Acle B.N.P.

[MauriceMynah]

21 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

First, I think it rude to question whether  any member of this forum has any sense, so an apology wouldn't go amiss. 

Normality is resumed. ST, I disagree.

If one were to say "If he had any sense, Fred wouldn't go too near the cliff edge." One is not doubting "Fred's" sense, but observing the possibility of an unwise action. Something we are all capable of doing.

Still drunk, still not joining in the debate.  🙂

[marshman]

ST - sometimes with respect, you have not a scooby how or what I am thinking!!!!

I have no relationship at all with the BA, nor do I have any knowledge of the BA's intentions in respect of their future intentions nor have I ever given any indication of what my personal preferences as to NP status is - you are merely making assumptions and as is often the case, making assumptions merely leads you down the wrong path!!

I merely like, as do a few others,  to point out that there are two sides to every story and my comments should be often be taken to put things in perspective. You state quite "deafeningly" that the Sandford Principle will apply - do you have an inside track into what any such legislation, even if it were to be suggested, would actually say? Perhaps the Broads could still be excluded? 

 No one has any real idea, so lets not keep guessing both as to my preferences and the Governments legislative timetable or its intentions and save any further discussion until, or if, any real indications are seen. Crying wolf every five minutes has long seen to be one of the least effective ways of taking action so lets all just enjoy ourselves until such time as action is actually needed. We act on this Forum as if it talks for the majority  of Broadland views and opinions - often it is in fact the minority and a mouthpiece of those that "shout" the loudest

And no, equally, I have no intention of apologising to Tom - he doesn't expect it, it isn't necessary, and a bit like MM I shall desist for the time being, as if history repeats itself, any thoughts I have, will be in minority and further assumptions made about me, will be probably wrong again too!!!

I shall comment no further at this time for fear of bringing the crowd down on my head!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

53 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

To do that we not only need to understand his objectives, but also how he arrived at them.

I couldn't agree more! I'm not generally averse to crediting JP with a high degree of both cleverness and ability but in this instance I respectfully suggest that public relations and gaining public trust has not proven to be his strongpoint. Anyway, that aside, once again over to BA Tom, what are Dr Packman's objectives in regards to national park status for the Broads and how did he arrive at said objectives? Mister Mynah, Sir, I agree with your assertion and have asked the question!

[JennyMorgan]

16 minutes ago, marshman said:

You state quite "deafeningly" that the Sandford Principle will apply

Marsh, please read and inwardly digest the following:

http://www.brga.org.uk/files/Download/RSPB_Broadsvisionfinal.pdf

Please also refer to Hansard, Parliamentary records,  as to why Parliament rejected the Broads National Park Bill. Namely that the National Park's legislation requires that to be a national park it requires observance of the dreaded Sandford Principle. Navigation and Sandford are incompatible thus the Broads has its own peculiar legislation, as I am sure you already know!

Surely I don't need to elucidate any further, do I?

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

ST - sometimes with respect, you have not a scooby how or what I am thinking!!!!

I have no relationship at all with the BA, nor do I have any knowledge of the BA's intentions in respect of their future intentions nor have I ever given any indication of what my personal preferences as to NP status is - you are merely making assumptions and as is often the case, making assumptions merely leads you down the wrong path!!

I merely like, as do a few others,  to point out that there are two sides to every story and my comments should be often be taken to put things in perspective. You state quite "deafeningly" that the Sandford Principle will apply - do you have an inside track into what any such legislation, even if it were to be suggested, would actually say? Perhaps the Broads could still be excluded? 

 No one has any real idea, so lets not keep guessing both as to my preferences and the Governments legislative timetable or its intentions and save any further discussion until, or if, any real indications are seen. Crying wolf every five minutes has long seen to be one of the least effective ways of taking action so lets all just enjoy ourselves until such time as action is actually needed. We act on this Forum as if it talks for the majority  of Broadland views and opinions - often it is in fact the minority and a mouthpiece of those that "shout" the loudest

And no, equally, I have no intention of apologising to Tom - he doesn't expect it, it isn't necessary, and a bit like MM I shall desist for the time being, as if history repeats itself, any thoughts I have, will be in minority and further assumptions made about me, will be probably wrong again too!!!

I shall comment no further at this time for fear of bringing the crowd down on my head!!!!

Marshy,

Before i post any more (crap?), i will point out, i mean no antagonism or deliberate annoyance whenever i quote any of your posts, far from it, i may disagree with SOME of your posts, but i will always respect your, and anybody else`s opposing view, and your rite to post it. I will ALWAYS welcome anybody`s opposing view,  as should anybody else.

As for the Sandford principle, as PW says, it MUST apply to allow any region to become a National Park, so i`l stand by that one.

As for crying wolf every 5 minutes, i wonder how many times people have claimed "nobody told us", when in fact they had be warned time and time again, but chose to ignore the warnings?. The sign at Acle clearly states in the picture "National Park" which is claiming what it is supposed to be. Had it said something like "working with the Nation Parks Authority", or "in partnership with the National Park Authority", maybe, just maybe, some people might accept it.

As i`ve stated several times before, Karen and i live on the fringes of the New Forest National Park, and know, and have worked with people who do, or have lived in the National Park boundries, and all have said how costly and restrictive it is to live in a house and/or run businesses in it. I`ve also seen a home restoration programme where the owners were disallowed to use Norfolk reed to re-thatch their cottage, yet were compelled by the NFNPA to have to import more expensive french reed thatch. Also, there have been several cases where people have had to re-paint houses and cottages because the NFNPA did`nt agree with the type of paint, or colour the owners chose, again, compelling them to use a different, and more expensive brand.

If the Norfolk Broads WAS to gain full NP status, it could spell the end of a great many businesses and livelihoods on and around  the Broads, just as it has in the Lake District NP. And i`d be more than happy to "cry wolf" a million times to stop that happening.

[BroadsAuthority]

Hello everyone,

We hope you've been enjoying the Christmas break. We'd like to clarify a few points below on issues raised in this thread and elsewhere on the web.

There are considerable benefits in the Broads being part of the international family of National Parks. The Broads Authority is legally entitled and privileged to be able to promote the area as a National Park. It shares the same purposes as the UK’s National Park Authorities as well as having the additional responsibility of maintaining the waterways for the purposes of navigation. The Broads attracts just under 8m visitors a year, supporting over 7,000 jobs and bringing £633m to the local economy.

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 (it would be very difficult to achieve this given the way that the boundary follows the waterways and flood plains and interacts with roads).

Locations have been chosen that are iconic Broads locations where the broads are an integral part of that town or village and where a positive response has been given by the relevant parish council. In doing so we hope that these locations will continue to benefit from being part of the international family of National Parks.

Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council have helped achieve a very cost effective way of promoting the Broads National Park by using existing signage posts.

To reiterate our previous statements on the matter, at its meeting on 23 January 2015 the Broads Authority resolved that: “for the avoidance of doubt, the Authority indicates that it has no intention of seeking the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads Authority’s functions…”. This is still the case and the Broads Authority still has no intention of seeking a legislative change which would invoke the Sanford Principle in the Broads.

There's more information on our legislation and other related matters on our frequently asked questions page: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/frequently-asked-questions

Thanks (and happy new year for tomorrow!)

Tom

[Paladin]

24 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hello everyone,

We hope you've been enjoying the Christmas break. We'd like to clarify a few points below on issues raised in this thread and elsewhere on the web.

There are considerable benefits in the Broads being part of the international family of National Parks. The Broads Authority is legally entitled and privileged to be able to promote the area as a National Park. It shares the same purposes as the UK’s National Park Authorities as well as having the additional responsibility of maintaining the waterways for the purposes of navigation. The Broads attracts just under 8m visitors a year, supporting over 7,000 jobs and bringing £633m to the local economy.

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 (it would be very difficult to achieve this given the way that the boundary follows the waterways and flood plains and interacts with roads).

Locations have been chosen that are iconic Broads locations where the broads are an integral part of that town or village and where a positive response has been given by the relevant parish council. In doing so we hope that these locations will continue to benefit from being part of the international family of National Parks.

Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council have helped achieve a very cost effective way of promoting the Broads National Park by using existing signage posts.

To reiterate our previous statements on the matter, at its meeting on 23 January 2015 the Broads Authority resolved that: “for the avoidance of doubt, the Authority indicates that it has no intention of seeking the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads Authority’s functions…”. This is still the case and the Broads Authority still has no intention of seeking a legislative change which would invoke the Sanford Principle in the Broads.

There's more information on our legislation and other related matters on our frequently asked questions page: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/frequently-asked-questions

Thanks (and happy new year for tomorrow!)

Tom

A very wordy answer, but could you please answer this question with a simple Yes or No...

"Is the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads a National Park?"

[JennyMorgan]

There is still the great misconception within Packman Towers that the Broads is a national park, it's not, despite the three abortive attempts in Parliament to make it one that I am aware of.

Beyond that I fully endorse Paladin's comment and question. Tom, yes or no?

[JennyMorgan]

Tom, thank you for your seasonal greeting, may I wish you the same.

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

There is still the great misconception within Packman Towers that the Broads is a national park,

I think the Broads Authority is well aware that it is not a National Park.

 

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

it's not, despite the three abortive attempts in Parliament to make it one that I am aware of.

I suspect that this is how the Broads Authority was made aware that the Broads is not a National Park.

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Beyond that I fully endorse Paladin's comment and question. Tom, yes or no?

I suspect very strongly that Tom is also aware that the Broads is not a National Park, His post pretty much spells this out.

So I have to ask JennyMorgan and Paladin ... Why the question?

[marshman]

I was going to say something a bit obvious, but promised to keep out of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

52 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I think the Broads Authority is well aware that it is not a National Park.

 

I suspect that this is how the Broads Authority was made aware that the Broads is not a National Park.

I suspect very strongly that Tom is also aware that the Broads is not a National Park, His post pretty much spells this out.

So I have to ask JennyMorgan and Paladin ... Why the question?

Maybe like me, they have a very deep mistrust of authority, especially an unellected authority that is NOT publicly accountable.

Also, and with no disrespect for Tom, the BA has a historic reputation for acting on political gain, rather than what is best for the Broads and the livelihoods around them. And with three attempts to make the Broads a full NP, people would be foolish to believe it will never be so. 

One area where the BA could make a positive effort to help tourism would be to make it cheaper for yards to operate a hire fleet, especially on the southern rivers. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

I think the Broads Authority is well aware that it is not a National Park.

 

I suspect that this is how the Broads Authority was made aware that the Broads is not a National Park.

I suspect very strongly that Tom is also aware that the Broads is not a National Park, His post pretty much spells this out.

So I have to ask JennyMorgan and Paladin ... Why the question?

Why not, what is wrong with requesting a direct answer to a direct question? Doubtless the Authority is well aware that the Broads is not a national park so why won't they admit it rather than beating around the bush, as its recent posting does? 

By the way, MM, Tom wrote, & I quote: 

 "Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council have helped achieve a very cost effective way of promoting the Broads National Park".

[batrabill]

I hate myself for even reading this nonsense. 

At least Groundhog Day had some jokes in it.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hello everyone,

 

There are considerable benefits in the Broads being part of the international family of National Parks. The Broads Authority is legally entitled and privileged to be able to promote the area as a National Park. It shares the same purposes as the UK’s National Park Authorities as well as having the additional responsibility of maintaining the waterways for the purposes of navigation. The Broads attracts just under 8m visitors a year, supporting over 7,000 jobs and bringing £633m to the local economy.

 

Thank you Tom, I don't wish to be a doubting Thomas but are the above numbers specific to the Broads or are they for Norfolk in total as they seem very high for the Broads in my experience and who provides the figures.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

14 minutes ago, batrabill said:

I hate myself for even reading this nonsense. 

By that do you mean the BA's spin?

(Sorry, couldn't resist!!)

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/broads-authority-national-park-signs-acle-1-6445829?fbclid=IwAR31gH-m-9px7zO1lrMMIbFq91jwWKqUdM0W0dPIVPvzpzGL5XfFqyb_9mc

[vanessan]

40 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Thank you Tom, I don't wish to be a doubting Thomas but are the above numbers specific to the Broads or are they for Norfolk in total as they seem very high for the Broads in my experience and who provides the figures.

Fred

I assume the ‘Broads’ refers to both the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads? All too often Suffolk seems to get forgotten. 

[Heron]

I would put money  on the Broads supporting more jobs and busineses long before the BA came into existence!

The National Park tag puts more people off the Broads than it attracts in my opinion. Wherever I go I try to promote the Broads but the minute I say its a NP people turn off. The wider public do not want to be herded around to selected beauty spots to join a crowd, they just want to be left alone to enjoy through there own discovery. The Acle project comes to mind.

As for local people, we simply do not want it.

[Paladin]

25 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I assume the ‘Broads’ refers to both the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads? All too often Suffolk seems to get forgotten. 

vanessan, there is no need to assume anything. In the introductory text to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, it says, "An Act to establish an authority to be known as the Broads Authority; to make provision with respect to its powers; to make provision with respect to the area commonly known as the Broads..."

So, in legal terms, it's either the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads or the Broads. The other descriptor is just made-up mumbo-jumbo.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

Thank you Tom, I don't wish to be a doubting Thomas but are the above numbers specific to the Broads or are they for Norfolk in total as they seem very high for the Broads in my experience and who provides the figures.

Fred

A good question. The current Broads Authority web site gives the figures as 8m visitors and an economic value of £568m. Strangely, the identical figures have been used for 2015 (when the Broads were re-branded), 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

So another question arises. Where are the economic and visitor increases that the re-branding was meant to achieve?

[rightsaidfred]

57 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I assume the ‘Broads’ refers to both the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads? All too often Suffolk seems to get forgotten. 

I agree and always treat them as such but I am guessing that the numbers quoted come from the Norfolk tourist board and are not truely broads related.

Fred

[vanessan]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

but are the above numbers specific to the Broads or are they for Norfolk in total as they seem very high for the Broads in my experience 

 

44 minutes ago, Paladin said:

there is no need to assume anything.

Is there not? Reading Fred’s post, it seems to relate to Norfolk so requires clarification. Fred has replied and his question will hopefully procure an answer from the BA. (Of course every visitor to the Broads will have undoubtedly read the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 so will be fully aware that the term ‘The Broads’ is all-encompassing.) 

[marshman]

Great - another no news day and the EDP has just to confirm it!!!!

[Paladin]

49 minutes ago, marshman said:

Great - another no news day and the EDP has just to confirm it!!!!

Well, that's your New Year's Resolution blown!