Sandford By Stealth.

[JennyMorgan]

If anyone is in doubt that the Authority will use the Sandford Principle then look no further than the front cover of the latest issue of Broad Sheet. Take note of the paragraph that tells us that the Authority helps to maintain a balance between the requirements of boaters for navigable channels and maintaining diverse habitats for wildlife. It all sounds good, even convincing, and it probably won't be referred to as Sandford but effectively that is what it is. Who has decided that boaters only require navigable channels? More like that boaters require open water, which under the Broads Act the Authority is duty-bound to provide. I'm not suggesting that the Broads should be devoid of aquatic plant life, heaven forbid,  but there is nothing in the Broads Act that limits dredging and weed cutting just to navigable channels. Exclusion by strategically ignoring the need to dredge or to cut weed is surely not acceptable. The Broads Act requires that the Authority maintains the navigable area to what it was when the Act came into force. If it was navigable then, then it should be navigable now, even if it means cutting weeds.

[grendel]

I thought we had agreed it wasnt sandford any more but section 62 of the environment act 1995  now

[Vaughan]

42 minutes ago, grendel said:

I thought we had agreed it wasnt sandford any more but section 62 of the environment act 1995  now

"A rose, by any other name . . "

[grendel]

ah but if we call it Sandford now, Marshman will step in and complain

[Paladin]

8 minutes ago, grendel said:

ah but if we call it Sandford now, Marshman will step in and complain

If he doesn't, I will!  

[JennyMorgan]

It's the principle!

[Bytheriver]

Sandford or a re-written version, has been resurrected in the Glover report which is still being considered by DEFRA so until normal times return there is somewhat of a limbo situation. "The Landscape Review" as it is now known which was commissioned by Michael Gove when he was Environment Minister to provide an independent report & make proposals which could form the basis of an Bill to be presented to parliament in due course. Some of the proposals do not need new legislation. A CNP Meeting due last week was naturally cancelled on safety grounds which may at least have provided some idea of the Governments time scale & possibly details of any further consultation opportunities. 

It may be worth keeping an eye on the CNP website https://www.cnp.org.uk/news  the umbrella charity for all of the Friends Groups

also https://www.nationalparksengland.org.uk/ the organisation representing all of the National Parks & the Broads (the title strongly emphasised by their CEO at a meeting in November)

It has been said in some quarters that the Sandford Principal has rarely been actively used for some considerable time. 

Recent Twitter comment from Julian Glover "Come back when this is over and then help make our landscapes better than ever for people and nature - we love them and we need them"

[JennyMorgan]

Bill, likewise.

Picked up this comment from elsewhere, it seems to sum things up pretty well:

"This is a perfect example of Packman's stealthy approach to the introduction and imposition of Sandford: the softening up by seemingly innocuous statements that to the (un)initiated look reasonable but actually hide a pernicious agenda."

Beyond that I'm just keeping an eye open, as are others, to ensure something unpleasant doesn't slip in under the radar, especially whilst our minds are on other matters.  

[RealWindmill]

Since owning my first Broads boat after moving to the area in the late 70's, areas such as Cockshoot Broad, Brundall Broad, HGB and other areas had been, or were to be, closed off for (if memory serves me correctly) reasons of environmental studies and research, of improvement to water quality, fish stocks etc.

How long were these closures and studies due to last? Decades ? Centuries? Are any details ever published ? 

Seems to me that in the case of Cockshoot and Brundall Broads, to name but two, they have shut them off and thrown away the key.

Is this not Sandford or Section 52 or whatever being used before the Sandford principle was invented.

Don't understand - but am willing to learn.

 

[JennyMorgan]

25 minutes ago, RealWindmill said:

Since owning my first Broads boat after moving to the area in the late 70's, areas such as Cockshoot Broad, Brundall Broad, HGB and other areas had been, or were to be, closed off for (if memory serves me correctly) reasons of environmental studies and research, of improvement to water quality, fish stocks etc.

Cockshoot was closed with an assurance that it would re-opened, an agreement that has long been forgotten, or so it would seem. In fairness it hasn't been missed, the Broad having previously been silted up for decades but nevertheless an agreement that has since been reneged upon.

HGB was illegally closed before the Broads Authority came along thus they have no responsibility towards it being reopened, regretfully. I believe that the same applies to Brundall.

Hickling is seen as a problem because senior Authority staff have made it quite clear in the past that the Broad should not be open to navigation. Granted that dredging is finally taking place but then that is largely a conservation project. The Authority had to be dragged kicking and screaming into dredging the approaches to the Broad, seemingly hoping that silting up would achieve their Officer's previously stated ambition.  

In my lifetime I have seen Martham, Barnby and Wheatfen Broads closed to boat access and there were well documented attempts by the Authority to close Horsey during the winter. I understand that there are more 'broads' closed to navigation than are open to it. 

 

[marshman]

Well, for what its worth, and whatever I think will not stop those actually wishing to , blathering on, I actually see nothing in the Broad Sheet to especially concern me given that I cannot see their stance has been changed and neither do I see S. 62 being used to enforce the fears of those who clearly cannot sleep at night, worrying about whats coming in their back door!

But whilst I actually believe the Glover Report will now gather dust in someones bottom drawer, there is some real logic in gathering all the NP's, AONB's and triple SI's together - having said that, I really doubt there is a will to do this in the medium term and we will continue to have a mish mash of bitty legislation as we have now. Its not satisfactory but at least it exists.

I would prefer not to turn this into a slanging match but as always there is no evidence whatsoever  of any "back door " entry as suggested. It remains as it was and nothing has changed, but then PW knows that but I suspect just wants to keep the topic alive through yet another angle!

Incidentally, I cannot ever remember Brundall Broad being open (Pete - have you any such pictures showing that in your vast hoard? ) and even in the early 60's you could not access Martham South because of a barrier and Martham North was so weedy even then, it was virtually impossible to get a power boat on it. And whilst you could get a boat to Wheatfen, I think a well known naturalist "helped" things by accidentally sinking the Liberty in the entrance - conveniently. In the time of the GY P & HC methinks!!

Horsey - never happened and never could have because of the rights of access granted to cross it but I am sure that the real pressure there came from the Buxton Estate and indeed still does regarding anything happening at in that neck of the woods, even today.

[ExSurveyor]

Brundall broad was closed many years ago as an experiment.

 It is still owned by the marina. There was talk about opening access for marina use, that may have been shelved because of cost. I doubt it would ever be available for public access, why would the owner pay those costs without any return.

[Vaughan]

14 minutes ago, marshman said:

Incidentally, I cannot ever remember Brundall Broad being open

 

15 minutes ago, marshman said:

And whilst you could get a boat to Wheatfen, I think a well known naturalist "helped" things by accidentally sinking the Liberty in the entrance - conveniently. In the time of the GY P & HC methinks!!

I have to agree with you there!

[marshman]

Careful!!!!!!!

[RealWindmill]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

I understand that there are more 'broads' closed to navigation than are open to it. 

Thanks JM for the history of some of the closures. Interesting stuff.

So it would seem Sanford principle did exist back in the day but it had no name then. so what of the Rights of Navigation over tidal waters in those cases ?

Regarding silting up, it is common knowledge amongst hydrologists that boat prop action will actively prevent silt settling by keeping it in suspension in the water column to get carried away downstream by the tide. Conversely lack of prop action has the opposite effect and waters soon silt up with no boat traffic. So I would argue, which came first in these silted broads, the closure to boats or the silting itself.? Further where boat activity is high less or no dredging would be needed.

 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Well, for what its worth, and whatever I think will not stop those actually wishing to , blathering on, I actually see nothing in the Broad Sheet to especially concern me 

But then, you WOULD say that, you`ve long been a supporter of the Broads becoming a National Park, but just won`t admit it, go on marshy, admit it, you know you want to really?.

[RealWindmill]

1 hour ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Brundall broad was closed many years ago as an experiment.

 It is still owned by the marina. There was talk about opening access for marina use, that may have been shelved because of cost. I doubt it would ever be available for public access, why would the owner pay those costs without any return.

Hi  Mark, if BGM opened up Brundall Broad, put paying moorings in for the general public and so generate revenue, and allow boat traffic to maintain water depths then they would be doing their bit in restoring a piece of lost broadland back to the people.

Would also give more moorings in an area where public access to Brundall village is quite limited in the summer months. Would that work ?

[ExSurveyor]

Hi Bob,

I would guess it would only be an extension to existing facilities.

[marshman]

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BROADS BECOMING A NATIONAL PARK!!    ST - you do KNOW that but you persist in saying I do!!! The evidence please??? But then you know I don't support it anyway so that will be hard to find!

Careful RM - you are in danger of treading in with your feet without knowing the detail - may I suggest you read the 10000 or so pages on this topic? It is one that has been discussed ad nauseum but the more so as PW has a diary note every week to bring it up again just to make sure no one has forgotten about it!  And as far as Brundall Broad is concerned, why should they reopen the Broad, and can you imagine the cost - who is going to fund that? Out of the Nav Comm account? Not on my  watch - there are far more urgent things to spend money on imho. And do you not think that the poncey houses overlooking the Broad might have something to say? I can also almost guarantee it would never get planning permission either.

The Sandford Principle was not enshrined in law until 1995 so way way after the Broads mentioned were "privatised"!!!!

[JanetAnne]

57 minutes ago, RealWindmill said:

 

Regarding silting up, it is common knowledge amongst hydrologists that boat prop action will actively prevent silt settling by keeping it in suspension in the water column to get carried away downstream by the tide. Conversely lack of prop action has the opposite effect and waters soon silt up with no boat traffic...

 

Doesn't bode well.

There is almost no boat traffic at all currently and unlikely to be for some months now. 

[RealWindmill]

21 minutes ago, marshman said:

And as far as Brundall Broad is concerned, why should they reopen the Broad, and can you imagine the cost - who is going to fund that? Out of the Nav Comm account? Not on my  watch - there are far more urgent things to spend money on imho. And do you not think that the poncey houses overlooking the Broad might have something to say? I can also almost guarantee it would never get planning permission either.

The Sandford Principle was not enshrined in law until 1995 so way way after the Broads mentioned were "privatised"!!!!

You didn't read what I wrote MM. I said the Sandford principle had no name then. In other words the PRINCIPLE of the current Sandford principle was used.

Brundall broad. Yes, pay from the Nav Comm. Isn't that what it's for. , maintaining navigation. I see more wastage on projects that benefit far less broads users, i.e. Mutford lock, grants to HGB.

OK, lets really save money and close so much more of the system so all the poncey house owners (your words) in Broadland can just look out over their own private waters. Oh , hang on. yes that is what the powers that be are trying to do. Get real.

 

[RealWindmill]

26 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:

Doesn't bode well.

There is almost no boat traffic at all currently and unlikely to be for some months now. 

Agreed JA, I fear for Bargate

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

I have to agree with you there!

Likewise! 

I have never accessed Brundall from the river but I have fished it, with consent of the landowner. Don't remember it being open to all and sundry though. Fly fished for pike there.

As for Martham, there was a time a when we could access the North Broad for fishing from a dinghy, can't even do that now. There is record of some very big pike coming off the Broad, not by me though. Thirty or forty years ago, never tried it since.

Wheatfen was blocked off, agreed,  but as Ted Ellis said, just push your way in past the old wreck, that was in reference to a canoe or dinghy. A long time ago now.

A case of waters being lost by neglect and lack of use, not sure which came first! 

Seems that we all agree, basically! Not open to motor cruisers in living memory. 

[JennyMorgan]

17 minutes ago, RealWindmill said:

OK, lets really save money and close so much more of the system so all the poncey house owners (your words) in Broadland can just look out over their own private waters. Oh , hang on. yes that is what the powers that be are trying to do

As happened on Thorpe Island at Jenners.

[JennyMorgan]

55 minutes ago, marshman said:

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BROADS BECOMING A NATIONAL PARK!! 

That's excellent, if not surprising news!