Acle B.N.P.

[JennyMorgan]

32 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Yes, but, no, but...

In the Report from 2015 regarding the consultation on the rebranding, the BA said:

"The Broads Plan 2011 states that:
“In May 2010, members of the Broads Authority discussed the draft long-term vision for the Broads and supported the objective that, by 2030, the Broads would be a national park where the public legal rights of navigation continued to be respected and embraced. Though this objective would require primary legislation, members considered this an important ambition in support of the long-term vision.”

The Chief Executive’s report to the Broads Authority (23 January 2015) on branding the Broads is recommending that, should Members resolve to implement the Broads National Park branding, they could indicate that the Authority no longer intends to pursue the long term ambition in the 2011 Broads Plan, in view of the anticipated benefits of the new branding."

I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now.

Effectively a clear admission that at this moment in time the Broads is not a national park. Thanks for reminding us of this one.

Once again it all boils down to trust, or the lack of.

[Poppy]

14 hours ago, Paladin said:

Really, Poppy, I'm surprised at you. Dr Packman has said time and time again that he has no intention of seeking the application of Sandford. Surely, his word is his bond.

 

He therefore wants to rewrite The Environment Act 1995....

As most of us know, full National Park status must come with Sandford !

https://nationalparks.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/aimsandpurposesofnationalparks/sandfordprinciple

[JennyMorgan]

40 minutes ago, Poppy said:

He therefore wants to rewrite The Environment Act 1995....

As most of us know, full National Park status must come with Sandford !

https://nationalparks.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/aimsandpurposesofnationalparks/sandfordprinciple

Check out the above website and its contact address. 'Tis Yare House, home of the Broads Authority! Read into that what you wish.

[Bytheriver]

From my reading of the Landscape Review this seems to be the revised principle for the Sandford Principle

1. Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity and natural capital, and cultural heritage. 2. Actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing. 3. Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes. 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 Management Plans, which in turn, as we set out in earlier chapters, must be given stronger weight in law. They must be the basis for ambitious targeted actions, with delivery to be driven forward by a new National Landscapes Service (see below).

[vanessan]

38 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

From my reading of the Landscape Review this seems to be the revised principle for the Sandford Principle

1. Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity and natural capital, and cultural heritage. 2. Actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing. 3. Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes. 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 Management Plans, which in turn, as we set out in earlier chapters, must be given stronger weight in law. They must be the basis for ambitious targeted actions, with delivery to be driven forward by a new National Landscapes Service (see below).

In those immortal words from The Alamo, ‘do this mean what I think it do?’

[Bytheriver]

1 minute ago, vanessan said:

In those immortal words from The Alamo, ‘do this mean what I think it do?’

Well if the Government finds time /has the inclination to do something with a Green Agenda a read of the Glover Report would not come amiss! (I posted the link in this thread a day or two ago) There is a tiny comment re signage well! 

[ranworthbreeze]

53 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

From my reading of the Landscape Review this seems to be the revised principle for the Sandford Principle

1. Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity and natural capital, and cultural heritage. 2. Actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing. 3. Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes. 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 Management Plans, which in turn, as we set out in earlier chapters, must be given stronger weight in law. They must be the basis for ambitious targeted actions, with delivery to be driven forward by a new National Landscapes Service (see below).

I think we need to see what is listed in the (see below) to get the full picture.

Regards

Alan

[Smoggy]

Is that a genuine national parks website? I thought that was nationalparksengland.org.uk do the BA have their own fake news version?

[Bytheriver]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833726/landscapes-review-final-report.pdf

From Governments website last Autumn

[FairTmiddlin]

1 hour ago, Bytheriver said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833726/landscapes-review-final-report.pdf

From Governments website last Autumn

Page 119

The pattern of national landscapes across England has been remarkably static. After a burst of activity in the 1950s the creation of new National Parks slowed to a crawl. Only the Broads, New Forest and the South Downs have been added in recent years (1988, 2005 and 2009 respectively) along with extensions to the Yorkshire Dales and Lake District in 2016.

[Poppy]

I knew I had this somewhere in the recesses of my hard drive.

This is an extract from The Blessed Authoritie's 'communications strategy'.

"

NAME AND STATUS

4.1    The Authority’s name and status has been the subject of much debate and some confusion. However in his letter dated 2 September 2006 the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs, Barry Gardiner MP, confirmed that the Broads has an equivalent status to that of a national park and that the Authority is a full member of the national park family – as well as having ‘an important extra responsibility as the third largest inland navigation authority in the UK so that the Broads is in some respects a ‘national park plus’’.

4.2    The Minister was unwilling to support changing the name of the area to the Broads National Park, because the Authority is not able to accept the Sandford Principle which has been incorporated into national park legislation. This states that where there is any conflict between conservation and recreation interests greater weight should be afforded to the former. It would be inappropriate for the Authority to adopt this principle because it has three purposes rather than two, and the Broads Act requires that these be managed in a balanced and even-handed way.

4.3    Therefore staff should therefore bear in mind the following:

    the Broads has status equal to a national park;
    the Authority is a member of the national park family; and
    it is not possible to formally change the name of the area or the Authority to that of a national park at the present time, because the Authority is not able to accept the Sandford Principle.

4.4    However as a member of the national park family it has been accepted that we can informally refer to the area as a national park, verbally or in writing, and staff and members are positively encouraged to do so. For example references to 'the Broads and other national parks’ or ‘the national park area’ are appropriate. There may be occasions, for example when talking face-to-face to visitors in information centres, where verbally using ‘the Broads National Park’ may add clarity to the discussion and is therefore acceptable, although use of ‘the Broads National Park’ is not to be used in radio and TV interviews (or in any written form).  However if other people choose to refer to the area as a national park, we should not discourage them to do so.

4.5    When using the name of the area and the organisation in formal written documents such as letter headings and bank account details always refer to ‘the Broads’ and ‘the Broads Authority’. The only occasion on which Norfolk and Suffolk Broads are referred to jointly is in the title of the 1988 Act.

4.6    The main point is that while we are keen to stress that the area's status is equivalent to that of a national park, where legal precision is required we need to make it clear that the Broads is not a national park. In case of doubt simply refer to the area as 'the Broads'.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, Poppy said:

I knew I had this somewhere in the recesses of my hard drive.

This is an extract from The Blessed Authoritie's 'communications strategy'.

"

NAME AND STATUS

4.1    The Authority’s name and status has been the subject of much debate and some confusion. However in his letter dated 2 September 2006 the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs, Barry Gardiner MP, confirmed that the Broads has an equivalent status to that of a national park and that the Authority is a full member of the national park family etc., etc.

 

What was the date of the report, please? I have found similar wording in a communications strategy, dated 2012, but things have moved on considerably since then. The emphasis now seems to be on using the BNP expression at every opportunity, even in circumstances in which we were told it would NOT be used.

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Poppy said:

However in his letter dated 2 September 2006 the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs, Barry Gardiner MP, confirmed that the Broads has an equivalent status to that of a national park and that the Authority is a full member of the national park family

I would like to see a copy of that letter, just to put my mind at rest you'll understand. I'm sure that DEFRA will have a copy.

[Paladin]

2 hours ago, Poppy said:

I knew I had this somewhere in the recesses of my hard drive.

This is an extract from The Blessed Authoritie's 'communications strategy'.

"

NAME AND STATUS

4.1    The Authority’s name and status has been the subject of much debate and some confusion. However in his letter dated 2 September 2006 the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs, Barry Gardiner MP, confirmed that the Broads has an equivalent status to that of a national park and that the Authority is a full member of the national park family – as well as having ‘an important extra responsibility as the third largest inland navigation authority in the UK so that the Broads is in some respects a ‘national park plus’’. etc., etc.

 

It can be interesting (to some) looking back at old reports, that have disappeared from the BA’s website. I’ve also found an earlier report (2010) which says much the same. It also says:

"The Authority has taken the view that it is counter-productive to enter into on-line debates or conversations on Discussion Forum websites. However, such websites will be monitored and, if necessary, the contents of any contributions will be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive or appropriate Director and action taken where appropriate."

and

"Staff will not engage with Website Forums, however critical, unless there is a defamatory or libellous statement made against an individual in which case legal advice will be sought and action taken to remove the statement from the site."

Which just goes to show that the BA  does what is expedient at the moment, regardless of what has gone before. Nothing is set in stone. Sanford anyone?

[MauriceMynah]

Right, I need to clarify something in my mind. Unless I'm mistaken, The Broads is NOT a National Park.

The Doctor says he is no longer trying for National park status. (I take it from that, he understands that the Broads is NOT a National Park.)

The Doctor states that he understands that the Sandford Principle cannot apply to the Broads.

WE understand that the term "Broads National Park" may be used for marketing purposes.

I  understand that marketing is not always done within the area that the product exists.

Am I correct thus far?

So, in the words of Agatha Christie character 'Hastings' What I still do not understand is why there is a significant number of members here demanding that the doctor states "yes or no" whether the Broads is a National park!

I DO understand why the doctor doesn't post on this forum, neither would I if I were in his shoes, and I do understand why Tom, answering on behalf of the Broads Authority, is staying out of this thread as much as he reasonably can.(massive respect for him for contributing at all.)

This forum has taken over from the NBF as being the busiest broads forum (I believe) so if we want JP to start contributing here, we really need to stop calling him a liar at every opportunity. If I say "I'm not going to hit you" I'm only a liar when I do, not when you think I just might! 

[Paladin]

3 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

This forum has taken over from the NBF as being the busiest broads forum (I believe) so if we want JP to start contributing here, we really need to stop calling him a liar at every opportunity. If I say "I'm not going to hit you" I'm only a liar when I do, not when you think I just might! 

So if I say, I'm only going to use the expression 'Broads National Park' for marketing purposes, then issue a directive to my staff  to use it at every conceivable opportunity, even non-marketing purposes, am I a liar, misguided or misunderstood?

[MauriceMynah]

None of the above. If MacDonald's demands that all it's staff pronounce Fillet as "Fillay" this is marketing whatever the correct pronunciation should be.

This is using marketing techniques as are accepted at the time, in this case ... Now!

By your asking the doctor to pronounce whether or not the broads is a National Park, are you genuinely naive enough to think he believes it is, or are you just spoiling for a fight with him.... or perhaps "None of the above"!

Sorry Pally, but I do enjoy crossing swords with you and Peter from time to time :-)  

[vanessan]

3 hours ago, Bytheriver said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833726/landscapes-review-final-report.pdf

From Governments website last Autumn

Having read (somewhat speedily I must admit) through this report, my understanding is that an amendment to the Sandford Principle has been proposed. Bytheriver quoted this earlier and it is worth repeating because, if the proposal is taken up, the Broads will become a full National Park subject to the Sandford Principle sooner rather than later. Job done. Rather than arguing about  whether or not someone admits to it being an NP now, shouldn’t discussions revolve around how to stop the amendment being made? 

*Proposal 23: Stronger purposes in law for our national landscapes
As we have set out in previous chapters, we think the purposes
for our national landscapes should be updated and apply equally to National Parks and AONBs – there is no reasonable basis for the currently unhelpful distinction and people and nature need more from our landscapes.
Our understanding of nature has moved on, and ‘wildlife’ no longer covers the breadth of the biodiversity challenge.
We need our landscape bodies to reach out and connect more people to nature. Access and recreation is at the heart of the meaning of national landscapes.
And we need to better support
the communities that make our landscapes so special. The current duty for this should be upgraded to a purpose.
The exact wording will no doubt
be subject to debate and legal discussion, but the substance of what they should be aiming to do, we think, can be achieved through the following:
1. Recover, conserve and enhance natural beauty, biodiversity
and natural capital, and cultural heritage.
2. Actively connect all parts of society with these special places to support understanding, enjoyment and the nation’s health and wellbeing.
3. Foster the economic and community vitality of their area in support of the first two purposes.
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.*

 

[Paladin]

55 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

None of the above. If MacDonald's demands that all it's staff pronounce Fillet as "Fillay" this is marketing whatever the correct pronunciation should be.

This is using marketing techniques as are accepted at the time, in this case ... Now!

By your asking the doctor to pronounce whether or not the broads is a National Park, are you genuinely naive enough to think he believes it is, or are you just spoiling for a fight with him.... or perhaps "None of the above"!

Sorry Pally, but I do enjoy crossing swords with you and Peter from time to time :-)  

I think you have missed the point. If Ronald’s staff were asked to promote unfilletted fish as being filleted, that is simply dishonest. It’s not about pronunciation, it’s about the product. Do you believe that the planning function of the Authority comes under the heading of marketing?

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Do you believe that the planning function of the Authority comes under the heading of marketing?

Any function of the authority can  come under the heading of "marketing". Marketing is a much broader brush than just advertising. The BA has been given permission from the Court to use "Broads National Park" for marketing purposes. Perhaps it is the phrase "marketing purposes" that needs clarifying rather than "Broads National Park"

[Bytheriver]

Quote

 

At the Campaign for National Parks seminar in London (The Charity to all of the current National Parks Friend/Societies belong) which was attended by several DEFRA officials attended though could say little due to the pending General Election  the following was stated

A number of DEFRA Officials were present & there a clear impression they are anxious to press ahead as soon as a new minister is appointed though several speakers were of the opinion that many of the 27 key points do not need legislation and referred to the  similar process in Wales (which took several years) but where many aspects were implemented through the process   by the various park authorities.

The clear inference was that at some stage the will be legislation  (To set up the National Landscape Service for example) to which can be to add in any other key points that will require a change in the law.

[Paladin]

13 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Any function of the authority can  come under the heading of "marketing". Marketing is a much broader brush than just advertising. The BA has been given permission from the Court to use "Broads National Park" for marketing purposes. Perhaps it is the phrase "marketing purposes" that needs clarifying rather than "Broads National Park"

Just do an internet search. Try to find any definition that includes a local authority planning function. Let me know when you find it.

[marshman]

MM - I would just go away and get drunk again! Nonetheless you do speak many words of wisdom!!!!!

Incidentally my reading of the report mentioned is not that the Broads should be subject to the Sandford Principle per se but that consideration should be given to applying it to all areas of AONB. However for what it is worth, you must remember that these are proposals only and it does not mean it is a concrete proposal across the board; there is plenty of wriggle room in those words as they acknowledge.

Earlier some posters were setting great store by suggesting the RSPB was making firm proposals for the Broads - just read the title of the document as being "a vision". PW has a vision for the Broads without JP - doesn't mean its definitely going to happen!! In any case, the RSPB only own a small area of Broadland and play only a minor role - far less than the NWT for example.

Also remember that the heavy hand of the EA already controls almost everything the BA does, and does not, do. The rumour around is that the legislation protecting water voles is now going to be more vigorously applied than previously, and it may well be used to impact such issues as dredging or the disposal of dredged waste!  We shall see!!!! 

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

Which just goes to show that the BA  does what is expedient at the moment, regardless of what has gone before.

I have long wondered at the value of the Broads Plans. Grand visions so often forgotten. 

[BroadsAuthority]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

It can be interesting (to some) looking back at old reports, that have disappeared from the BA’s website. I’ve also found an earlier report (2010) which says much the same. It also says:

"The Authority has taken the view that it is counter-productive to enter into on-line debates or conversations on Discussion Forum websites. However, such websites will be monitored and, if necessary, the contents of any contributions will be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive or appropriate Director and action taken where appropriate."

and

"Staff will not engage with Website Forums, however critical, unless there is a defamatory or libellous statement made against an individual in which case legal advice will be sought and action taken to remove the statement from the site."

Which just goes to show that the BA  does what is expedient at the moment, regardless of what has gone before. Nothing is set in stone. Sanford anyone?

Just thought I would post to clarify for Paladin and anyone reading the above, this is an old/outdated report and at the time no-one was trained or employed specifically to deal with responding on digital media. The Communications Strategy quoted above is also dated.

I think we can all agree that a lot has changed in the last 10 years with regards to the importance of engaging online. As a result of this the Broads Authority and other local authorities recognised that it is both essential and very useful (to both the Authority and our stakeholders) if we have a presence on social media and forums such as this one...hence my employment I suppose!

Finally, despite the risk of repetition, there is still absolutely no intention for the Broads Authority to seek legislative change to bring the Broads under the 1949 act or any desire for the 'Sanford Principle' to be applicable to the Broads.

Tom