Jump to content

Acle B.N.P.


JennyMorgan

Recommended Posts

I would be grateful if someone could explain to me that if the Norfolk Broads was replaced by the wording of the Broads National Park, would this help the Broads continue or send it on a road to self destruction?

Also what I read on this thread is that JP that he seems to be known as is not liked, it could be what I read from this thread is that he seems to want to leave behind some sort of legacy in his name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, batrabill said:

Don’t at all. I wish JP would shut up about it because the Broads are a de facto NP already but the signs are a waste of money.

You asked me a while ago if I knew what de facto meant and you kindly gave me a definition:

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

This was my reply then and it is still my reply;

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Maybe off topic, you think?  But not in a national park.  We can already see on the Broads that there are too many un - elected bodies and highly profitable charities which have assumed an all - powerful influence.  If anyone can realistically stop navigation it will be the RSPB and I fear that NP status will give free rein to their visions of "un - dredged, reed fringed rivers" populated by flat bottomed electric wherries.  They may assure us that the right of navigation will be "preserved" but what will a Broads cruise be like in future, and how much of it will be left?  In the years to come, I don't want to set off on holiday in my boat, only to have Chris Packham leap out from behind a tree and tell me I can't moor at St Benets any longer, in case I tread on a Little Whirlpool Rams-horn snail.  These critters are, I gather, about the size of a grain of wheat.

I seriously suggest that if the BA want to successfully "market" their vision, they should do so by engaging far more with the local public in open and honest explanation of what they are trying to achieve and why they feel it would be better for us. They should also listen to, and answer, our questions and concerns.

Has anyone discussed the financial impact of a potential decline in boating? I know it's been shown that the boating economy is small by relation to other tourism in the area but still represents a large amount of income. It seems incredible to the outsider that the entire boating holiday industry could be threatened. How could the area replace that income?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, floydraser said:

I know it's been shown that the boating economy is small by relation to other tourism in the area

I don't know where you got that from but don't forget the thousands of people who are employed in the boating and hiring industry, building them, maintaining them, hiring them and mooring them. Nor all the pubs and riverside businesses which provide the infrastructure.

To say nothing of the fact that the Broads Authority gets half of its annual income from river tolls on boats. Whether it spends that half on navigation, is another matter, of course!

And by the way, we are already seeing the financial impact of the decline, ever since the 1980s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, floydraser said:

Has anyone discussed the financial impact of a potential decline in boating? I know it's been shown that the boating economy is small by relation to other tourism in the area but still represents a large amount of income. It seems incredible to the outsider that the entire boating holiday industry could be threatened. How could the area replace that income?

 

As Q has pointed out that presumption is totally misleading and applies to the whole of Norfolk, just look at the accommodation available within the BA controlled area and you will see where the income comes from and where the employment is. 

 

12 hours ago, Upcycler said:

I would be grateful if someone could explain to me that if the Norfolk Broads was replaced by the wording of the Broads National Park, would this help the Broads continue or send it on a road to self destruction?

Also what I read on this thread is that JP that he seems to be known as is not liked, it could be what I read from this thread is that he seems to want to leave behind some sort of legacy in his name?

In simple terms the wording is irrelevant in itself, the legal status is that the Broads are not a national park and calling it one is not only misleading but of no real value and a total waste of money that could be better used.

As for JPs motivation that is something you like everyone else will have to decide for yourself.

In practical terms the Broads are a series of tidal rivers with connected waterways and some marshland, this is the area that comes under the control of the BA so how about a different scenario that does away with the current conflict, I am not saying it would be better just a different approach.

Put Yarmouth back under its own harbour authority.

As they already have responsibility for flooding and experience in running other river systems hand the navigation over to the EA.

Give all land side responsibility for planning and upkeep to the parish councils and county council.

The various nature and wildlife society's would carry on looking after their existing sites.

Whoops that means we don't need the Broads Authority anymore.

Fred

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a right-Royal lesson that the Broads Authority and National Parks UK should take note of:

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex must drop their 'Sussex Royal' label after deciding to step down as working royals.

Following lengthy and complex talks, the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word 'royal' in their 'branding'." [Daily Mail 19/02/20]

The full article can be read here.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Whoops that means we don't need the Broads Authority anymore.

The Authority was conceived as an over-riding, governing body because at that time there was a marked lack of consistency and joined up thinking between those responsible for the Broads. I still believe that the principle was right. I also believe that it has gone wrong, severely so, and that is because it has effectively been taken over by both personal ambition and misguided, personal agenda. The Authority needs rebooting, returning to factory settings so to speak. I don't see a return to the BA's predecessor as remotely likely albeit not impossible. Perhaps it would be better to fix what we now have.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Paladin said:

This is a right-Royal lesson that the Broads Authority and National Parks UK should take note of:

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex must drop their 'Sussex Royal' label after deciding to step down as working royals.

Following lengthy and complex talks, the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word 'royal' in their 'branding'." [Daily Mail 19/02/20]

The full article can be read here.

Whilst on the subject of news.....

The leader in most of the papers this morning will have profound consequences for The Broads and Norfolk.

I wonder who will clean the Boats and Caravans and Holiday Camps. Before looking at the impact of such changes to hospitals, the care sector and agriculture.

When holidays are up in price, a bed in a care home is up another £100 per week,  a bag of salad goes from £1 to £2.50 and a bunch of asparagus in the layby on the A149 is a fiver. We will have taken back control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Put Yarmouth back under its own harbour authority.

As they already have responsibility for flooding and experience in running other river systems hand the navigation over to the EA.

Give all land side responsibility for planning and upkeep to the parish councils and county council.

The various nature and wildlife society's would carry on looking after their existing sites.

Whoops that means we don't need the Broads Authority anymore.

 

Now that is really thinking out of the box!

If you substitute the word "EA" for "River Commissioners" you are right back to the status quo in the 70s and before.  I am old enough to make clear comparisons and I reckon those days weren't at all bad!  Especially in hindsight.

I have also seen the Thames recently and that ain't so bad either, in the sole hands of the EA, who took it over from the Thames Conservancy. The Thames valley is not a national park and it clearly doesn't need to be.

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

39 minutes ago, Paladin said:

This is a right-Royal lesson that the Broads Authority and National Parks UK should take note of:

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex must drop their 'Sussex Royal' label after deciding to step down as working royals.

Following lengthy and complex talks, the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word 'royal' in their 'branding'." [Daily Mail 19/02/20]

The full article can be read here.

Sorry Paladin I did not mean to quote you before. But I do now.

Begat by the Prince of Wales and his Princess, would, I think makes a person Royal.

This seems like advisers getting the whip out to me. After all the most senior ranks in the Armed Forces can keep and use their rank! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChrisB said:

Sorry Paladin I did not mean to quote you before. But I do now.

Begat by the Prince of Wales and his Princess, would, I think makes a person Royal.

This seems like advisers getting the whip out to me. After all the most senior ranks in the Armed Forces can keep and use their rank! 

I would immediately suggest a new thread for this topic, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Now that is really thinking out of the box!

If you substitute the word "EA" for "River Commissioners" you are right back to the status quo in the 70s and before.  I am old enough to make clear comparisons and I reckon those days weren't at all bad!  Especially in hindsight.

I have also seen the Thames recently and that ain't so bad either, in the sole hands of the EA, who took it over from the Thames Conservancy..

I think you would see a sharp rise in tolls if the EA were in control.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

The Authority was conceived as an over-riding, governing body because at that time there was a marked lack of consistency and joined up thinking between those responsible for the Broads. I still believe that the principle was right. I also believe that it has gone wrong, severely so, and that is because it has effectively been taken over by both personal ambition and misguided, personal agenda. The Authority needs rebooting, returning to factory settings so to speak. I don't see a return to the BA's predecessor as remotely likely albeit not impossible. Perhaps it would be better to fix what we now have.

Agree with you there JM just thought I would highlight that the BA on its current trajectory is not indispensable and hopefully refocus one or two minds.

Fred

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

I think you would see a sharp rise in tolls if the EA were in control.

I think if someone were to do one of those price comparison exercises allowing for inflation, they might find tolls were a lot higher then, compared to now. Especially for hire boats, which paid 3 times the rate for a similar sized private boat.

The question is, were they getting more value for money out of the River Commissioners? I would think, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Commissioners effectively had just one responsibility, namely the navigation, and that focused their thinking. They were also forward thinking, and wise. They bought land at Geldeston Lock with a view to reopening the navigation up to Bungay. That land was later sold by the Authority, a backward step in my opinion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, floydraser said:

Has anyone discussed the financial impact of a potential decline in boating?  It seems incredible to the outsider that the entire boating holiday industry could be threatened. How could the Broads replace that income?

 

There, now would anyone care to try a constructive answer rather than disecting the question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

Sorry Paladin I did not mean to quote you before. But I do now.

Begat by the Prince of Wales and his Princess, would, I think makes a person Royal.

This seems like advisers getting the whip out to me. After all the most senior ranks in the Armed Forces can keep and use their rank! 

 

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I would immediately suggest a new thread for this topic, please?

I don't think a new thread is needed. I consider this news to be apposite for this thread.

The way I read it was that just because you are a member of the Royal family, it doesn't mean you can go about using the 'Royal' brand for gain. So just because the Broads is a member of the national park family, doesn't mean they can brand themselves a national park.

I'm not sure the military comparison works. My son-in-law retired from a senior military rank, and is now a reservist. He doesn't actually use his rank, although he is entitled to and certainly would consider using it for profit.

  • Like 1
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.