BA Controversy

[Buttle]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/local-council/police-probe-into-broads-authority-8362140

[Vaughan]

My first reaction is : quite a comprehensive report from the EDP, for a change.

If this has got as far as a complaint to the police then it can't just be gossip.  I know nothing about this particular case but I have to say I am not surprised.

[Oddfellow]

The BA top management have a long-standing history of being remarkably vindictive and grudge holding. Its planning system is broken and has been  for many years and the organisation is barely fit for purpose. It squanders public money like it's meaningless (because it is to them). 

This issue at Haddiscoe is as clear an example as you can get that there's a cancer at the top. It's been going on for a long time and the incompetence of the BA to issue a redacted email that could be unredacted (I know a little more about this than most) shows the lengths of untruths it will concoct to get its own way. 

This whole affair, as I understand it, is a result of failed negotiations over the lease of the land (which has had mooring upon it for a very long time as I am sure Vaughan can attest). It's vindictive in its motivation as it simply cannot be anything else.  

[webntweb]

The EDP report says moorings in the picturesque village of Haddiscoe. While the moorings may be in the parish of Haddiscoe, most people would associate them more with St Olaves, and I can't think of many less picturesque moorings on the Broads - on a dead straight canal in the shadow of Haddiscoe flyover with trains whizzing past every half hour or so.

[floydraser]

Oh dear. I'm guessing the correct procedures would have allowed things to be covered up. Looks like JP could have met his match in the manipulation stakes. It may bring forward a review where people are removed, thanked for loyal service and no one ever did anything wrong. 

I still don't get where it went "to the top of local government" as no local MP's were mentioned were they? But then it was the EDP.

[andyg]

If this location is where I think it is, I can remember moorings there going back to the 70s. 

[annv]

The BA missed a trick when the Bromley's applied for planning for the development at St Olaves they could have had a 24hr mooring as part of the planning,  there was  moorings already there that belonged to the pub/restraint and all this could have been avoided, along with 24hr moorings that could have been beneficial to the bell and shops in the village it was a regular stop for us as bell moorings where invariable full. John

[trambo]

There was a hire base here in the 1960s marketed through Bradbeer. Suspect they moved at some point to Oulton Broad as Millstream based at the old Hoseason yard but this needs ratifying.

Fred

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, annv said:

The BA missed a trick when the Bromley's applied for planning for the development at St Olaves they could have had a 24hr mooring as part of the planning,  there was  moorings already there that belonged to the pub/restraint and all this could have been avoided, along with 24hr moorings that could have been beneficial to the bell and shops in the village it was a regular stop for us as bell moorings where invariable full. John

Not strictly true. The two newish BA demasting moorings either side of the bridge were a part of the planning for development. I don't know the full ins and outs but after protracted pressure they have finally been completed, as have one or two other landscaping improvements. However one thing is for sure, there is a long history of acrimony between the marina and the BA.

Sadly Chris Bromley passed away late last year.

[Oddfellow]

The problem is that the BA uses it's planning department inappropriately. Rather than being a "fit for purpose" planning outfit, it's a weapon to be deployed in acts of retribution, retaliation, ethnic cleansing, whatever it thinks it can get away with and will pick fights that it knows it can't win safe in the knowledge that the opponent is likely to expend buckets of cash whereas the BA is largely carefree about it's own cash because it's public money. 

 

[webntweb]

28 minutes ago, trambo said:

There was a hire base here in the 1960s marketed through Bradbeer. Suspect they moved at some point to Oulton Broad as Millstream based at the old Hoseason yard but this needs ratifying.

Fred

A R Skitterall & Co, Queens Head Moorings (Bradbeers), according to the 1965 Broads Book. The yard appears to be in an inlet off the New Cut immediately next to the Queens Head Hotel. A foot note on the page states that the Queens Head is no longer a hotel. The 1974 Broads book has no mention of a boatyard, nor does it have the inlet on the map.

[Vaughan]

There have since been two more reports in the EDP.

One, from the same journalist, reminds us of other cases where there has been disagreement between the BA's members and its officers, such as the time when a member was removed for questioning a planning decision over the change of use of a phone box.

I also remember "Yurt - gate" at the WRC, which was closely followed by "Access - gate" at the same location!

A further report, published this morning, says that a BA representative has written to say they are considering legal action against the police for comments made in their report.

Meantime the question, posed by members, as to why there is now resistance to the landowners' plans for moorings, on the same site where the BA had previously wanted their own moorings, remains un-answered.

I am mindful of the disgraceful performance of the BA planning department in the 10 year battle (of their own making) over Jenners Basin, when the legal bill for their various court actions, if I remember rightly, was well over £80,000.  For what, today, has turned out to be a deserted wasteland.

Is this how we want to see our toll-payer's money spent?  Yet again?  I certainly don't.

 

[Oddfellow]

The fact that the BA is now considering taking the Police to court for a report that revealed "the truth" by going beyond the remit of the report speaks volumes. 

The BA needs its cancer removing, fast. 

[Vaughan]

2 minutes ago, Oddfellow said:

The BA needs its cancer removing, fast. 

It would certainly seem that way.

I know two planning consultants (FRICS) who were not involved in the Jenners debacle, but who told me it was the worst handling of a planning dispute that they had seen in their careers.

And don't let's forget the Acle visitor centre - which maybe we can now forget.  If any private developer had put in the designs that we have seen, for a project like that, it would seriously fail the Authoritiy's own planning rules for the area.  But how much did all the research cost us??

Or of course, that huge - but "temporary" white tent on their own land at Griffin Lane in Thorpe.  Visible from outer space, but temporary.  How many years has that been there, right on the banks of the Yare?

[Cheesey69]

Being policed is great; until it’s you being policed. 

[Mouldy]

Just seen this on Faceache.  Hope it only refers to the one mooring that’s already been marked as private.

[annv]

Who pays for all this planning inspectors wages boat tolls most of those applications i would expect the local council to do the planning for which we pay council tax what's changing a window for a French door/window when it dosn't face or be seen from the river or alter a stable block, to me it looks like we pay twice, council and river toll. John

[floydraser]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

A further report, published this morning, says that a BA representative has written to say they are considering legal action against the police for comments made in their report.

Meantime the question, posed by members, as to why there is now resistance to the landowners' plans for moorings, on the same site where the BA had previously wanted their own moorings, remains un-answered.

 

I'm still trying to stay a neutral furriner but it's not looking good for the BA in this case. It would be a silly action on their part if they go ahead and take the police to court. It would likely as not, bring out other cases to be considered. Best to keep quiet when you've been caught out and pretend no-one has noticed, like they usually do.

I'm surpised there have been no resignations from the BA? 

[MauriceMynah]

This post is pure speculation... BUT.... Keepan eye on the How Hill application. I don't think it's the main BA mooring they talk about but the river a bit up-stream. I suspect it might be the BA trying to solve a bit of a problem they have, and it might benefit us all if I'm right.

[Meantime]

27 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

This post is pure speculation... BUT.... Keepan eye on the How Hill application. I don't think it's the main BA mooring they talk about but the river a bit up-stream. I suspect it might be the BA trying to solve a bit of a problem they have, and it might benefit us all if I'm right.

Your right pure speculation It is the very end of the public mooring downstream, the bit tucked just of the river, the most favoured mooring there for obvious reasons. The application is controversial for all manner of reasons, not least of which is the way it is described as an occasional mooring. It is not, it is a part of the public mooring and has been for many years and is paid for by the toll payers. Also take a look at who the applicant is. A member of the BA making an application for change of use into a private mooring for a private "owner". It is in "" because there is some very strong discussion in another place about whether they actually own a mooring further along at How Hill, or just have the right to use a mooring.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, annv said:

Who pays for all this planning inspectors wages boat tolls most of those applications i would expect the local council to do the planning for which we pay council tax what's changing a window for a French door/window when it dosn't face or be seen from the river or alter a stable block, to me it looks like we pay twice, council and river toll. John

The BA is also funded by Defra to perform some of its duties, including its planning responsibilities. The planning inspectors are not funded from the navigation account. They are however still funded from the public purse ultimately.

[vanessan]

2 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Just seen this on Faceache.  Hope it only refers to the one mooring that’s already been marked as private.

I think it refers to that end mooring which is controversial in itself! A lot more information on this on t’other side. 

[vanessan]

1 minute ago, vanessan said:

I think it refers to that end mooring which is controversial in itself! A lot more information on this on t’other side. 

Just seen Meantime’s post, apologies. 

[scaniaman]

What we need is Jenny Morgan for this item. Still sadly missed!

Paul.

[floydraser]

I think the next actions will be discussed and decided on at the next lodge meeting with the worshipful master....