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

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

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....

Please excuse me repeating an earlier comment where I pointed out that he has said that he's  'content that the Broads is a national park'. Not so much what I think that he might or might not believe, more a case of what I have read. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

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.

But it has tried, namely The Broads National Park Bill.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/decision-later-on-broads-national-park-1-690236

Share this post


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

Please excuse me repeating an earlier comment where I pointed out that he has said that he's  'content that the Broads is a national park'. Not so much what I think that he might or might not believe, more a case of what I have read. 

This you believe...

 

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Broads authority quote "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."

This you do not believe.

To quote Simoin & Garfunkle's the Boxer...

..." A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

This you believe...

 

This you do not believe.

To quote Simoin & Garfunkle's the Boxer...

..." A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

Well said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

.." A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

Indeed. I can think of a CEO of a well loved quango to whom that would more than equally apply to!!

Just a thought, indeed a purely hypothetical question, if JP were told that he could have his real BNP but with one proviso, he had to accept Sandford, I wonder what he'd say?

Trust . . . . . . . . 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

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

I did actually point out that the reports were old ones and things have moved on considerably since then.

Regarding the review and "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", I tend to get confused with all different naming conventions, AONB, RAMSAR etc, so can someone please confirm for me that the Broads is not a designated AONB, so even if the proposal was enacted, the Broads would be unaffected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

To quote Simoin & Garfunkle's the Boxer...

..." A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

And to quote Abraham Lincoln...

"Actions speak louder than words..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a very interesting thread, and a thread that begs a question -

If there was to be a referendum, how would you vote if over the Broads being made a full NP where Sandford MUST apply, would you vote yes or no?.  No tongue twisting dodges, a simple yes or no?.

I`l start the ball rolling with an emphatic NO.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

This has been a very interesting thread, and a thread that begs a question -

If there was to be a referendum, how would you vote if over the Broads being made a full NP where Sandford MUST apply, would you vote yes or no?.  No tongue twisting dodges, a simple yes or no?.

I`l start the ball rolling with an emphatic NO.

I'd vote a resounding YES...

.

.

.

.

.

.

now, do you believe me or not? :default_icon_cool:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest - it is not happening at this time, so you just cannot say!! So its entirely hypothetical and without knowing what else is involved, I don't see that it is a particularly relevant question. Everything and anything could be changed - so I am not sure what is the point?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, indeed a purely hypothetical question, if JP were told that he could have his real BNP but with one proviso, he had to persuade JM, I wonder what he'd say?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I'd vote a resounding YES...

.

.

.

.

.

.

now, do you believe me or not? :default_biggrin:

No :default_biggrin: and that's a no from me too ! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

This has been a very interesting thread, and a thread that begs a question -

If there was to be a referendum, how would you vote if over the Broads being made a full NP where Sandford MUST apply, would you vote yes or no?.  No tongue twisting dodges, a simple yes or no?.

I`l start the ball rolling with an emphatic NO.

Is that Sandford as it is now or a revised Sandford as proposed by the Glover review?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, marshman said:

To be honest - it is not happening at this time, so you just cannot say!! So its entirely hypothetical and without knowing what else is involved, I don't see that it is a particularly relevant question. Everything and anything could be changed - so I am not sure what is the point?

Yes it's hypothetical , but there's plenty of point it could happen , now if this was to creep in the back door and nothing anyone could possibly do about it ,  I wonder what your going to say then ? Surely not " nothing to worry about " . 

Too late then , far better to keep on the ball than ignore the situation in the hope it doesn't happen , had the IWA thought like that the canals wouldn't exist ! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

To be honest - it is not happening at this time, so you just cannot say!! So its entirely hypothetical and without knowing what else is involved, I don't see that it is a particularly relevant question. Everything and anything could be changed - so I am not sure what is the point?

So that`s a yes vote that you obviously did`nt want to publicly admit to?.:default_gbxhmm::default_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a bit dim here.....

as I read Sandford, there was also a requirement to protect the cultural heritage of the area. In our case that is surely navigation without too big a stretch of the wording?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Polly said:

Being a bit dim here.....

as I read Sandford, there was also a requirement to protect the cultural heritage of the area. In our case that is surely navigation without too big a stretch of the wording?

"Cultural heritage" is one of those nebulous concepts (even worse than "marketing"). While there is a right of navigation along tidal rivers, the type of vessels capable of navigation at any particular point isn't specified. A canoe is capable of navigating. In the absence of commercial shipping on the Broads, the rivers are now only navigated by leisure vessels. Can such use be considered part of the cultural heritage? Particularly as the principle driver of the use of the Broads 'back-in'the-day' was the commercial wherry traffic.

I very much fear that, should anything like Sandford be introduced, the boaters of today could, or would, find themselves very much the poor relation, as the interpretation of 'cultural heritage' would be in the hands of those who have very creative imaginations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Polly said:

Being a bit dim here.....

as I read Sandford, there was also a requirement to protect the cultural heritage of the area. In our case that is surely navigation without too big a stretch of the wording?

Hear b****y hear! Sorry about the naughty word but the Authority has for far too many years ignored our cultural heritage thus I can only endorse and wholeheartedly welcome Polly's enlightened comment. 

To navigation I would add the freedom to roam our waterways as we have for generations but I have to agree with Polly, navigating Broadland is the core activity. Without it the Broads would not exist as we know it. Our freedom to roam is under threat, I have no doubt about that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Hear b****y hear! Sorry about the naughty word but the Authority has for far too many years ignored our cultural heritage thus I can only endorse and wholeheartedly welcome Polly's enlightened comment. 

 

The duty of the Broads Authority of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads is already enshrined in the 1988 Broads Act. If the cultural heritage is being ignored at the moment, I can't see Sandford, which would push the interests of navigation well down the scale, making much difference to that aspect.

It could even be argued at the moment that, as the interests of navigation are mentioned as the subject of a separate duty, the navigation doesn't form part of that cultural heritage.

I'm speaking now from the purely legal point of view, as legislation doesn't usually repeat itself and cover the same points over again. So if the Act could be construed as including navigation within 'cultural heritage' there would be no point in repeating it later in the same section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First rule of marketing and branding. Check your acronym. Broads National Park = BNP = politically toxic. For that reason alone the BNP will never exist in Norfolk. If JP really wants National Park status he will need a new name.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the cultural heritage that of a huge brownfield industrial site, open cast mining as some would call it, surely all this wildlife is getting in the way of the broadland heritage and should be outlawed.

Now how about a huge visitor centre at acle dedicated to open cast peat diggings and the invading carr woodland that messed up some of the navigable passages that made it less viable?

As nature goes I'm pretty sure the human race is part of it seeing as we evolved along with the rest of it, to be fair we've done better than most of it so I'd say we are more natural going by darwins rules.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RS2021 said:

Broads National Park = BNP = politically toxic.

Maybe better with something like National Association of Zooilogical Interests, hmmm no maybe not.....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Polly said:

as I read Sandford, there was also a requirement to protect the cultural heritage of the area. In our case that is surely navigation without too big a stretch of the wording?

I would like to expand on that, if I may?  The discussion of the legalities and  the doubting of official promises is all very well, on this thread, but I also look at this through the simple eyes of a Broadsman.

The conservation of other NPs is much clearer, since they are areas of country which are (more or less) as they have been ever since the Ice Age.  Largely made up of solid rock!  Their management, as such, is mainly in the commercial hands of local farmers and foresters, so all the NP authority has to do is tell the public how they should behave in them.  Yes, I know, that is a dreadfully simplistic view but I am trying to make a comparison.

The Broads, since the Ice Age, has become what it is today entirely because Man has developed it over the centuries for his own purposes.  So the first question must always be : what exactly do you wish to conserve about this un-natural evolution and for what purpose?

As to local culture, where does that come from?  The original culture of the wetland marshes of what we now call the Broads was wildfowling - and I mean commercial wildfowling.  The wholesale slaughter of all types of water bird.  Hence the number of places on the Broads that are still called "Decoy".  The Norfolk Punt that we now love to see sailing on Barton, was originally a vehicle for the mass killing of duck on the water.  It is true to say that the first tourists who came to the Broads were rich, upper class wildfowlers.  That doesn't sit very well with the RSPB I don't suppose, but it is arguably part of our culture.

The culture of navigation is also derived from the commercial need for transport, as there were no safe roads in the Old Days. It goes right back to the Dutch, who also drained and re-claimed the marshes. Hence the number of places called "Fleet" - another of the many Dutch names which are still in common use on the Broads. It also goes back to the Vikings. St Benets Abbey used to be part of the "Danelaw".

So I have never seen how the ethos of a national park would fit into all this, since the management of Man-made land can only succeed if it is commercially viable.  Worth noting that reed harvesting is no longer done as it is no longer commercial.  Might this be because certain NPs do not allow Norfolk reed for thatching?

Would we be under threat from other interests, if we were not protected by NP status?  Now here we come to my big concern for the future.  Have you heard of the GROWTH TRIANGLE?

It was reported in the EDP in December that the triangle formed between north east Norwich, Wroxham and Brundall, taking in many other villages such as Rackheath, Plumstead, Blofield and, at its extremity, Acle, is now known as the Growth Triangle and 13,400 homes are to be built there in the near future.  They are either being built right now or already have planning permission.  And there are more in the pipeline for future years.  So now we see (as I predicted) what the new Broads National Parkway (so sorry - Broadland Northway) was really built for.  It is the distributor road for what is already becoming a vast housing estate which will cover - and swallow up - an enormous chunk of the central Norfolk farming countryside that I grew up to love.

I won't go into all the obvious problems of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, employment, or even water supply - which is already having to be piped from Norwich to Ludham - but how will this now unstoppable invasion of farmland affect the Broads?  If the aspersions of the RSPB, NWT and EN are to be believed, then Acle will find itself not a "gateway" but the boundary between a vast (and culture less) commuter dormitory and what will soon end up - without navigation - as just a glorified bird reserve which will be closed to the public anyway. 

So do we need the NP status, to stop this? Well, No! The Broads Authority is already the stand-alone planning authority for the Broads area. So we should already be able to rely on them to control it.

If we can trust them, of course. . . . . .

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

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.