Dishonesty Regarding Toll Rise?

[Paladin]

Congratulations on finding it. How exactly do you get the idea that I said I'm never wrong? Please read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said I couldn't find it, that's all. (I suppose I shouldn't mention it was JM, not JP, who posted the link )

[floydraser]

11 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Congratulations on finding it. How exactly do you get the idea that I said I'm never wrong? Please read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I said I couldn't find it, that's all. (I suppose I shouldn't mention it was JM, not JP, who posted the link )

I've read your post again very carefully, and mine. "I'm never wrong" was inferred by the very post itself; the fact that you had to react when there was no need to post at all. Sorry I had to explain it.

Apart from "I'm never wrong"s we also get, "it should be debated", "this is what a forum is for" and "you don't have to read it", all in reaction to the suggestion that these two threads are degrading the credibility of the forum. Not all from your good self I should add.

[Paladin]

38 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I've read your post again very carefully, and mine. "I'm never wrong" was inferred by the very post itself; the fact that you had to react when there was no need to post at all. Sorry I had to explain it.

You inferred it, but I certainly didn't imply it. I try to be very careful with my choice of words, say what I mean and mean what I say.

And I also prefer to keep to topics, so I shall refrain from reply to any further ad hominem posts.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

I have seen it before too - after all it is pretty old so as has been said before ( unsurprisingly since it was 2008! ). Nothing new !!!!

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act predates that speech by 20 years, but some people still have to be reminded of its content.

[MauriceMynah]

It was posted on this forum within the last couple of weeks ago. Not Facebook, here. I have to agree with Mike (Chamelion) on this one.

[JennyMorgan]

5 hours ago, chameleon said:

 this post typifies what is wrong with speakers corner

,QUOTE  worth rereading and reminding ourselves where it all started to go wrong. If nothing else it might help folks understand where we are coming from:

exactly, nothing new we have read it all before, all you and others are doing is rehashing old information . . . . . . . . . . 

 

Mike, Marshman, it is obviously old hat to you both, but it might enlighten some of those who are new to either the topic or even the forum. It also highlights just how long this discontent has festered and just how long the executive has had in which to win back the lost trust, or not as is surely the case.

[Paladin]

50 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

It was posted on this forum within the last couple of weeks ago. Not Facebook, here. I have to agree with Mike (Chamelion) on this one.

It was posted on Facebook, on 20 January to be precise. Just over an hour later, it was posted on here, and twice in 2016, now I've had time to have a good look.

Shall we move on now?

[marshman]

OK lets move on - but that applies to everyone! As someone pointed out, rehashing every negative BA story , and with 2008 material,  is hardly an original move! As it said nothing we don't know , it was all a bit pointless then!!

( P.S. Thats the other side of the story, posted to provide balance! )
 

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, marshman said:

( P.S. Thats the other side of the story, posted to provide balance! )

You'll need a great deal more weight to balance this topic!

[Paladin]

Apologies for the delay in updating on this subject. I have been trying to get information from the Broads Authority since 19 January and it has only just been provided. See attached documents.

At the BA meeting on 22 November 2019, the Authority members (and the NavCom members before them) were given options regarding the tolls increase, one of which was to increase the tolls by a percentage to pay for the proposed pontoon moorings at Peto’s Marsh.

What the members do not appear to have been told was that the Chief Executive had already legally committed the Authority to providing these moorings (and further moorings), by an agreement he signed with Suffolk Wildlife Trust back at the beginning of 2018.

So it doesn’t seem that there was actually any option available, other than to agree to the funding of the pontoon moorings.

In that Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), there is also an agreement for the Authority to provide additional moorings on the Waveney bank of the marsh, so toll payers can look forward to another hit.

At that meeting, on the subject of the proposed pontoon moorings at Peto’s Marsh, the members were told “The Broads Act provides that “expenditure incurred in respect of moorings” is Navigation Expenditure so it cannot be funded from National Park Grant.”

As has been mentioned previously, this is not accurate. 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.”

It should be mentioned that:

“The right of navigation is a right to pass and repass. It carries with it a right to moor temporarily to wait for the tide or to load and unload but not to lay down permanent moorings. It does not include a right of landing or embarkation without the consent of the owner of the bank or foreshore.” [Jonathan Gaunt QC]

So the provision of moorings has nothing to do with "maintaining, improving, facilitating or promoting the public right of navigation,” which is separate from the duty of "protecting the interests of navigation."

By far the most significant effect of the agreement and MoU will be in relation to the “conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads”.

There appears to be a substantial argument for the cost of the moorings to be met from the conservation budget, or at the very least to be split between the navigation and conservation budgets, an argument that, it seems, wasn’t available to the BA or NavCom members, as the two attached documents were never presented to the meetings.

 

Peto's Marsh - MoU BA SWT April 2018.docx

Peto's Marsh - Landowner Agreement_Signed.pdf

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

At the BA meeting on 22 November 2019, the Authority members (and the NavCom members before them) were given options regarding the tolls increase, one of which was to increase the tolls by a percentage to pay for the proposed pontoon moorings at Peto’s Marsh.

What the members do not appear to have been told was that the Chief Executive had already legally committed the Authority to providing these moorings (and further moorings), by an agreement he signed with Suffolk Wildlife Trust back at the beginning of 2018.

Please correct me if there is something here I fail to see but: Do we know what other options were put forward at the meeting?

What do you mean by "do not appear to have been told"? It sounds like you can't be sure.

The agreement seems to have been signed by the Operations Director, R, Rogers not the CEO so there must have been at least two people at the meeting who knew about it.

[marshman]

Nothing of real  interest added to the topic then????? I shall use the pontoon if available and will not give a jot out of which pot it comes - its all the same to me!!

Better things to be interested in methinks - like spring!!

[D46]

15 minutes ago, marshman said:

Nothing of real  interest added to the topic then????? I shall use the pontoon if available and will not give a jot out of which pot it comes - its all the same to me!!

Better things to be interested in methinks - like spring!!

I think alot might disagree that it does make a jot of difference , after all it's money's contributed in tolls being used .

To me if there's a case where a project is benifical to both the navigation and conservation etc then the costs should be split on a percentage basis to each budget .

How on earth can BA be hoped to be seen in a good light if they don't act fairly and with transparency especially when spending public money .

[marshman]

Your view I accept, but not necessarily those of everyone who uses the Broads!!! To me its just one pot and in total, given the state of the world at large, not a very important one!!

 

[JennyMorgan]

42 minutes ago, marshman said:

To me its just one pot and in total,

So it might be but methinks that you tend to bury your head in the sand. The Secretary of State Grant and the Tolls are both effectively taxation thus you and I pay into both kitties, that I accept. However you and I both pay tolls and the Act requires that such money is spent on navigation and supposedly only on navigation. When it is hived off on other issues, as it is, then people are right to be concerned. 

There is a strong and valid argument to suggest that the Peto's Marsh 24hr mooring is JP wishing to ingratiate himself in with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and that he's using navigation money for that purpose.  There are honey pots around the Broads that need extra moorings and Oulton Dyke really isn't high on the list!

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

 

There is a strong and valid argument to suggest that the Peto's Marsh 24hr mooring is JP wishing to ingratiate himself in with the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and that he's using navigation money for that purpose.

Why would he want to do that? Ingratiate himself I mean.

[grendel]

there may be as you say a strong and valid argument, but do you have any proof of that? without proof its just a point of view.

[rightsaidfred]

So are we getting new 24hr moorings curtesy of the SWT or are we providing the SWT with free visitor moorings at our expense and as a by-product the raw materials to enhance their site which we are admittedly happy to get rid of, seems a bit of a one sided arrangement to me.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

36 minutes ago, grendel said:

there may be as you say a strong and valid argument, but do you have any proof of that? without proof its just a point of view.

It is indeed a point of view but I will respectively remind folk of JP's national park aspirations. The Carlton Marsh Nature Reserve is a wonderful attribute to the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, it really is. Regretfully the Trust appears to have swallowed JP's national park waffle & justification and their CEO gleefully refers to the BNP.  Doubtless JP will wish to be associated! 

As far as the reserve is concerned it is what many of us would expect of a national park, far removed from the 'hullabaloo' image of Wroxham & Yarmouth. If you are down on the Waveney, and you like birds, drop in, I'm sure you'll be impressed.

[marshman]

As I said they provide much needed moorings, and if as an aside I can get to a decent Reserve, then thats a bonus. At the same time the BA get to dump some spoil, then to me its a win,win!! 

But of course some will have to find fault, as they endeavour to do at every occasion!!

Sadly the support on my side of the fence has declined as one poster will be absent as a result of the comments he has had to put up with - very sad that people continue to leave the Forum because of such actions. Me? I am a  bit harder to dislodge!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

26 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

So are we getting new 24hr moorings curtesy of the SWT or are we providing the SWT with free visitor moorings at our expense . . . . . . . . 

The latter. We need a spoil ground and the SWT needs our spoil, a match made in heaven, but the visitor mooring does rather skew the deal. An ideal platform for the Doctor's NP agenda.

[floydraser]

So if the SWT didn't take the spoil, where would it go and would there be a cost involved? If so, how does that compare to the agreement?

[D46]

16 minutes ago, floydraser said:

So if the SWT didn't take the spoil, where would it go and would there be a cost involved? If so, how does that compare to the agreement?

If they didn't take it it could go to Rockland or postwick , obviously there's a cost to that but I doubt it's as high as the mooring's are costing .

However the fact is they actually want it and at that point it should have been sign on the dotted line , these moorings were given away at no cost to SWT just the toll payers when there's a perfectly good mooring the other side of the river , anyone wishing to go to the reserve can just as easily get to it by mooring at oulton broad .

 

[JennyMorgan]

36 minutes ago, floydraser said:

So if the SWT didn't take the spoil, where would it go and would there be a cost involved? If so, how does that compare to the agreement?

Let us consider reality. Peto's Marsh is largely below the high water level, it would cost the SWT a huge amount to import material to rectify that fact. Some years ago Peto's Marsh was skimmed of topsoil by a short sighted developer which increased the likelihood of flooding and certainly the cost of pumping off surface water to any subsequent owner. There is also a ready made spoil ground on the other side of the river on the Church Marshes, granted that that would require agreement with the Environment Agency, as it is they who dug the soak dykes there as part of the Flood Alleviation Scheme. It was originally planned and created with a view to creating a spoil ground in conjunction with the BA, or so I was told by EA management people. So if the SWT didn't take the spoil then they would have had to import it from elsewhere, at a cost.

I'm not a fly on the wall but I do wonder whether the SWT demanded a freeby 24hr visitor mooring in order to clinch the deal or whether the BA simply offered it out of the goodness of our toll money? I'll leave that one to your imagination! 

[marshman]

Not even the BA would be foolish enough to take spoil from Oulton to Rockland - thats an 8 hr round trip!

And the Postwick tip (a 12hr round trip!) is a "lined" tip to specifically take the contaminated spoil from the upper reaches of the Yare - use that and where would you put that spoil as they are the only lined pits the BA have access to.

I would also question how much good in the short term, are loads of wet slurry to the SWT? I am sure PW will tell us exactly what they are going to do with it, but normally you cannot touch it for a couple of years  - are they going to use the pump that is currently up in Hickling to pump it ashore? Perhaps he can furnish us with the details as I am interested!