Acle B.N.P.

[Poppy]

3 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

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. 

Given that GY and Lowestoft fall clearly outside the BA executive area, if they do, that would be naughty at best . They surely wouldn'd wish to mislead in that way, would they ?

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

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.

Poppy. Tom does admit to including 'adjacent areas' in the calculation. Fair do's to Tom for that but it's why I queried Yarmouth and Lowestoft etc.. Personally I think that using the STEAM tourism data is misleading and wonder at its value in regards to the tight, limiting boundary of the Broads Authority. I also have to say that I don't really think that the Authority can take much credit for the figures and in truth why should they, they are not the tourist driver for the general area.

[JennyMorgan]

 All the signs have been reinstalled today! This one won't be going away just yet!

[Paladin]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

 All the signs have been reinstalled today! This one won't be going away just yet!

How odd! Perhaps they just need frequent maintenance, like some other BA equipment

[grendel]

probably due to the gravity of the situation (ie at ground level)

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 01/01/2020 at 15:18, Vaughan said:

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?

As you will all know, I've always said the BA should be an elected authority. Vaughn's post above proves my reasoning for my beliefs. You can read a quick run down above about some of the history through Vaughn's lifetime of knowledge and experience, something you will NEVER find from the now required tick box ex university graduates, but then they've all got degree's in sociology or some form of diversity subject etc. 

It's people like Vaughan and others like him who have the knowledge and experience of life on and around the broads, and what is important for them, and NOT what is politically advantageous, so the BA should be run by those with proper knowledge. 

As for the BA advertising the Broads as an NP, which they admit it is'nt, Imagine going to buy a Ford Mondeo, you see one advertised, go to see it, and it's a Ford Fiesta, or vise versa, you go to see a Fiesta because that's all you want, but they try to fob you off with a Mondeo?. Yes you may get one or two that will accept it, but most will turn away and go, and very likely will never return, and that is more harmful to an industry than beneficial. 

[Wussername]

4 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

As you will all know, I've always said the BA should be an elected authority.

 

Now. Tell me pray. Who would you elect to be on this authority?

The RSPB . Perhaps the Ramblers.  Anglers . Boat yard owners. Would they agree with you. Who would you pick. Who would you trust. Tell me, who would YOU CHOOSE.

It is working at the moment. There is a degree of transparency  which holds the authority to account by virtue those who question their every move. Members of this forum.

Long may it continue. Long may we continue to uphold our principles, our beliefs, our standards and our aspirations.

Encourage thier criticism, thier dedication towards thier vision for the future they will leave behind for the next generation.

Every year I visit different parts of the Broads. From Hickling to Horsey, Ranworth to Coltishall,  Thorpe St Andrew to Beccles. 

Yes I see things to criticise but in general I see a well managed Broadland Park.

Long may it continue and long may this forum continue to value our heritage and our members who embrace this principle which we protect with an undeniable passion..

 

[Vaughan]

Thank you very much for your kind words, Speedtriple.  I recall that this is not the first time you have said something like that about me.  I also agree with Wussername.  He is another one who has been there, and watched all the changes over the years.

Since this seems to be a moment for "waxing lyrical" I can tell you that I was once invited to apply for a job with the then brand new BA, in the days of Aitken Clark.  The Broads was on the way down the steep slope of a catastrophic recession (from which it has never more than half recovered) and my boatyard in Womack was up for sale.  Luckily I knew very well that I am not a political animal and so I didn't apply.  I don't think I would have lasted a month among that lot!

In the end a job came up with Rank, running their two yards on the Canal du Midi, and I grabbed the opportunity.  Sadly I was back less than 2 years later as the sale of my yard had fallen through and it had become obvious to me that Rank had the whole thing up for sale as well.  Luckily my business partner was a property developer, so we got a section 52 agreement (which the new BA were handing out like ration cards) closed down the hire boat business and built 3 new houses on the site.  After 7 years trying to make a small Broads business work, against all the odds, I came away with an old Peugeot LHD estate car that I had bought to go to France, all of my mechanic's tools and £1000 in cash.  I didn't even have a roof over my head as we had lived in a bungalow on the boatyard, just like so many other small family yards in those days.  I am only thankful that I came away clear, without owing any money.

When you have been through something like that, after growing up in the business and having to watch so many of your friends go out of business as well, you get to know the signs of what can go wrong.  So you get upset (just as I do) when you start to see the signs of the same old mistakes being made all over again.  I doesn't stop hurting either.  If fortunes had been better, I would still be there, "as happy as Larry" in my Broads yard, which by now would be handed down to my family and I would be watching my grandchildren grow up in the business, just like I did myself. 

So I am sorry, but I see the present day power aspersions of the RSPB - and others - as a politically insidious invasion;  far worse than that of the weed on Hickling about which they so loudly complain.  The Broads is a business, which has to be commercially viable and has always had to be.  If not, like any other business, it will surely go under.

 

[rightsaidfred]

23 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.

Thank you Tom, having spent some time yesterday trying to be objective over both the quoted figures and the Authorities objective I can find very little correlation between the findings of the survey this seems to be based on and the  subsequent drive behind trying to promote the Broads as a NP and  the real Broads as we know them, it would also appear to me that the inclusion of the so called 'area of influence' is a misnomer as the Broads probably benefits more from visitors staying in other parts of Norfolk/Suffolk than those areas benefiting from people holidaying on the broads.

The main survey below appears typical of many such surveys in that the results achieved purely reflect the questions asked and the opinions of those selected to respond not the wider picture largely making many of the conclusions invalid and misleading and at times contradictory when used by such as the BA to decide policy etc. 

While I make no defence of the Authority in its persistent promoting of the area as a NP and the cost incurred it would seem that this could be instigated as much from misinformed surveys as from internal pressure.

Fred

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/769773/Sustainable-Tourism-in-the-Broads-2016-20-May-2016.pd

[Bytheriver]

8 hours ago, Wussername said:

Now. Tell me pray. Who would you elect to be on this authority?

The RSPB . Perhaps the Ramblers.  Anglers . Boat yard owners. Would they agree with you. Who would you pick. Who would you trust. Tell me, who would YOU CHOOSE.

It is working at the moment. There is a degree of transparency  which holds the authority to account by virtue those who question their every move. Members of this forum.

Long may it continue. Long may we continue to uphold our principles, our beliefs, our standards and our aspirations.

Encourage thier criticism, thier dedication towards thier vision for the future they will leave behind for the next generation.

Every year I visit different parts of the Broads. From Hickling to Horsey, Ranworth to Coltishall,  Thorpe St Andrew to Beccles. 

Yes I see things to criticise but in general I see a well managed Broadland Park.

Long may it continue and long may this forum continue to value our heritage and our members who embrace this principle which we protect with an undeniable passion..

 

For those who have not read it the Government "Landscape Review" published back in the autumn is here  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833726/landscapes-review-final-report.pdf

[Timbo]

13 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

lifetime of knowledge and experience, something you will NEVER find from the now required tick box ex university graduates, but then they've all got degree's in sociology or some form of diversity subject etc. 

I know what you mean SP. You'd never catch me hanging around with these ex university graduate types!

[Timbo]

With my sensible head on for two seconds...

At the symposium on conservation and management of wetland habitats held in Riga back in 2017 we were discussing the imprecise nature of STEAM as a tool for modelling tourism particularly sustainable tourism. Economic impact modelling is but one measure. It's a bit like the betatmax and VHS argument. Betamax is the better format, VHS is cheaper to knock out and more popular, yet on the horizon is the DVD, Blueray and online streamed content that will give you the content you are looking for when you want it. Many delegates were inquiring after better modelling tools.
 

[Paladin]

I've just gone back to the OP to remind myself of the topic of this thread (it's the Acle BNP signs, BTW) and the photograph struck me rather of a meme of someone being caught with his trousers down!

[Paladin]

On 31/12/2019 at 13:17, 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?"

The silence is deafening.

[grendel]

5 minutes ago, Paladin said:

The silence is deafening.

They are probably following MM's advice and keeping quiet, as whichever answer they give will have its own comeback.

[Paladin]

Not particularly having a go at anyone, but generally if you join a discussion forum and adopt a position, you should be prepared to participate, and stand up for your point of view. If I say black is white and am challenged on it, I would produce the evidence to support my statement, or back down. But that's just me.

Perhaps this is an easily question for BroadsAurhority to answer:

Is Acle in the Broads National Park?

[grendel]

surely to be accurate and obtain an answer the question should be does Acle fall within the boundaries of the area of the Broads that can be referred to as a National Park for marketing purposes. otherwise you are in reality asking a question that has several possible answers, ie is Acle within the boundaries of the Broads Authority, while at the same time asking if the Authority is referring to that area as a National Park.

thus the question is a bit of a trick question, because whichever way it is answered, the inference is that the Broads is a National Park, or it is implied that Acle (whether it is or isnt in the area governed by the authority) is not in a National Park. so an answer of No can be taken either way depending upon the viewpoint of the questioner.

[batrabill]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

thus the question is a bit of a trick question,

You don't say.

 

Much like all the hot air about this harmless sign, the question I would ask is "What are you trying to achieve?"

I'm leaving Paladin's the 'when did you stop beating your wife' question - the point of that is clear, to make a point, not get an answer, but answer this simple question - In what way is the world made a better place by removing this harmless sign?

 

 

[BroadsAuthority]

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

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, 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.

 

That strikes me as a most reasonable response.

19 minutes ago, grendel said:

thus the question is a bit of a trick question, because whichever way it is answered, the inference is that the Broads is a National Park, or it is implied that Acle (whether it is or isnt in the area governed by the authority) is not in a National Park. so an answer of No can be taken either way depending upon the viewpoint of the questioner.

But it is not a trick question!

It has already been tested, in High Court, that the Broads is not a national park.

My previous post should explain why I have never believed, and never will, that the Broads should be a national park.

So these signs, to me, really are seen as a red rag to a bull!

[Paladin]

45 minutes ago, 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

A simple Yes or No would have sufficed, but thank you anyway. I do, however, find it somewhat surprising that you are not prepared (or allowed?) to give that simple answer.

[batrabill]

Paladin! Really??

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I do, however, find it somewhat surprising that you are not prepared (or allowed?) to give that simple answer.

You are not in any way "surprised". As someone who prides himself on sticking to the facts you really cannot claim that you ever thought you would get a simple yes/no answer to that question?

Partly because you know very well that there is no simple yes/no answer to that question, but the endlessly repeated one I can't be bothered to type out, but if you are confused, I would suggest a simple search of about 2 million threads would find it for you.

 

On another note, it is my opinion that if you continue to beat Tom with a stick he will go away. That would make this place much poorer.

[Heron]

Back on to the subject of the signs, one is being attached to the Stalham sign on the A149 approaching from the Hoveton direction today.

Only the waterside part of Stalham is in the BA area. I doubt it will go down well with local residents.

[marshman]

To be really honest, I doubt many will really care!! Does anyone criticise Richardsons for its website which says much the same thing!!

                                                       

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Partly because you know very well that there is no simple yes/no answer to that question,

There damned well is, and even if you don't know it then I suspect that most of us do!

Emphatically 'No', the Broads is NOT a national park, find me the legislation that says it is. That is a fact despite all the huffing and puffing from above.

Granted I didn't really expect an answer one way of the other but it would have been good if JP had been honest to himself if not to us and admitted that the Broads actually is not a national park.

Wussername asks who would we. or I , vote onto the Broads Authority? In principle I would say 'leave well alone' but it is not as simple as that. The situation that we are in right now is no fault of the BA as such, more the obsessive control of just one man. Okay, so i'm making it personal but when the CEO at the BA was in the form of Professor Aitkin Clarke there was not the animosity, and loss of trust, that we are seeing today.

One man has amassed far too much control, even down to the makeup of committees and the like.  The ethos of the present executive is one of excessive control. The lead has to come from the Authority itself, not from its executive, they are there to get the job done, to do what is expected of them.

We. and the Authority, needs to stop, think, and start again. In its original form the Authority was well conceived and well lead. As it is, thankfully, the Authority's workforce do what is reasonably asked of them and they generally do it well. 

So back to the question of being a national park, where has the lead come from on that one? I was on the Navigation Committee when the Broads National Park Bill was put before us. It was clear that we were expected to support it without question, almost as if it were a fait accompli. The lead and the drive came from the Executive, that much was entirely clear.

So where has it all gone wrong, who lost the trust that the Authority as a whole once enjoyed? All only my opinion of course, but in my book the lead should have come from Authority members and their Chairman, not the executive, it was if the roles had been reversed. So who would I vote for, not really the issue, but I would like to see a Broads Authority Chairman independently elected who is both willing and able to take back control from the executive on behalf of the little people of Broadland. 

If anyone wishes to argue the point then so be it, but on this one I won't be changing my mind, sorry! I've watched the Authority from conception, through its birth and development to where we it is today.  This national park vanity project has become utterly devisive, things were a great deal better before it reared its ugly head. Things were were far better when we were just NP happy family members.