Tolls (that’s Not A Swear Word!) Amongst Other Things.

[MY littleboat]

The only real way forward is a Section 31 objection under the Harbours Act 1964. As a statutory navigation authority with responsibilities under this act to gather tolls for that purpose. The notion is that the consultation process leading up to the rises in 2023 and onward to 2024 is unlawful and unreasonable (when compared to similar authorities).

Griff and others have posted much of the information needed above, but to recap, 

James Knight has raised one such complaint and you can write to support his or join another, there are several objections being placed.

Objections under Section 31 f the Harbours Act 1964 can be lodged to Paul Sharpe, paul.sharpe@dft.gov.uk or maritime Directorate 2/34, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 4DR. 

[vanessan]

17 hours ago, dnks34 said:

His leadership wont be tolerated forever the way its going.

Seems like forever already!

[Vaughan]

Here is the text of a letter I have just sent by e-mail to Paul Sharpe - www. paul.sharpe@dft.gov.uk

Subject : Broads Authority navigation charges 2023/24.

Dear Mr Sharpe,

Reference: 

1/. An objection made to you by the Broads Hire Boat Federation (BHBF) under the Harbours Act 1964, section 31.

2/. A further objection made to you by the Broads Reform Action Group (BRAG).

I am writing as a Broads boat owner and toll payer to support both of these objections to a situation which I consider is most damaging to to the future of the Norfolk Broads, as a quite unique area of inland waterway cruising, whose commercial activity is supposed to support and finance its wetland landscape; its wildlife and the employment of probably thousands of people in the tourist and related industries.  In terms of the Harbours Act, it also includes the maritime navigation from the sea at Gt. Yarmouth to the port of Norwich on the river Yare.

The Broads Authority (BA) in justifying their 13% tolls increase in 2022/3, said that a survey of boat owners showed that the river toll still represents less than 10% of the costs of owning a boat.  One of their appointed members even shamefully stated at the time that the increase is "just the cost of a round of drinks".  I can report that my river toll this year is 22.5% of my fixed costs, which include a figure for routine annual maintenance but do not include fuel.

There is clear evidence, even from the BA's own reports and minutes, of apportioning funds received from river tolls to supplement the costs of the Broads "National Park" - which is not a national park in fact and for which the use of river tolls funds would be illegal under the constitution of the Authority itself.  They claim that the rise in tolls is necessary to offset "expenses related" to the national park - such as a visitor centre on Ranworth Quay with staff costs alone at £55,000 p.a. - despite having just received an extra payment from DEFRA of £400,000 which will more than offset the amount they claim they need from increased river tolls.

It has been suggested to you by others that these continuous increases in river tolls with out any appreciable improvement in service to the navigation or its maintenance, will start to force people away from the Broads, both as holidaymakers in hire cruisers and as private boat owners.  I can certainly confirm this as my wife and I decided to sell our boat in June this year.  I have no faith left in the ability of the BA to manage the Broads as they should and consider this latest proposed rise, which ignores the advice of their own Navigation Committee, to be unjustified and quite possibly illegal.

Yours sincerely,

 

Whilst I am well aware that this forum declares  that it is not a "campaigning platform" there is nothing to stop any member who cares, from writing something on similar lines if they feel the same way as I do.

Now is the time, to get our voices heard!

[floydraser]

I wouldn't be be too quick to celebrate if/when JP finally goes. By focussing on him people seem not to notice the lack of whistle blowers. I would prefer to see a complete clear out.

[Paladin]

22 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I wouldn't be be too quick to celebrate if/when JP finally goes. By focussing on him people seem not to notice the lack of whistle blowers. I would prefer to see a complete clear out.

May I point out that the whistle-blowers who blew the whistle have been removed. Those who are left tend to keep their heads down, such is Packman's control

[floydraser]

34 minutes ago, Paladin said:

May I point out that the whistle-blowers who blew the whistle have been removed. Those who are left tend to keep their heads down, such is Packman's control

That seems to assume the people left care a toss. Do we have evidence that these people were removed or did they leave because of their conscience? Maybe he's recruited from the financial industry like the people I had to deal with over my mortgage. Or from the sales industry.

I'm thinking about staff at a high level, not those struggling for work. How do the salaries within Yare House compare to what could be earned elsewhere? That could also be an influence.

[Vaughan]

8 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Do we have evidence that these people were removed or did they leave because of their conscience?

Your knowledge of the BA does not seem to extend as far back as myself and Paladin. 

I can count, just offhand, at least seven ex members of the BA all of whom are known to me personally and all of whom tell the same basic story.

12 minutes ago, floydraser said:

That seems to assume the people left care a toss.

I don't tend to assume anything of those un-elected members, appointed by The State, who appear to show no real local knowledge of the Broads at all.  If that is what you mean by "care a toss?"

[floydraser]

14 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Your knowledge of the BA does not seem to extend as far back as myself and Paladin. 

I can count, just offhand, at least seven ex members of the BA all of whom are known to me personally and all of whom tell the same basic story.

I don't tend to assume anything of those un-elected members, appointed by The State, who appear to show no real local knowledge of the Broads at all.  If that is what you mean by "care a toss?"

No, my knowledge of the Broads is limited to what I have seen since 2018 and I say what I see based on my experience of such, and the World outside the Broads (there is one) where normal things happen. 

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, floydraser said:

That seems to assume the people left care a toss. Do we have evidence that these people were removed or did they leave because of their conscience? Maybe he's recruited from the financial industry like the people I had to deal with over my mortgage. Or from the sales industry.

I'm thinking about staff at a high level, not those struggling for work. How do the salaries within Yare House compare to what could be earned elsewhere? That could also be an influence.

It's you who is making the assumption. I have had many, many dealings with the BA over the past 23 years of boating, and my name is well-known to them. There are some very good people there, who would love to speak out, but are fearful of the consequences. Make no mistake, Dr Packman will brook no dissent, from any level. He's even got rid of Authority members, so what chance do the employees have.

Regarding salaries, you only have to look at the remuneration for the recently-advertised post of Head of Planning - £47K. That is about £20K short of what a Local Authority Head of Planning might expect, but, in local government, one planning officer would be expected to deal with the same number of applications per year as the 11 members of the BA Planning Department deal with.

[Karizma]

8 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Now is the time, to get our voices heard!

first time I've ever felt so strongly about the long term future on the Broards regarding the toll increases and the number of 'free' moorings we've lost in the last 2 years - so I've also sent an email to Paul Sharpe.

[floydraser]

5 hours ago, Paladin said:

It's you who is making the assumption. I have had many, many dealings with the BA over the past 23 years of boating, and my name is well-known to them. There are some very good people there, who would love to speak out, but are fearful of the consequences. Make no mistake, Dr Packman will brook no dissent, from any level. He's even got rid of Authority members, so what chance do the employees have.

Regarding salaries, you only have to look at the remuneration for the recently-advertised post of Head of Planning - £47K. That is about £20K short of what a Local Authority Head of Planning might expect, but, in local government, one planning officer would be expected to deal with the same number of applications per year as the 11 members of the BA Planning Department deal with.

I know there are some good people there, I have had dealings with them and they have helped me out. I also aknowledge that whatever I've done, you will have done more.

So he's employing someone in a cushy job for £47k with not much to do. I would keep quiet and take the money for that but then you say it's 42.5% below what that person could earn elsewhere. Well there's the old saying "if you pays peanuts you gets monkeys". But we've sort of agreed there are good people there so something doesn't seem to stack up.

So when this new person starts they will be told:

These are the people you will respect.....

You will not have fresh ideas of your own, you will be told what to think and say.

We are not interested in any of your experiences outside of this establishment.

This is how we have done things for years and we will carry on the same way.

Fail to comply with the above and you will witness our displeasure.

I know the feeling.

On the planet INDUSTRY where I come from we stopped promoting people on the basis of time served, years ago. To beat the competition we have to identify their weaknesses and acknowledge their strengths. Strengths can't be identified if judgement is clouded by overwhelming hate.

Probably best if I keep my oily hands out of it and enjoy my retirement.

[NorfolkNog]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67563964

 

[Bikertov]

14 minutes ago, NorfolkNog said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-67563964

 

"and that the authority's planning team are "regularly applauded" through surveys"

... by themselves maybe !

"Go on team - pat yourself on the back"

[dom]

"But the authority has dismissed the claims, insisting all rules have been followed and the rise was needed to protect services and maintain the waterways"

The hire federation ought to pick up on this and notify the press that they disagree, advised the BA otherwise including as part of the nav committee, and that it's JP making a unilateral decision.

When things get to this stage, it's a PR war and you need to throw every bit of brown stuff at the opposition in the hope that some sticks.

There is another, very serious accusation which could be levelled at him, but I can't discuss it on here, as I've had two comments relating to it deleted previously.

 

 

[Paladin]

The BA now distribute (on request) recordings of minutes via the Internet. This is the link (provided by a member of BRAG) to the download of the relevant section of the BA tolls meeting on 24 November 2023. It runs from the beginning of the meeting to the end of the tolls agenda item. But don't delay. The link expires in 6 days time.

https://wetransfer.com/downloads/9495eef876eaaacd51b678291e9edfb920231128094705/0cb9ac?utm_campaign=TRN_TDL_05&utm_source=sendgrid&utm_medium=email&trk=TRN_TDL_05&fbclid=IwAR0kICuNdG105EfWaFi-nIfYl1qptVYm_xezt0FvOueNUfrE-emWGx5Sl94

[Mouldy]

I’ve just read an interesting letter on FB, sent by Duncan Baker to the Good Doctor, on behalf of the MP’s whose constituencies cover the Norfolk Broads.  Obviously, I am unable to reproduce it on here, but if you do Facebook, search Duncan Baker MP and read it for yourself.

Its worth a read, really.

[Meantime]

Not pulling any punches is he!

[Mouldy]

I’ve messaged Duncan Baker through Facebook to request his permission to reproduce the letter on the Forum.

He has agreed.

[Mouldy]

19 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Not pulling any punches is he!

Err, no. 

[kpnut]

The last paragraph is superb. If that’s not a warning to get his house in order, I don’t know what is. 

[BroadAmbition]

I’d love to be a fly on t wall seeing his dish when he reads the letter. 
On past performances he’ll probably ignore it and claim non receipt 

Griff

[BroadAmbition]

One member at the BA meeting on 24 November had the temerity to say (and kudos to him for saying it) that “There seems to be a one-way subsidy going from Navigation into National Park”. This is something that toll payers have been complaining about for years.

Packman, of course, flatly denied it, mentioning only the work of the rangers in his defence. He conveniently forgot to mention the plethora of other ‘shared costs’ that make up the figures.

Just one example that stands out, the Visitor Centre at Ranworth Staithe. Closed for several years while it was leased to NWT and, in that time, boaters managed to moor safely day in, day out. Then it was reopened as a Visitor Centre, with 100% of the costs being paid by NP funds. It is now 38%NP:72% Navigation ‘because the staff collect the mooring fee’. What a joke, well, it would be if it was funny.

So, in one fell swoop, the BA claws in income from the mooring fees and, because the staff has to collect the mooring fees, they charge the toll payer, all of them, not just the Moorer's, extra on their tolls to pay for the collection. A double whammie!

While on the subject of Ranworth, another false fact he keeps repeating is that free 24hr moorings are increasing. That wasn’t true even before the charges were introduced at Ranworth. That claim is more obviously false now, as the Ranworth moorings, all 22 of them, can no longer be put in the ‘free’ category. They fall into the same category as the yacht stations - charged for when staff are on scene, free otherwise.

Griff

[floydraser]

I think the letter above is seismic. Effectively being accused of abusing the system by five MPs is going to be hard to survive. I would expect a sensible person to consider their future over the weekend but I have this vision of John Sergeant on the steps of Yare House with JP interupting him and saying, "We will fight on..."  

[dom]

28 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

While on the subject of Ranworth, another false fact he keeps repeating is that free 24hr moorings are increasing.

If you listen to the earlier nav committee recording, 30 minutes in, there's a bit from Emma Krelle, their CFO. In it, she states that they hope to have the lease in place to allow charging at Reedham from the start of the season, so that'll be another free section lost. That could probably do with being highlighted to the various MPs resisting the toll increases.

It's almost as if the BA think holidaymakers having to pay to moor every night will become the norm, and leisure boaters will all be back on their own moorings. Obviously that wildly misrepresents the situation, as a lot of boat owners will spend lots of nights out on other moorings, and the holiday market might not sustain another £70-100 per week added to total costs.

[Safarisam]

I notice that the 5 MP's are all Norfolk MP's & good on them for signing/taking this up with the BA. I live in Suffolk and have forwarded details to my local MP to add her voice/political support to the complaint in support of her Suffolk constituents who support and pay tolls to the BA without representation....I dare say it is also worth requesting other local (i.e members own) MP's to add their weight to this issue on behalf of constiutuents, by at least registering their support with the 5 Norfolk MP's and taking up with the relevant Government Department(s) responsible for BA funding and governance....