Jump to content

Acle B.N.P.


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Oddly enough I tend to agree with you there (and I was highly unlikely to say that) though I would have liked to have read "Duty" rather than "purpose" but then it would have to read "exactly as they should now"

To a degree I also agreed but whether duty or purpose it still boils down to priority and with Sandford in place that priority becomes biased rather than balanced and navigation ceases to be sacrosanct.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ray said:

From Glover...

"
Where there is a conflict between any 
of the three purposes, and the further 
navigation purpose assigned to the 
Broads, then greater weight must be 
given to the first of these purposes 
under an updated ‘Sandford Principle’ 
that applies to all our national 
landscapes and not just to National 
Parks as it does currently.
These strengthened purposes will 
help underpin consequently stronger... "

The above will surely have to pass through Parliament?

Whatever happens the Broads Authority, especially if it gains Sandford, has to become wholly accountable and truly democratic.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

The ability to close the navigation was a control issue, an unnecessary reaction to the speedboat racing that has taken place, quite safely, for several generations. Beyond that it was thought that as the Broad offered good spectator access it would be good for suitable activities, as yet to be decided on but rowing and swimming were mentioned. Part of our objection was that Whitlingham Lakes already fulfilled that purpose. At that point in the Broads Bill's progress there was a clear demand by the BA that broads and rivers could be closed without good reason. It had also become quite clear that by giving an inch we were in danger of losing a mile. In the past the argument that so and so was agreed on at wherever thus we should also agree that the same should apply elsewhere had clearly become a JP tactic, if you get my drift. As for the closure  of the Broad, we have to remember that it is a part of the Lowestoft-Norwich Navigation, it provides access to the sea for the seagoing boats that are moored at Brundall. It is also a fact that Beccles is a port and that the Waveney is basically a natural river. We saw our rights as being gradually nibbled away.  Several hundred boat owners offered their active support should the closure clause not be dropped. A watered down Bill did go to Parliament so a number of us petitioned both Houses of Parliament and the remaining threats to our reasonable rights of navigation were rejected.  This might help explain the rejection by so many to the BNP title. The ONLY way that the control that was sought by the original Broads Bill can now be achieved is with the Sandford Principle that, despite protestations and denials, would come with NP designation under present legislation.  Hope that that helps.

Thanks JennyMorgan. A balanced view.

Straw Poll: Hands up all those who would have trusted JP not to abuse the power in the 2006 Bill had it been enacted. Not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ray said:

I don't know the workings of Parliament well enough to say for sure, however there is such a strong government majority at the moment that if they decide to accept and implement Glover in full (it's a big if) then it will go through!

Agreed but if the major players make a stand, the RYA, The Ramblers and us anglers, then I doubt that even a majority government will have an easy ride with this one. On top of that Parliamentary time will have to be found and at the moment there are more pressing issues for Boris & Co. Rightly or wrongly I don't think that we can take anything for granted though and I share your concerns.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Glover report seems to be Mr Glover’s Utopian view of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Highly commendable…in a Utopian world.

But I notice that, while he goes on at some length about how these areas should be run, he is rather vague about how they will be funded, referring to the need to keep the current levels of funding. But he thinks that AONBs should have increased funding. He concedes that public budgets are tight and expects the national parks to become entrepreneurial. He also says they must make “efficiencies across the system”, which, to me suggests job cuts. Which is rarely a good policy if public support is required.

So what has been the recent pattern of funding from the public purse?

Since 2010, the Defra Core Grant to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority has fallen from £53.8m in 2010 to £47.9m in 2018, a drop of £5.9m (around -11%). But inflation (cpi) in that time rose by 29%. So in real terms, the reduction has been nearer -31%. (I've used official government figures, but other figures are available, I’m sure.)

How much is currently available each year for the 34 AONBs? £600,000 from central government, with another £150k or so from local authorities. That’s the total, not the amount for each AONB.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the Glover Review train-load of aspirations will run into the buffers of reality, with no cash available to fund them. There may well be some tweaking around the edges and some cherry-picking, so we still need to be wary of threats to the right of navigation, but I’m not losing any sleep over it.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The above will surely have to pass through Parliament?

Whatever happens the Broads Authority, especially if it gains Sandford, has to become wholly accountable and truly democratic.

arghghh! this sounds like another call for a "democratically elected" Broads Authority.

Be very careful what you wish for, and before you wish for something to be "democratically elected" make sure you know exactly who the electorate is. For the BA, the vague term "Stakeholder" isn't good enough. Are visiting twitchers stakeholders, or would they be covered by an RSPB block vote? Fisermen? They buy rod licences etc? What about the residents of towns and villages in the BA's area?

Minefields are safe areas when compared with "Democracy"

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

arghghh! this sounds like another call for a "democratically elected" Broads Authority.

Be very careful what you wish for, and before you wish for something to be "democratically elected" make sure you know exactly who the electorate is. For the BA, the vague term "Stakeholder" isn't good enough. Are visiting twitchers stakeholders, or would they be covered by an RSPB block vote? Fisermen? They buy rod licences etc? What about the residents of towns and villages in the BA's area?

Minefields are safe areas when compared with "Democracy"

 

Certainly the upper echalons MUST be elected, not those on the ground so to speak. How this will pan out should be discussed by local residents and businesses, along with boat owners groups. No one says it will be easy, but just because it is'nt easy DOES'NT mean it can't or shouldn't be done. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigCheese said:

Straw Poll: Hands up all those who would have trusted JP not to abuse the power in the 2006 Bill had it been enacted. Not a trick question, I'm genuinely interested.

Some years ago, in a magazine called Anglia Afloat, the editor highlighted the lack of trust issue.  Subsequently the NSBA has featured the lack of trust factor in its house magazine. Nothing has changed since. It isn't only the lack of trust in JP but also the unknown factor of who replaces him. Trust is key, and that has been lost.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think its a case of election, more a case of accountability, those in charge must be able to be held accountable for their actions, rather than just allowing them a free rein. i dont really care who is in charge as long as they can be held to account for their actions.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

The Glover report seems to be Mr Glover’s Utopian view of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Highly commendable…in a Utopian world.

But I notice that, while he goes on at some length about how these areas should be run, he is rather vague about how they will be funded, referring to the need to keep the current levels of funding. But he thinks that AONBs should have increased funding. He concedes that public budgets are tight and expects the national parks to become entrepreneurial. He also says they must make “efficiencies across the system”, which, to me suggests job cuts. Which is rarely a good policy if public support is required.

So what has been the recent pattern of funding from the public purse?

Since 2010, the Defra Core Grant to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority has fallen from £53.8m in 2010 to £47.9m in 2018, a drop of £5.9m (around -11%). But inflation (cpi) in that time rose by 29%. So in real terms, the reduction has been nearer -31%. (I've used official government figures, but other figures are available, I’m sure.)

How much is currently available each year for the 34 AONBs? £600,000 from central government, with another £150k or so from local authorities. That’s the total, not the amount for each AONB.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the Glover Review train-load of aspirations will run into the buffers of reality, with no cash available to fund them. There may well be some tweaking around the edges and some cherry-picking, so we still need to be wary of threats to the right of navigation, but I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Thank you Paladin. That's a very informative piece.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

arghghh! this sounds like another call for a "democratically elected" Broads Authority.

Be very careful what you wish for, and before you wish for something to be "democratically elected" make sure you know exactly who the electorate is. For the BA, the vague term "Stakeholder" isn't good enough. Are visiting twitchers stakeholders, or would they be covered by an RSPB block vote? Fisermen? They buy rod licences etc? What about the residents of towns and villages in the BA's area?

Minefields are safe areas when compared with "Democracy"

 

Thank you Maurice Mynah.I agree a move towards direct elections has risks. Does it not seem equitable for the power around the table to be allocated in line with sources of income, with appointees from other stakeholders?

It could be argued that a small band of 'warriors' (long may they continue), predominantly acting altruistically, and having to be ever-vigilant of a profoundly-mistrusted CEO, are effectively all that has preserved our rights of navigation?. I can't see that is even close to being acceptable in a democratic society. 

IMHO the current lack of accountability is nothing short of an outrage. There has to be a better way. As JennyMorgan points out, his replacement may be just as bad or even worse. An equitable system of governance should not be dependent on who sits in the CEO's chair. The current system is broken and needs replacing. Quite how that is achieved is something else completely.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The twitchers would prefer it if boats were "elsewhere" (preferably somewhere hot and ruled by some fellow with horns and a trident) the Anglers would like the twitchers to stop walking past their swims and go visit the boats. The boaters would like the anglers and twitchers to go check out the hot place and get it ready for a certain doctor, whilst the residents of the area want the whole bloody lot of us to just b****r off and leave them in peace.

Numerically speaking, boaters are the minority group, they just happen to be the group that pays the BA's bills. As a minority group we need to tread very carefully, as our position is precarious.

If JP truly wanted the Broads to be a full National Park and end the navigation rights, it wouldn't be too difficult.

Step one. Go to Brooms and photograph the larger craft there along with it's crew supping pink gins.

Step two. Take pictures of Bitterns, Otters and baby Mallards.

Step three. give the population of the country the choice between "Rich mans playground" or "Nature Reserve & National Park" then take the democratic option and let the nation choose.

Bingo, democracy at work. 

 Who would that please? well the anglers and twitchers wouldn't necessarily be shedding many tears, 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

The twitchers would prefer it if boats were "elsewhere" (preferably somewhere hot and ruled by some fellow with horns and a trident) the Anglers would like the twitchers to stop walking past their swims and go visit the boats. The boaters would like the anglers and twitchers to go check out the hot place and get it ready for a certain doctor, whilst the residents of the area want the whole bloody lot of us to just b****r off and leave them in peace.

 

I must confess that, in my 20 years on the Broads, I haven’t seen many twitchers (a term that some serious birdwatchers might find derogatory) set up on the river banks. Even birdwatchers tend to go to reserves, such as Hickling or Breydon Water, where there are purpose-built hides, more to see and boats causing no disturbance to their quarry.

But even along the rivers, the avian wildlife doesn’t seem that bothered by boats. They are more likely to avoid a ‘naked’ human than one concealed in a boat. That’s why wildfowlers used punt-guns.

I have only ever had one confrontation with an angler, and he was a private boater who didn’t want to make room for another boat, as he had staked out his fishing spot.

Suggesting that there is a natural enmity between the various users of the Broads demeans those users, IMO. We should all be able to get along together and, if Glover results in one duty taking precedence over the other, everyone will lose.

That dredging benefits conservation, as well as navigation, but without the tolls there would be no money available to carry it out, is just one example of the law of unintended consequences. There has been a delicate balance, of sorts, maintained on the Broads for a number of decades. I believe that any government would interfere with that balance at their peril.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ray said:

Screenshot_20200210-084048.png

 

Bizarrely this actually makes my point.

There are 15 national parks, every one of them has hundreds (?) of planning applications every year, yet the application of Sandford is incredibly rare. All the national parks have numerous conflicts between conservation and human activity and they resolve them without the need for Sandford.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, batrabill said:

All the national parks have numerous conflicts between conservation and human activity and they resolve them without the need for Sandford

That's true, I imagine though that there are possibly a number of "projects" that never reach the application stage because they know they will fail Sandford if tested. This would skew the statistics somewhat, although perhaps only a little.

On a wider note, it could seem as though I am against conservation, nothing could be further from the truth but I do want the Norfolk Broads to always be a place for boating (and all the other pastimes associated with it) with the navigation protected.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, batrabill said:

 

Bizarrely this actually makes my point.

There are 15 national parks, every one of them has hundreds (?) of planning applications every year, yet the application of Sandford is incredibly rare. All the national parks have numerous conflicts between conservation and human activity and they resolve them without the need for Sandford.

Could you please quote some examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ray said:

That's true, I imagine though that there are possibly a number of "projects" that never reach the application stage because they know they will fail Sandford if tested. This would skew the statistics somewhat, although perhaps only a little.

On a wider note, it could seem as though I am against conservation, nothing could be further from the truth but I do want the Norfolk Broads to always be a place for boating (and all the other pastimes associated with it) with the navigation protected.

I'm completely with you Ray.

I toll 3 boats currently and would fight any attempt to curtail my right to sail all over the system.

 

Some would like to give the impression that they are fighting a desperate rearguard against forces that are determined to do just that. I just don't see it that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many things happen in life with no paper trail to refer later.

Has the Sandford principal ever been applied without actually having it written down that it was? I would suspect so! When planning consent has been refused for something, is it mandatory that the "Sandford Principle" has to be quoted if it had been applied?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Could you please quote some examples?

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Many things happen in life with no paper trail to refer later.

Has the Sandford principal ever been applied without actually having it written down that it was? I would suspect so! When planning consent has been refused for something, is it mandatory that the "Sandford Principle" has to be quoted if it had been applied?

 

I think no, not really. The whole point of Sandford is that it comes into play when there is a clear conflict between conservation and development. It is the final device to decide.

 

I'm sure that thousands of planning applications never get submitted because they seem likely to fail.

 

But, and this is a blood* big but, you don't have to put in a planning application to get in a boat round here.

 

is it zip wires you want ??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 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?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.