Acle B.N.P.

[Paladin]

"shui di shi chuan"

But to return to the specific topic of the signs, perhaps members can solve this puzzle:

1. Norfolk County Council has now classified the BNP signs as boundary signs which are compliant (they say) with Diagram 2403.1 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

2. Boundary signs are actually described by Diagram 2401. Look for yourself.

3. Senior officers of the Broads Authority (including BroadsAuthority, a member on here) have written, at various recent times:

"The signs have been installed in some key Broads locations to increase awareness and promote the area’s special qualities. They are not intended to mark or alter the precise boundaries of the Broads Authority’s executive area"...

"The signs do not mark the boundary of the Broads Authority’s executive area"...

"The signs are not intended to accurately mark the boundaries of the Broads Authority Executive area"...

4. So the organisation that bought them, sought permission to place them on the highway and met all the expenses for their placement, tells everyone are definitely NOT boundary signs, and the authority responsible for giving that permission says they are boundary signs, but it's evident, from reading the regulations, that they do not comply with the boundary sign criteria.

So my question is this: How, given the utter confusion over their classification, can these signs be legal?

Perhaps BroadsAuthority could give an answer.

 

[MauriceMynah]

It is unfair to ask or expect the Member "BroadsAuthority" to wade in on that one Methinks.

Better to ask the Norfolk County Council to explain this inaccuracy.

[grendel]

and ask suffolk county council why they have allowed them at all considering their specific notation under their signage regulations saying that they would not allow signs for national parks except under specific conditions that these signs do not meet. -  ie as specific directions to a specific venue for the national park - would this be where the visitor centre at acle would have fitted into the picture? (apart from the fact it isnt in suffolk)

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

It is unfair to ask or expect the Member "BroadsAuthority" to wade in on that one Methinks.

Better to ask the Norfolk County Council to explain this inaccuracy.

Surely asking a member to comment on his own post cannot be unfair.

Regarding asking the NCC, that is how the discrepancy came to light in the first place.

[MauriceMynah]

3 hours ago, Paladin said:

So my question is this: How, given the utter confusion over their classification, can these signs be legal?

Perhaps BroadsAuthority could give an answer.

 

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Surely asking a member to comment on his own post cannot be unfair.

Depends if you think asking someone to perhaps put their employment on the line is fair. Backing him into a corner and asking him to put himself into a possible "no win situation" strikes me as not in the ethos of this forum. 

That was, no is, my thinking. I reckon we shall have to agree to differ here.

[Paladin]

30 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

Depends if you think asking someone to perhaps put their employment on the line is fair. Backing him into a corner and asking him to put himself into a possible "no win situation" strikes me as not in the ethos of this forum. 

That was, no is, my thinking. I reckon we shall have to agree to differ here.

So I guess we'll just have to accept Broads Authority (note the space) propaganda being posted on here without challenge. I don't think that is the ethos of the forum, either.

Over the years, I have sometimes been challenged regarding the content of some of my posts (even by your good self), and I have always been happy to back up what I say with clear evidence. I don't see anything wrong with that, so, yes, we'll have to agree to differ.

I'm not asking him to put his employment on the line. Didn't he do that when he joined the forum as the BA's official spokesman on here?

[MauriceMynah]

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

Good afternoon,

As you may be aware I am an individual responding on behalf of the Broads Authority through my role in the Comms team. Myself and my colleagues were keen to join this forum so we could better engage with members, help individuals where possible and have productive discussions on the Broads and the work of the Broads Authority

However unfortunately our membership of this forum does not mean that I am able (or obliged) to respond to every question or take part in every debate on here. This is pertinent when questions are asked which appear to serve a purpose of eliciting a response that will, regardless of the answer given, be used to continue a debate against the Broads Authority (or me personally) where the Broads Authority's official position is well-known and widely documented. 

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

I highlighted the red part as I thought it relevant.

[Paladin]

1 minute ago, MauriceMynah said:

I highlighted the red part as I thought it relevant.

While the Authority's position is well know re the signs - they are NOT boundary signs - this is in direct conflict with the classification given to them by the highways authority. The question I posed was directed at  members in general, as someone might have better information/knowledge of the subject than I do. Isn't it reasonable for me to think that BroadsAuthority, as the BA official spokesman on here, might be able to clarify the position for us?

The only conclusion I can draw is that it is another of those questions that are too difficult for him to answer. So be it, but if any other member has the answer, I'd be delighted to hear it.

[JennyMorgan]

I suspect that BA Tom is unlikely to wade into an argument that is not of his own making and one that he can not possibly win.  In this instance perhaps we should ask Dr John Packman to face his public. If he would accept such an invitation then I would ask him to share with us the unadulterated, unedited copies of the complete correspondence that he cites as evidence for his claim that the Broads shares the same status as do national parks proper thus is entitled to be called a national park. What I don't want to see is his translations of what others have written nor do I want to read cherry picked, especially when its out of context , information. Over to you, Dr Packman, the ball is in your court.  

[ChrisB]

It would be very interesting for the EDP to present the facts to their readers without spin.

That is due to the ancient rights of navigation The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads do not have full National Park Status. Otherwise the principle of conservation being paramount could take precedence over those ancient rights.

And then for them to hold a ballot as to keeping the status quo or should this internationally important wetland be afforded full National Park status.

I am purely playing devils advocate here but would assume that the rights of navigation over tidal waters and the additional rights due to custom and practice above NTLs were enshrined to protect commercial transport and trade long before waterbourne leisure arrived 120 years ago.

Looking at the bigger picture regarding the loss of and conservation of wetlands worldwide and how the general public are now, so much more, not only aware of the natural world around them but actively wish to see it protected. I fear that we 15000 boaters + hirers who fight for our right to navigate, at what could be construed as to be to the detriment of the natural wetland environment would gain very little sympathy from the public at large.

Put to people be that locally, nationally or interest groups, like say, the viewers of Countryfile. I am sure they would come down firmly on the side that The Broads should recieve full NP status.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

It would be very interesting for the EDP to present the facts to their readers without spin.

That is due to the ancient rights of navigation The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads do not have full National Park Status. Otherwise the principle of conservation being paramount could take precedence over those ancient rights.

And then for them to hold a ballot as to keeping the status quo or should this internationally important wetland be afforded full National Park status.

I am purely playing devils advocate here but would assume that the rights of navigation over tidal waters and the additional rights due to custom and practice above NTLs were enshrined to protect commercial transport and trade long before waterbourne leisure arrived 120 years ago.

Looking at the bigger picture regarding the loss of and conservation of wetlands worldwide and how the general public are now, so much more, not only aware of the natural world around them but actively wish to see it protected. I fear that we 15000 boaters + hirers who fight for our right to navigate, at what could be construed as to be to the detriment of the natural wetland environment would gain very little sympathy from the public at large.

Put to people be that locally, nationally or interest groups, like say, the viewers of Countryfile. I am sure they would come down firmly on the side that The Broads should recieve full NP status.

The elephant in the room regarding that argument is that the Broads isn’t actually a “natural wetland environment”. As is so often pointed out, it was artificially created by peat extraction, and constant and costly intervention by man is required to prevent it turning into a carr-covered quagmire.

Nature made the mountains, hills and dales. Man created the Broads.

In terms of national park equivalence, the area is unique, which is exactly why it was given the protection of its own bespoke legislation. The suggestion that the legislation was necessary in order to protect commercial shipping is a red herring. By the 1980s, when the legislation was being put through parliament, commercial shipping on the Broads had all but ceased. It’s all in Hansard, if anyone want to check.

[ChrisB]

I think that common sense would dictate that natural law should prevail and that having been formed by sea level rise over 600 years ago they are indeed now natural. 

The majority of wetland reserves in the UK have been given a helping hand by earth movers, be that in the extraction of agregate years ago or in the provision of scrapes and nesting islands. 

Nearly all the National Parks landscapes are the result of man's intervention for fuel, grazing etc. In the case of the South Downs NP. It's landscape was formed by firing the iron furnaces long after The Broads flooded and well before areas that we now associate with the start of the Industrial Age.

 

[Paladin]

21 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

I think that common sense would dictate that natural law should prevail and that having been formed by sea level rise over 600 years ago they are indeed now natural. 

The majority of wetland reserves in the UK have been given a helping hand by earth movers, be that in the extraction of agregate years ago or in the provision of scrapes and nesting islands. 

Nearly all the National Parks landscapes are the result of man's intervention for fuel, grazing etc. In the case of the South Downs NP. It's landscape was formed by firing the iron furnaces long after The Broads flooded and well before areas that we now associate with the start of the Industrial Age.

 

So are you suggesting that the boating industry, with its capacity to provide substantial employment and attract income for other local businesses, should be allowed to go to the wall. If that should happen, many local shops, hotels, pubs, etc. would lose their livelihoods. I can’t see that lost income being replaced by hordes of hill walkers flocking here. 

[ChrisB]

No. I can't recall that is what I said.

[Paladin]

38 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

No. I can't recall that is what I said.

Hence I asked the question, because I'm not sure where else your argument would lead. With full legal national park status, with no protection for the interests of the navigation, how long do you think the boating industry, hiring, maintaining, building, leisure use, etc., would last?

If there was protection for the interests of the navigation somehow built into the new model, it wouldn't be a full national park.

Catch 22?

[Smoggy]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

I can’t see that lost income being replaced by hordes of hill walkers flocking here. 

Mmmm hill waking in norfolk, or mountaineering for fat people even, I can see that idea having legs.

Short chubby legs.....

[grendel]

2 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

Short chubby legs.....

in wellingtons or waders

[Bytheriver]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Hence I asked the question, because I'm not sure where else your argument would lead. With full legal national park status, with no protection for the interests of the navigation, how long do you think the boating industry, hiring, maintaining, building, leisure use, etc., would last?

If there was protection for the interests of the navigation somehow built into the new model, it wouldn't be a full national park.

Catch 22?

There may be more questions than answers but this paper is being presented to next Fridays BA Meeting (just 12 pages)

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/1837875/Landscape-Review-Response-with-Appendix-Glover-report-Recommendations-31-01-20.pdf

[grendel]

I see issues that might arise from proposal 8

Quote

Proposal 8: A night under the stars in a national landscape for every child

Are the Broads Authority going to stop Elon Musks Starlink Satellite launches, as it is a recognised fact amongst astronomers that these are going to ruin the view of the stars. you cant have a night under the stars if you cannot see stars.

I did also spot the watering down of the importance of navigation, by splitting one of the current purposes into 2 to create 4 equal purposes, one of which is navigation, thus reducing the importance from 1 in 3 to 1 in 4

also the comment that an updated sandford principle would be contentious with some navigation interests in the Broads

I think this needs some careful study to work out just what it means (not just the face value of what it says)

[Paladin]

Meanwhile, back at the Acle BNP signs debate…

In the papers for the next BA meeting, there is a report, “ Strategic priorities - progress update”, in which this comment appears:

"Road signs being installed at 35 sites in Norfolk and Suffolk in January. Planning for phase two of initiative begun with further locations identified, supported by Interreg ‘Experience’ fund through Norfolk County Council."

Has anyone heard of the Interreg Experience? No, nor had I, but I've found this information.

It seems that the EU is providing more than £21 million, over 4 years, to boost the numbers of French tourists coming to the south of England, during the off-peak season (October – March). Norfolk County Council is leading the project in the UK. This is what they say about it.

But weren’t we told that the Broads Authority was funding the BNP signs?

And can anyone explain to me how putting up misleading BNP signs around Norfolk and Suffolk is going to encourage our French friends to come to the Broads?

Any ideas, Vaughan?

[ChrisB]

Possibly because "National Park" as defined by the International Union for the conservation of Nature, as we have been made aware on numerous occasions, is a brand used by very nearly 100 countries and recognised for what they are in many more worldwide.

Good marketing practice, feed them " A Known and Trusted Brand"

[vanessan]

48 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Any ideas, Vaughan?

Sadly I fear that Vaughan will no longer be participating  in this forum - see post January 17. If however Paladin can persuade him to continue to give us the benefit of his knowledge and thoughts, I for one would be delighted. 

[Paladin]

28 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Possibly because "National Park" as defined by the International Union for the conservation of Nature, as we have been made aware on numerous occasions, is a brand used by very nearly 100 countries and recognised for what they are in many more worldwide.

Let me set the record straight. The IUCN sets out categories of protected areas, from Category 1 to Category 6. The highest category is 1. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: A protected area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection. 

Then comes Category 2. National Park: A protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation.

All the UK National Parks and the Broads come in Category 5. Protected Landscape/Seascape: A protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation.

So, in international terms, none of the UK National Parks nor the Broads are legitimate national parks, as defined by the IUCN.

[Wussername]

28 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Possibly because "National Park" as defined by the International Union for the conservation of Nature, as we have been made aware on numerous occasions, is a brand used by very nearly 100 countries and recognised for what they are in many more worldwide.

Amazing Chris. That would suggest to me that nearly 100 countries who recognise the National Park brand as defined by the International Union, and conform to its restrictions and modus operandi might be forgiven in trying to compete against this Broads National Park and saying .............Who?

They might also question why they are competing against a National Park that isn't. 

[Paladin]

8 minutes ago, vanessan said:

Sadly I fear that Vaughan will no longer be participating  in this forum - see post January 17. If however Paladin can persuade him to continue to give us the benefit of his knowledge and thoughts, I for one would be delighted. 

I had seen that post, but he was reacting to a post which had a big grinning smiley attached to it, so hardly anything to get upset about, I would have thought. But he'll be a loss to the forum, if that is the case.