Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    Not a member yet? Sign up here and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

JennyMorgan

Acle B.N.P.

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

There are considerable benefits in the Broads being part of the international family of National Parks.

Tom, will you please elucidate us as to what those benefits really might be.

Not so long ago I was a keen walker, visiting both The Peak District and Snowdonia, both 'real' national parks. There have been numerous instances when I have had to queue to access a public footpath and then I have had to join a continuous crocodile of fellow walkers, very sociable but not so pleasant when jostled and abused by faster walkers than myself. Do we really want that for Broadland?  

Over to you, my new friend that I have never met, please make the case for the Broads being a national park.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Paladin said:

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?"

 

21 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

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".

I asked "Why the question" because we all know that if answered "Yes" he would be hung out to dry because we all know it isn't, but if he answered "No" he would be hung out to dry for misrepresenting the Broads. Either way, it wouldn't go well for him. Further explanation from him would be seen as 'not being able to answer  a straight question' and he would be hung out to dry.

Perhaps asking the right question and not tying his hands on how to answer might be the way forwards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, by "taunting" him to answer a question to which they already know the answer, that's exactly what the questioners are aiming to achieve!!! Hopefully Tom will not respond and remain "slightly damp"!!!

And as for the Broads becoming as popular as those other places (one wonders why PW bothered to go to either if they are such dreadful places ) we know that won't happen as the tolls are already outrageously expensive and new owners are already being frightened away as a result!! 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

I asked "Why the question" because we all know that if answered "Yes" he would be hung out to dry because we all know it isn't, but if he answered "No" he would be hung out to dry for misrepresenting the Broads. Either way, it wouldn't go well for him. Further explanation from him would be seen as 'not being able to answer  a straight question' and he would be hung out to dry.

Perhaps asking the right question and not tying his hands on how to answer might be the way forwards.

I think I have asked the right question.

If you take a look at, say, the Police Code of Conduct, you’ll find there are disciplinary offences, which may result in criminal proceedings. One such is “falsehood and prevarication”.

Falsehood is telling outright lies. Prevarication is a more subtle way of avoiding telling the truth without blatantly lying. Both of these descriptions apply to the Broad Authority’s approach to the mythical Broads National Park.

The response may be that the Authority is not the Police. True, but they are charged with the duty of enforcing legislation, such as the byelaws and planning regulations, so they should be above reproach.

 The Code of Conduct they are supposed to follow starts off with: “We will ensure members and officers behave with integrity…” (Integrity - the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles). I see very little evidence of that Code of Conduct being followed in respect of the subject of this discussion.

While there are those who wonder what all the fuss is about, who say the time to kick up is when the threat of Sandford is closer, what’s in a name, does it all matter, I take the view that a public body should not involve itself in the type of chicanery (I chose that word very carefully – look it up) that has been employed for the past few years, and which shows no sign of being abated. That, for me, is the important issue.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marshman said:

But, by "taunting" him to answer a question to which they already know the answer, that's exactly what the questioners are aiming to achieve!!! Hopefully Tom will not respond and remain "slightly damp"!!!

And as for the Broads becoming as popular as those other places (one wonders why PW bothered to go to either if they are such dreadful places ) we know that won't happen as the tolls are already outrageously expensive and new owners are already being frightened away as a result!! 

"Taunt" - provoke or challenge (someone) with insulting remarks. Really? What is insulting about my question?

I don't quite understand how the Broads becoming more popular is synonymous with an increase in private boat ownership. We are told that the Broads attracts nearly 8 million visitors a year. Remind me just how many private boats are registered.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy New Year everyone. 

 

Worth remembering that that this is all about a totally harmless sign. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paladin said:

If you take a look at, say, the Police Code of Conduct, you’ll find there are disciplinary offences, which may result in criminal proceedings. One such is “falsehood and prevarication”.

Out of curiosity I pulled up the word 'prevarication', not that I don't know its meaning but rather to check that I was right. In doing so I picked this up. 

"Definitions of prevarication

1

the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Synonyms:

fabrication, lying

Types:

fibbing, paltering

a trivial act of lying or being deliberately unclear

Type of:

falsification, misrepresentation

a willful perversion of facts."

I have to agree that some of those definitions are entirely apt, others perhaps less so. 

As to whether Tom, or Dr Packman for that matter, would be wise to assert one way or the other as to legal status of the Broads is clearly a matter of opinion but I suggest that it is the lack clarity, and honesty, that is at the very root of much of the discontent that emanates from various oiks populating the  rhond. A straightforward Yes or No is all that Paladin & I are asking. Until the man at the top is entirely open and honest as to the legal status of the Broads, and perhaps his ambitions,  then I believe the present lack of support and distrust will only continue. 

There can surely be no doubt that the BNP road signs at Acle are a perversion of fact, designed to confuse for whatever reason, ones that we can only guess at.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/12/2019 at 17:09, JennyMorgan said:
On 30/12/2019 at 16:55, 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

I don't know about Marshman but I have now read this (thanks JM) and I find it scarily sinister.

I can't say I disagree with all of it, especially when they talk about re-instating washlands and their key role in surge tide protection. 

What stood out for me, is that they hardly mention birds all the way through it, preferring instead to involve themselves in other people's politics and set out their vision for how the Broads as a whole should be managed, and how the public as a whole should live, work and "play" in it.  One minute they want to "show people wildlife" and yet they clearly would wish to see huge areas of the countryside from which the public is totally excluded.  So as not to frighten the birds.  When you see on their map, the amount of land in the area that they already own or manage, you see how much of a reality this is already becoming.

They want to ban water ski-ing (a legally recognised water sport) as they say it frightens the birds beside the Yare at Strumpshaw Fen.  My reply would be that the most successful and best protected nature reserves in England, are our motorway and railway embankments.  Don't they know that?

I take strong objection to the remark about the boating and hiring industry It gets forgotten in some quarters, that the environment is why the Broads supports leisure and many linked businesses.  As an ex director of Blakes and son of a previous chairman, I can assure them that it never has been forgotten and never will!  They say they want better water quality, without realising that it was the hiring and boat building industry who researched, manufactured, installed and paid for, the system of toilet holding tanks on the Broads.  And that was many years before the Broads Authority was invented.  My father and Jimmy Hoseason were members of the committee which drew up the first Broads Study and Plan, for the preservation and proper use of Broadland, back in the 60s and upon which, the present management of the Broads is still based. 

But then I got to a paragraph which complained about money spent on excessive dredging and I quote it for you here :

Hundreds of thousands of Pounds are spent on dredging Broadland waterways to enable vessels drawing a metre or more to move safely. Many of these are diesel powered - out-dated, fossil fuel burning, 20th century technology. Traditional Broadland wherries were able to carry tons of materials along un-dredged, shallow, reed fringed rivers. Should we learn from the past for a more sustainable future? Why not combine the flat bottomed wherry design with an electric engine?

My answer would be this :

1/. Those rivers were made navigable by dredging, right from the start, in order to provide commercial waterways in the area, as there were no roads. Are they not aware that the Bure was an alluvial, meandering river, which had to be made navigable?  In those days, all the way up to Aylsham?

2/. Wherries are not flat bottomed.  If they were, they would not sail.

3/. Do they not realise (or have not asked) that a loaded wherry with the slipping keel on, draws around six feet?

4/. What on God's Earth has this got to do with the protection of birds?

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For your information, if I understand correctly, all three BNP signs at Acle have now been removed although by whom and whether  permanently I don't know. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

For your information, if I understand correctly, all three BNP signs at Acle have now been removed although by whom and whether  permanently I don't know.

Susie has just reminded me that down here in south west France, which has strong roots in the wartime French Resistance, we are in the wild boar hunting season at the moment. Around here, highly controversial signs such as this would be riddled in bullet holes by now. Just the same as they are doing to all the new roadside speed cameras!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

For your information, if I understand correctly, all three BNP signs at Acle have now been removed although by whom and whether  permanently I don't know. 

Can't you just tell it's the pantomime season.

There they are!

No, they're not!!

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

My answer would be this :

1/. Those rivers were made navigable by dredging, right from the start, in order to provide commercial waterways in the area, as there were no roads. Are they not aware that the Bure was an alluvial, meandering river, which had to be made navigable?  In those days, all the way up to Aylsham?

2/. Wherries are not flat bottomed.  If they were, they would not sail.

3/. Do they not realise (or have not asked) that a loaded wherry with the slipping keel on, draws around six feet?

4/. What on God's Earth has this got to do with the protection of birds?

you missed the obvious sailing boats generally have deeper keels than motor driven vessels.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

4/. What on God's Earth has this got to do with the protection of birds?

Not much, but it is the basis on which this renowned charitable organisation exists, the same organisation on which a few people depend to maintain a nice lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

Nineteen people get a salary in excess of £60k managing the RSPB, and one more around twice that. What would they do all day if we stopped being mean to birds?

There has been a trend for quite a few years now where charities are allegedly having to invent issues to justify their own existence. Raising the profile by doing something keeps the cash rolling in. The whole country has gone, “Ahhh” at Spring/Autumn/Winter/Summer Watch on TV so they are probably struggling for things to do.

And without the RSPB Countryfile would only be 5 minutes long.

“ Many of these are diesel powered - out-dated, fossil fuel burning, 20th century technology. “

I should like to add to that, “..being used for a relatively very short period of time.” Each boat with at least two people not travelling to work and not flying abroad. Seventeen RSPB trustees claimed £25k in travel expenses according to the 2018 financial report, how many have electric cars?

Just like the birds, they haven't learned that it's not a good idea to cr*p on your neighbours.

Sorry, I don't know much about the BNP but you mentioned a "charity".:default_2gunsfiring_v1:

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe just maybe the Authority should concentrate on preserving the Broads system for what it is and not try and turn it into something it is not, thereby maintaining its attraction to those of us that truly appreciate it rather than try and attract those who have no understanding of what it might be and will in all probably never visit the area again.

Fred

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Sorry, I don't know much about the BNP but you mentioned a "charity".:default_2gunsfiring_v1:

Let us not forget that the Authority has ingratiated itself with the Campaign For National Parks. 

Remember that the CNP is a charity, it is not the UK governing body responsible for electing national parks.

https://www.cnp.org.uk/sector/about-us

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, grendel said:

you missed the obvious sailing boats generally have deeper keels than motor driven vessels.

I missed an awful lot of obvious in that report but I didn't want to make my post any longer than it was!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floydraser said:

Sorry, I don't know much about the BNP but you mentioned a "charity".:default_2gunsfiring_v1:

 

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Let us not forget that the Authority has ingratiated itself with the Campaign For National Parks. 

Remember that the CNP is a charity, it is not the UK governing body responsible for electing national parks.

https://www.cnp.org.uk/sector/about-us

Without wishing to upset floydraser, or derail this thread, I would also like to mention the UK National Parks Foundation Charity and the involvement of the Broads Authority.

In early 2019, it was reported that the Authority had submitted a formal application for membership of this new charity. The governing document of the charity at that time stated that the charitable objects were:

"For the benefit of the public within the areas designated as national parks in England, Wales and Scotland..."

and went on to state that:

"Areas are designated as national parks under section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949..."

Also that:

“The charity would be extremely likely to distribute funds via the UK’s National Park Authorities, National Park local charities and/or other charities operating within a National Park on work that meets the objects of the proposed new National Parks Foundation.”

So it doesn’t take much to realise that the BA was making an application to join a charity, from which it was barred by the charity’s governing document from being a member, with a view, no doubt, of being the recipient of funds to which it was not entitled. Whoops!

After correspondence with Sarah Fowler, CEO of the Peak District National Park and a trustee of the charity, I was informed that the interpretation section of the charity’s constitution had been amended to include a definition of National Park (for their own purposes) which was:

“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.”

This meant that the BA could now lawfully become a member, but it does rather lay the lies that:

 a) the rebranding of the Broads as a National Park is not misleading (as Mr Justice Holgate would have us believe)

and

b) that the Authority always follows the rule of law.

 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on the topic...what was it? Oh yes, the Acle signs.

Norfolk County Council appears to be in some confusion as to the legal status of the BNP signs. In an email to a local resident, Lucy Kelly of NCC wrote, “…the scheme meets signing standards, boundary sign guidance…”, which suggests the signs are boundary signs. However, in a letter to a local MP, Tom McCabe of NCC wrote, “The Broads Authority approached Norfolk County Council…for the provision of gateway signs to the Broads National Park at key entry villages…”

But on this forum, BroadsAuthority has said, “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...” In other words, they are advertising (or marketing) signs.

So which are they, boundary signs, gateway signs or advertisements? The difference is important.

Under the relevant regulations, there are no restrictions on the size, shape or colour of boundary signs. On the other hand, the regulations say that “Gateways into villages may be formed from the combination of speed limit signs, yellow backing boards and village name plates.”

So even if the Broads National Park existed, it would not qualify as a village (or town or city), so would not qualify for a gateway sign.

And as for advertising, the NCC policy is that: "All signs on the Highway must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations. As such, Norfolk County Council have a policy to remove all unauthorised signs from the roadside, pavement or cycleway…"

The Traffic Signs Regulations do not cover advertising signs, so, if the BNP signs are advertising signs, they don’t comply with the NCC policy (and should not be attached to street furniture).

Oh what a tangled web we weave…

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paladin said:

The Traffic Signs Regulations do not cover advertising signs, so, if the BNP signs are advertising signs, they don’t comply with the NCC policy (and should not be attached to street furniture).

The BNP signs can only be regarded as advertising signs simply because legally the BA should only use the BNP term for marketing. Strikes me that the BA should put its house in order and respect the letter & intention of the law.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

For your information, if I understand correctly, all three BNP signs at Acle have now been removed although by whom and whether  permanently I don't know. 

So it would seem that the "little people" have had their voices heard, just for once!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

So it would seem that the "little people" have had their voices heard, just for once!

I hope that we have been heard and if so it won't be for the first time. Not so long ago JP was crowing that the Broads , and the Authority, were to be featured on BBC's Countryfile, A number of us contacted the BBC explaining that the Broads has never been granted national parks status. We presented the evidence and the BBC suitably and very clearly edited the program. On another occasion, despite telling a group of MPs that BNP notices would not be erected, they were at Whitlingham's  redundant gravel pits. Within hours those notices were removed. Then of course we had our victories at Westminster! 

Whitlingham BNP.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Happy New Year,

Our facts and figures web page was somewhat outdated but latest figures are below.

The £633m figure quoted (and the 8m visitors) is taken from the annual STEAM tourism data. It refers to 2018 direct expenditure in the Broads 'area of influence' which is (generally speaking) the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads boundary and some adjacent areas. In comparison, these are both 4% and 4.5% up on 2017.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Tom, revealing stuff. I suspect that areas such as Gt Yarmouth and Lowestoft inevitably contribute hugely to those figures, visitors to either perhaps not being unduly influenced by the presence of the Broads or the BNP tag. It is a difficult one because I suspect that attractions such as Pleasurewood Hills, Wroxham Barns and Bewilderwood  are visited on their own merit rather than because of anything over which the Authority has any influence. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hello and Happy New Year,

Our facts and figures web page was somewhat outdated but latest figures are below.

The £633m figure quoted (and the 8m visitors) is taken from the annual STEAM tourism data. It refers to 2018 direct expenditure in the Broads 'area of influence' which is (generally speaking) the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads boundary and some adjacent areas. In comparison, these are both 4% and 4.5% up on 2017.

Statistics, don’t you just love ‘em :default_rolleyes:

The current National Parks UK web site, quoting STEAM data, shows a figure of £568m visitor spend, but as it also shows that the Broads were designated as a National Park in 1989, one wonders how reliable their information is.

One also wonders exactly where is the “area of influence”? Would it include such stand-alone tourist attractions such as Pettitt’s Adventure Park, Norwich (which, despite claims, is not within the Broads), Felbrigg Hall, Blickling Estate, etc? While I’m sure the STEAM data is very robust, it includes figures for people visiting friends and relatives, as well as visitors to events (events at the Norfolk showground, even Thursford, perhaps). One STEAM-based report I have read shows that the figures for the economic expenditure by visitors to the Broads rose by a third, when the “area of influence” figures were included.

As always, the devil is in the detail.

But this doesn't solve the mystery of the missing signs. One for Hercule Poirot peut-être?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Paladin said:

But this doesn't solve the mystery of the missing signs. One for Hercule Poirot peut-être?

As yet no revealing information from along the rhond.

Meanwhile the executive pram is devoid of its much abused teddy bears. I wonder if the replacement  bear fund is topped up from the tolls account?:default_wink:

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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