writing, that the Broads is NOT legally a National Park.

No, that is what is so weird.

NO ONE thinks the Broads is legally a National Park as defined by the NP legislation for the main group of National Parks. (As you know there are 3 different legal entities, the Scottish, The Broads and the "main group")

Who are you trying to convince? I can't think of anyone who says it is a NP as narrowly defined above.

Is it possible you don't know what de facto means?

"existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right"

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Is it possible you don't know what de facto means?

"existing or holding a specified position in fact but not necessarily by legal right"

I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound quite so patronising.

The 'specified position', if you really want to rely on that argument, is that which was first mentioned by the Defra minister, William Waldegrave, in 1986, during the Broads Bill debate, when he said, "By giving the Norfolk Broads status equivalent to a national park we are recognising that the area is of national and international importance."

Since then, Defra has repeatedly confirmed that the Broads is not a national park, which takes care of the 'in fact' part of the definition.

The 1949 Act failed to designate the Broads as a National Park, which takes care of the 'legal right' bit.

 

[batrabill]

Groundhog Day.

Which brings me back to my question which I really don't feel has been answered in any way: since everywhere it is described as a National Park, specifically and crucially on the National Parks UK website, but as even the most cursory search finds pretty much all of the top hits referring to the Broads National park and the "15 National Parks" what is the strategy for changing that?

I can see that you are all spending a lot of time campaigning on this issue, when it would seem to me that the battle was lost long ago.

If that is not the case, then what are you going to do about the current situation once the signage side-show has stopped?

If you want to succeed in your aims (my assumption on what your aims are, there is a great deal of subject shift whenever things get sticky) how are you going to stop the rest of the world referring to the Broads as one of the National parks?