Dishonesty Regarding Toll Rise?

[Poppy]

8 hours ago, ChrisB said:

As I said Natural Law would dictate we all drive electric but at present for my 8K miles per annum, 3K+ of which are done in four weeks of trips it is a financial non starter.

A huge ammount of work is required if we ar all going to drive electric, the least of which involve range and cost.  The grid simply couldn't deal with it !

"The UK is unprepared for the expected surge in demand for power from the electric car revolution and could face blackouts and power cuts unless action is taken now, an official report warns."

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/electric-car-surge-exclusive-power-cuts-national-grid-overload-1366304

[Poppy]

3 hours ago, Paladin said:

Sails made from petrochemical products, grp hull, harmful wash, no registration number display...what's not to like?

Wash is the disturbance left behind a vessel. Have another look at that picture

[grendel]

electric vehicles are just the intermediate step until they get hydrogen fuel cells working economically

[Paladin]

46 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Wash is the disturbance left behind a vessel. Have another look at that picture

I thought that was  the wake. I suppose it depends on which dictionary is used. Does the bow wave cause wake or wash? Discuss...

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I thought that was  the wake. I suppose it depends on which dictionary is used. Does the bow wave cause wake or wash? Discuss...

A good wake, plenty of Adnams Broadside, pink gin, a decent ploughmans plus pickled eggs takes some beating!

[Paladin]

Nothing to do with climate change, but apropos to the topic…

Re the proposed Peto’s Marsh moorings, I understand the only place you can go from there is the Carlton Marshes Nature Reserve, run by Suffolk WLT.

The Chief Executive’s report to the NavCom, relating to the proposed tolls increases, says:

“The Suffolk Wildlife Trust, supported by the Broads Authority with dredged material from Oulton Broad is landscaping Peto’s Marsh and developing through recent acquisition one of the largest nature reserves in the Broads together with a new visitor centre. The provision of pontoons will provide access to a marvellous new site for visitors and private boat owners. “

The Chief Executive’s report to the Authority, on the same subject, says:

“The new visitor centre at Carlton Marshes is due to open in June. Although the expenditure could be split across two years, with the posts and some of the pontoons installed this year and the remaining pontoons in 2021/22, it would involve two lots of mobilisation and additional costs. The Broads Act provides that “expenditure incurred in respect of moorings” is Navigation Expenditure so it cannot be funded from National Park Grant.”

I took a look at the 1988 Act and the good doctor is, once again, being economical with the truth. He failed to mention the exception, which provides for when the provision of moorings would not be ‘navigation expenditure’.

The Act actually says:

“navigation expenditure” means—

    (a)    the expenditure which the Authority incurs in respect of its functions under Part II of this Act and under the 2009 Act ;

    (b)    expenditure incurred in respect of the provision of moorings; and

   (c)    expenditure incurred in relation to adjacent waters under section 10(2A) of this Act,

but for the purposes of this section expenditure incurred wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of any area, including expenditure on dredging wholly or mainly for conserving those things, shall not be classified as navigation expenditure unless in the case of expenditure incurred wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the cultural heritage of any area it is incurred for the purpose of maintaining, improving, facilitating or promoting the public right of navigation.”

In view of the reason given for placing the moorings at Peto's Marsh, I think an argument could be made that the new moorings have nothing to do with the right of navigation, nothing to do with cultural heritage, but have everything to do with being wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the natural beauty or wildlife of the area and the costs are, therefore, not navigation expenditure.  

I think it’s important to note that the expenditure only has to be ‘in connection with’ and not ‘for the purpose of’. Why weren't the members of the Authority given the FULL text of the relevant section of the Act?

 

[JennyMorgan]

Further to the above I would add the dredging program on Hickling. Why I suggest this is  because calls for dredging at Hickling were continually resisted until it was realised that there was an advantage for conservation purposes. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State grants should totally finance that dredging because, clearly, there are advantages for navigation.  What I am suggesting is that conservation should pay its way rather than hammer the navigation account. 

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

I think it’s important to note that the expenditure only has to be ‘in connection with’ and not ‘for the purpose of’. Why weren't the members of the Authority given the FULL text of the relevant section of the Act?

The executive has something of a regrettable history of selective and even questionable quoting when it comes to its reports to its members and committees.  

 

 

[D46]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Nothing to do with climate change, but apropos to the topic…

Re the proposed Peto’s Marsh moorings, I understand the only place you can go from there is the Carlton Marshes Nature Reserve, run by Suffolk WLT.

The Chief Executive’s report to the NavCom, relating to the proposed tolls increases, says:

“The Suffolk Wildlife Trust, supported by the Broads Authority with dredged material from Oulton Broad is landscaping Peto’s Marsh and developing through recent acquisition one of the largest nature reserves in the Broads together with a new visitor centre. The provision of pontoons will provide access to a marvellous new site for visitors and private boat owners. “

The Chief Executive’s report to the Authority, on the same subject, says:

“The new visitor centre at Carlton Marshes is due to open in June. Although the expenditure could be split across two years, with the posts and some of the pontoons installed this year and the remaining pontoons in 2021/22, it would involve two lots of mobilisation and additional costs. The Broads Act provides that “expenditure incurred in respect of moorings” is Navigation Expenditure so it cannot be funded from National Park Grant.”

I took a look at the 1988 Act and the good doctor is, once again, being economical with the truth. He failed to mention the exception, which provides for when the provision of moorings would not be ‘navigation expenditure’.

The Act actually says:

“navigation expenditure” means—

    (a)    the expenditure which the Authority incurs in respect of its functions under Part II of this Act and under the 2009 Act ;

    (b)    expenditure incurred in respect of the provision of moorings; and

   (c)    expenditure incurred in relation to adjacent waters under section 10(2A) of this Act,

but for the purposes of this section expenditure incurred wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the natural beauty, wildlife or cultural heritage of any area, including expenditure on dredging wholly or mainly for conserving those things, shall not be classified as navigation expenditure unless in the case of expenditure incurred wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the cultural heritage of any area it is incurred for the purpose of maintaining, improving, facilitating or promoting the public right of navigation.”

In view of the reason given for placing the moorings at Peto's Marsh, I think an argument could be made that the new moorings have nothing to do with the right of navigation, nothing to do with cultural heritage, but have everything to do with being wholly or mainly in connection with conserving the natural beauty or wildlife of the area and the costs are, therefore, not navigation expenditure.  

I think it’s important to note that the expenditure only has to be ‘in connection with’ and not ‘for the purpose of’. Why weren't the members of the Authority given the FULL text of the relevant section of the Act?

 

Easy catching the good Dr out is easy enough it's changing his desisions that difficult / impossible , after all who do toll payers turn to to protect their interests ? Could explain why BA ride rough shod over them as no one is going to do anything and that's the first thing that needs changing as we all know .

I'm a little confused regarding that report , has he taken the whole amount this yr or just part of it ? Given there will be work to complete in 21/22 , if it's part then is he attacking tolls again in 21/22 ?  , then again if it's the full amount we should hope the costing projections are right or can we expect to pick up that shortfall too  ! .

[VetChugger]

On 17/01/2020 at 15:03, ChrisB said:

The answer is: boating inland elsewhere, or on the sea when compared, The Broads come out ""As Cheap as Chips""  

Folks will say there are no locks to maintain, or major dredging, like say, Poole.etc, but The BA still represent very good value for money. And the mooring facilities are good and very cheap all over.

I like others, but for my own reasons do not wish to contribute to this type of discussion any more. I have always been a champion of boating rights, but can't defend the "Sacred Cow" of polluting ex- hire boats and still in hire boats and privates of a certain age not paying a higher proportion of The Broads budget. Hopefully in years to come The Broads could be an example of sustainable "Eco" boating combining sail, electric, paddle and oar.

Have to disagree with this. The mooring charges on the Broads are substantially more than on the canals. I'd suggest that, overall, they  are pretty even. There is also access to a lot more facilities (showers toilets, elsan disposal ect) on the CRT waters than the Broads.

[ChrisB]

I said other inland waterways and sea. Marina charges on The Broads are very good value when compared to The Thames and South Coast.

However I will admit that marinas in Lymington, Chichester, Poole and others do lack that certain "je nais se quois"  I think it is not treading the mixture of mud and goose Sh*t onto the boat, cockpit sole, and down below.🦶

[marshman]

I am sorry to take issue with you again PW but can you explain why, in your view the dredging in Heigham Sound and Hickling over the last 5/7 years, has anything much to do with conservation? My understanding is that it is, and was all about dredging the channels and disposing of the spoil. After all how else can you dispose of the spoil in that area, other than filling in a few shallow bays?

The last time it was comprehensively dredged the spoil was dumped on a piece of marsh near White Slea, and the consequence of that was, in the middle of an area of marshes a wood of birch became established and only recently was this cleared to attempt to return it to what it should always have been - and to restore the wind to the sailies!! Anyone who really knows that area will know that that wood was not a natural event but only because the spoil was dumped there.

I think  the " resistance" to dredging in that area was more where to stick the stuff!!!

[JennyMorgan]

16 minutes ago, marshman said:

I am sorry to take issue with you again PW but can you explain why, in your view the dredging in Heigham Sound and Hickling over the last 5/7 years, has anything much to do with conservation?

Easy! You only have to look at the previous and historical resistance to dredging to realise why. The Sound for example was undoubtedly silting up, coincidently after comments from senior conservation officers that the Upper Thurne, and Hickling in particular should be closed to navigation, a verifiable fact so don't bother arguing over that one! 

The outcome of that was the reduced flow and a realisation that that was creating quite serious ecological problems, coincidence or cause, the Sound was dredged! 

Reedbeds provide valuable habitat, surely no argument about that. Ah ha, we need mud to recreate reedbeds, now I have no argument about that, clearly navigation and conservation can work together, a win win situation to be encouraged. In an ideal world surely it is only reasonable that the costs, like the advantages, should be shared. 

Reedbed reconstruction might be providing the key to dredging but for many years now conservation has dictated the wheres and whens both of dredging and importantly the disposal of spoil. The growing costs of disposal are directly and largely in response to the needs of conservation, the traditional and cost effective dumping  of spoil on the bank is no longer considered acceptable. Navigation costs have increased dramatically in response to the needs of conservation, surely no one can reasonably argue that point. Accept that and clearly it is only fair and reasonable that these costs are shared.

[Paladin]

12 hours ago, D46 said:

I'm a little confused regarding that report , has he taken the whole amount this yr or just part of it ? Given there will be work to complete in 21/22 , if it's part then is he attacking tolls again in 21/22 ?  , then again if it's the full amount we should hope the costing projections are right or can we expect to pick up that shortfall too  ! .

According to the EDP report, it's all taken account of in this year's increase.

"John Packman, BA chairman, told the navigation committee on Thursday, January 16, that the rise was agreed after members decided it would be cost effective to install the pontoons in one year."

Not only does that give a larger percentage increase  for this year, but that £30,000 will stay in next year's budget. Had the sum been taken in two hits of £15,000, the overall impact of the permanent increase in tolls, year-on-year, would have been slightly less.

But I still think this is a conservation (NPG) expense, not a navigation expense, in line with the 1988 Act.

The actual decision won't be taken until the Authority meeting on 31 January. You never know, there just might be a member who checks these things for themselves (or reads this forum), and brings it up at the meeting.

I also wonder, if the cost is met from the navigation income, whether the Local Government Ombudsman would have a view. Unfortunately, he/she cannot consider proposals. It has to be  fait accompli, and any complaint to have gone through the Authority's complaints procedure, first.

[marshman]

OK PW I give up  - you and your "protagonists"are never wrong! You all manage to highlight expressions and words to your own advantage and forget fundamentals!  To argue against additional moorings anywhere, and that they should not be paid out of the Navigation budget is IMHO stretching the imagination - does it matter that it is adjacent to a Nature Reserve?  Its a mooring of which almost all visitors and posters ask for more of - when one is provided we  now have to argue which part of the budget it comes from?

OK and as posters now propound , take it to the Ombudsman as soon as you can.  My guess, before you actually get there is that it will not get anywhere at all - but thats my view!  With all honesty I suspect, like myself, many readers of this Forum will shortly be driven away by all of this squit by a very few individuals over not a lot. Persist by all means but lose the balance and many people who time and time get rather bored with the sport of BA bashing, will probably drift away!

And wish by all means, the demise of the BA   -  BUT be very careful of what you wish for. It could be a lot worse...!

[Polly]

A very personal opinion.

You know, there are issues that have been highlighted, fine. But! Lately the Forum is being turned into a non-stop negative rant and that is:

a. Undermining valid opposition 

b. Devaluing the NBN as a potential lobby on the very issues at stake

c. Devaluing the NBN as a place people can come to to celebrate the Broads

I buy objectivity and prefer constructive debate. We can do better than this. 

[JennyMorgan]

I'm not quite as certain as some folk clearly are in that the proposed mooring is solely conservation related. The clue is in the name, mooring, and that relates to boats. However, I do agree that without the nature reserve that there would be no mooring at the proposed location. I've known JP long enough, both directly and indirectly, to reasonably assume that his purpose is both to work with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, commendable, but also to promote the NP aura, his personal ambition. Annoyingly he is clearly using our money as a resource to take forward his vision. However, just because it is his vision is no reason to reject it, indeed I do support much of it, but I do question what I consider to be the sharp practice in promoting and financing that vision. Yes, I do support the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, indeed I shall be going for a walk there this evening. I will even use the new mooring, but only because it is there, however I go back to my previous suggestion that this should be a shared cost. SWT certainly wouldn't be accepting spoil from Oulton Broad if in some way there was not an advantage to them. Whilst this new mooring is ostensibly 'navigation' it also very obviously panders to conservation thus JP's NP vision.  We must also consider that it supports the BA in its duty towards the recreation and enjoyment of the Broads by the public thus a large proportion of the costs should fairly be met both by the DEFRA grant and the wildlife trust itself. 

A bit of guesswork here, the proposed mooring will provide an excellent destination for local passenger/trip boats. For that to work it will require that space is reserved for the quite large passenger boats to moor at predetermined times. First come, first served has long been the way of 24hr moorings, that should continue.  It also adds weight to my suggestion that the navigation account should NOT totally finance this project. 

[rightsaidfred]

18 minutes ago, marshman said:

OK PW I give up  - you and your "protagonists"are never wrong! You all manage to highlight expressions and words to your own advantage and forget fundamentals!  To argue against additional moorings anywhere, and that they should not be paid out of the Navigation budget is IMHO stretching the imagination - does it matter that it is adjacent to a Nature Reserve?  Its a mooring of which almost all visitors and posters ask for more of - when one is provided we  now have to argue which part of the budget it comes from?

OK and as posters now propound , take it to the Ombudsman as soon as you can.  My guess, before you actually get there is that it will not get anywhere at all - but thats my view!  With all honesty I suspect, like myself, many readers of this Forum will shortly be driven away by all of this squit by a very few individuals over not a lot. Persist by all means but lose the balance and many people who time and time get rather bored with the sport of BA bashing, will probably drift away!

And wish by all means, the demise of the BA   -  BUT be very careful of what you wish for. It could be a lot worse...!

I would be inclined to agree with you if it wasn't that the driving force behind supplying these moorings seems to be the new Visitor Centre, if it is to provide additional moorings for boaters then why specify private owners and why has it taken till now to identify the locations potential.

As for the demise of the BA I doubt anyone is looking for that just that it conducts its business within the terms of the Act as laid down in parliament.

Fred

 

[D46]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

According to the EDP report, it's all taken account of in this year's increase.

"John Packman, BA chairman, told the navigation committee on Thursday, January 16, that the rise was agreed after members decided it would be cost effective to install the pontoons in one year."

Not only does that give a larger percentage increase  for this year, but that £30,000 will stay in next year's budget. Had the sum been taken in two hits of £15,000, the overall impact of the permanent increase in tolls, year-on-year, would have been slightly less.

But I still think this is a conservation (NPG) expense, not a navigation expense, in line with the 1988 Act.

The actual decision won't be taken until the Authority meeting on 31 January. You never know, there just might be a member who checks these things for themselves (or reads this forum), and brings it up at the meeting.

I also wonder, if the cost is met from the navigation income, whether the Local Government Ombudsman would have a view. Unfortunately, he/she cannot consider proposals. It has to be  fait accompli, and any complaint to have gone through the Authority's complaints procedure, first.

I completely agree with you especially that to be fair the body should have been split over 2 yrs , to me there's nothing to stop the authority tapping into more fund's next yr if there's a shortfall .

Indeed hopefully someone does ask questions regarding this matter at yare house but I doubt few will wish to make that stand given what has happened before to those that did on similar issues.

Complaints against the authority really don't go anywhere unfortunately and as you say until that's delt with nothing else can be investigated by others .

[JennyMorgan]

57 minutes ago, marshman said:

OK PW I give up  - you and your "protagonists"are never wrong!

Ha ha! Pots and frying pans immediately spring to mind!   

I fully accept the need for balance but occasionally that balance, due to the nature of the debate, is sometimes hard to achieve.

I will, if you'll allow me, restate that in my opinion the proposed new mooring is only being built because of its proximity to the new nature reserve. Remember, if you are able, that there is already a 24hr mooring in Oulton Dyke, there are also moorings, and a ferry, at Burgh St Peter. Not only that but there is a free mooring for several boats in Fisher Row, also in Oulton Dyke,  as well as 'wild' moorings in what are known as 'The Wherry Dykes'. Let's not forget the moorings on the nearby Oulton Broad and the existing 24hr moorings at Aldeby, Worlingham and Barnby, the area is well provided for. The need for these new moorings, compared to other areas of the Broads, is surely insignificant. 

I will also repeat myself when I stress that I have no great desire to replace the Broads Authority, however I will support any call for it to be brought to task, for it to be reviewed and for it to be accountable and democratic. A change at the top would probably be a good starting point, and I make no excuses for suggesting that.

[D46]

49 minutes ago, marshman said:

OK PW I give up  - you and your "protagonists"are never wrong! You all manage to highlight expressions and words to your own advantage and forget fundamentals!  To argue against additional moorings anywhere, and that they should not be paid out of the Navigation budget is IMHO stretching the imagination - does it matter that it is adjacent to a Nature Reserve?  Its a mooring of which almost all visitors and posters ask for more of - when one is provided we  now have to argue which part of the budget it comes from?

OK and as posters now propound , take it to the Ombudsman as soon as you can.  My guess, before you actually get there is that it will not get anywhere at all - but thats my view!  With all honesty I suspect, like myself, many readers of this Forum will shortly be driven away by all of this squit by a very few individuals over not a lot. Persist by all means but lose the balance and many people who time and time get rather bored with the sport of BA bashing, will probably drift away!

And wish by all means, the demise of the BA   -  BUT be very careful of what you wish for. It could be a lot worse...!

Here we go again knocking not just contributor's to the thread but now the forum as a whole got daring to have an alternative opinion , how do you know people will leave have you asked them ?

[Paladin]

52 minutes ago, marshman said:

...To argue against additional moorings anywhere, and that they should not be paid out of the Navigation budget is IMHO stretching the imagination - does it matter that it is adjacent to a Nature Reserve?  Its a mooring of which almost all visitors and posters ask for more of - when one is provided we  now have to argue which part of the budget it comes from?

OK and as posters now propound , take it to the Ombudsman as soon as you can.  My guess, before you actually get there is that it will not get anywhere at all - but thats my view!  With all honesty I suspect, like myself, many readers of this Forum will shortly be driven away by all of this squit by a very few individuals over not a lot. Persist by all means but lose the balance and many people who time and time get rather bored with the sport of BA bashing, will probably drift away!...

 

Surely it’s not about being right or wrong, but debating the issues. If one person can overcome another’s arguments by producing stronger, or irrefutable, facts, that’s the way debate goes.

But my concern isn’t whether additional moorings should be supplied. Such improvements are, generally, to be welcomed. But to state, in unequivocal terms, that the provision of the moorings is a navigation expenditure, without even mentioning the statutory exemption and explaining why it doesn’t apply (if, indeed it doesn’t apply) is, in my opinion, misleading the members.

This proposal hardly follows the Mooring Strategy of 30 minutes between moorings, with the Dutch Tea Gardens moorings almost opposite. There can be no doubt (well, not in my mind) that the proposed moorings are for the benefit of the Suffolk WLT nature reserve (there’s nowhere else to go). So why aren’t they providing their own moorings for visitors, similar to those for the Hoveton Great Broad Nature Trail, with a ferry like the one that goes between the Salhouse Broad mooring and the Nature Trail?

The WLT allowed the BA to deposit dredgings on their new development. A win-win situation, as it allowed the WLT to create a better(?) environment for the wildlife. Was the provision of the moorings part of that deal? We don’t get told, but, if it was (and the timing increases that suspicion) it only serves to confirm that this is about conservation, not navigation.

I’m all for the Authority acting in partnership with conservation organisations when appropriate, but conservation has precious little to do with navigation, which is why the Broads Act separates them.

I regard ‘BA bashing’ as criticising the Authority (or individuals) when no firm case for that criticism is put forward. I prefer to justify any criticism I make with substantive argument and I regard that as holding them to account.

Incidentally, I have found the LGO to be very reasonable in the past.

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I regard ‘BA bashing’ as criticising the Authority (or individuals) when no firm case for that criticism is put forward. I prefer to justify any criticism I make with substantive argument and I regard that as holding them to account.

Is it our fault that the BA provides so much ammunition? Marshman, are you seriously suggesting that we ignore the Authority's shortcomings? 

[rightsaidfred]

44 minutes ago, Polly said:

A very personal opinion.

You know, there are issues that have been highlighted, fine. But! Lately the Forum is being turned into a non-stop negative rant and that is:

a. Undermining valid opposition 

b. Devaluing the NBN as a potential lobby on the very issues at stake

c. Devaluing the NBN as a place people can come to to celebrate the Broads

I buy objectivity and prefer constructive debate. We can do better than this. 

I fully understand and respect your sentiments but we all belong to the forum for our own reasons many of them varied, while I have no problem with the social side of the forum that holds no interest for me nor do any other incidental sections that dosn`t mean others cant use it for that I just don't bother with or read those areas, for me the forum is a means to be up to date with everything Broads related and to debate and discuss any issues I regard as relevant, as I see it this is a public forum mainly Broads related and that is my reason to be a member but each to their own.

Fred

[Paladin]

41 minutes ago, D46 said:

Complaints against the authority really don't go anywhere unfortunately ...

I don't make many official complaints about the BA, but I have been satified with the results of those I have made.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

A bit of guesswork here, the proposed mooring will provide an excellent destination for local passenger/trip boats. For that to work it will require that space is reserved for the quite large passenger boats to moor at predetermined times. First come, first served has long been the way of 24hr moorings, that should continue.  It also adds weight to my suggestion that the navigation account should NOT totally finance this project. 

I haven't looked to see if there is a published policy, but I don't think the BA permits commercial use of moorings. A couple of years ago, the Horning Ferry foot ferry was restarted. As well as going to the Woodbastwick side of the river, carriage to the Cockshoot Dyke BA mooring was offered. The BA wouldn't allow it.

I know the Black Dog Ferry runs from Beccles Lido (private) to Geldeston Locks (BA 24hr), but that is (correct me if I'm wrong) operated by volunteers from the Beccles Lido Charitable Trust, rather than by a private company.

I would think the 'no return within 24hrs' restriction would prevent the trip boats using the moorings.