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

[Bikertov]

Watch out Griff - bandits 6 o'clock, angels 50. Prepare to take evasive action.  

Better get some of your navy chums onto it, and improve your EW capabilities while you are at it ...

[dnks34]

Did anyone see a short visit Toll sticker?

[Mouldy]

For anyone who may be interested, there is a very lengthy letter posted on at least two FB groups (Reform the Broads Authority and Norfolk Broads News) to the BA Board and Nav Com Members, from the BHBF, in time for their meeting later this week.

It’s worth a read, I think.

[ExSurveyor]

For those who don't do Facebook,

I have permission from Norfolk Broads News to publish this on our forum.

Please remember our ToS when discussing it.

 

I have been given sight of a letter which has been sent this evening to all Broads Authority and Navigation Committee members in advance of Thursday’s NavCom meeting.
Dear all
You will have seen the briefing paper on navigation funding which appears in  the Chief Executive’s report within the papers for this Thursday’s navigation committee meeting, along with some feedback from various organisations, including the BHBF.
You  will note that that the BHBF have supported some of the proposals in the  paper, but have been unable to support it overall because it mixes up  two things – the perfectly laudable aim of getting better financial support from government for the maintenance of the UK’s waterways, and the issue of separate accounting for navigation and non-navigation functions, which has been a bone of contention for nearly 2 decades.
The BHBF were pleased to be asked to comment on this paper before Christmas, but were disappointed that, having carefully considered and responded to the paper (which you will note makes no mention of any urgent bid for capital equipment), the Chief Executive’s  reaction was first to call the Chairman of the BHBF to ask him to reconsider its position, and then to contact British Marine to ask them whether they could persuade the BHBF to change their view.
This  kind of behind-the-scenes shenanigans does nothing to improve the perception of the Broads Authority’s ability to collaborate or consult on issues. At the beginning of last year, it imposed  swingeing increases on toll payers with no meaningful consultation of any kind. At the end of last year, it consulted navigation committee on the 2024 tolls and then ignored their recommendation (which was, itself,  only made under extreme pressure not to propose  a lower increase), imposing a further inflation-busting increase which  resulted in tolls rising by 22.5% in just 2 years. Now, when stakeholder  bodies are consulted and don’t give the required response, they are  leaned on by the Chief Executive to change their  mind, or have their response dismissed as “missing the point”.
The  reason that the BHBF has not supported this paper has nothing to do with  capital grants for dredging equipment. We weren’t even asked that  question. We were asked to comment on a paper which  stated that “The requirement that the Authority must ensure that  navigation expenditure equals navigation income in any one year and be  accounted for separately from National Park expenditure represents an  expensive, risky, and artificial distinction”,  claimed that “…the National Park budget was in some cases inadvertently cross-subsidising navigation activities” and alleged that “The funding model is a precarious and improper basis for preserving what is a public asset”.
We do not agree with these statements, which are not supported by any evidence.
For  example, you are asked to believe that the “National Park” budget has  been subsidising navigation activities – despite the fact that tolls  have risen by far more than inflation during the  same period that the National Park grant is said to have fallen in real  terms. This assertion fails even the most basic sense-check, because it  suggests that actual navigation expenses have routinely increased by more than  inflation, every year, whilst spending on non-navigation functions has  reduced by even more than the real-terms decrease in the DEFRA grant –  and nobody noticed until just now!
The  BHBF’s response letter sets out why we believe that the statutory  requirement for navigation income and expenditure to be “ring fenced” is not only reasonable, but essential. The fact that  the Authority has, for some years, shared all expenditure between  navigation and non-navigation functions does not make that approach correct, or lawful. The Broads Act is quite clear on what “navigation  expenditure” means – and it does not mean “a subjectively fair apportionment of all the Authority’s activities”. The reason for the wording in the Act is simple – the Authority has a number of  functions which are similar to those of National Parks, and those are  funded through the DEFRA grant. Additionally, it is  responsible for maintaining the navigation (principally dredging, tree  clearance and provision of moorings) and those items are funded by the people and organisations who derive the benefit.
Sometimes, the navigation gets a benefit from work which was not wholly or mainly navigation-related. The Hickling Broad project mentioned in the paper is a good example. The Act tells us clearly  how to deal with that – it is not navigation expenditure, and it  cannot be “apportioned”. Likewise, navigation work will sometimes  provide a non-navigation benefit – but because it is “wholly or mainly” for the benefit of the navigation, it is a navigation  expense. Complicated apportionments are not only unnecessary, but  expressly contrary to the wording of the Act. The recently-promulgated idea that the National Park budget has somehow been subsidising the navigation is not only wrong, but it would have been  a breach of the Broads Act if it had been true. It has only been suggested in response to the widespread criticism of the Review of  Shared Costs which, undeniably, and by the Chief Executive’s own  admission, shifts previously DEFRA-funded expenditure on to  the navigation account.
This  has resulted in a formal challenge to the Department for Transport in  respect of the 2023 tolls – which we noticed with some surprise was not reported at your last board meeting, despite the considerable financial and reputational risk to the Authority should the Secretary of State rule in favour of the complainants. Surely the board have a right to be informed of actions such as this, and to  know the risks?
On the issue of national funding, section 15 of The Broads Act 1988 allows the  Secretary of State to “make grants to the Authority for such purposes,  and on such terms and conditions, as he thinks  fit”, and section 17( 8 ) expressly states that navigation income includes “any grant made to the Authority specifically for purposes for  which navigation expenditure can be incurred.” There is, therefore, no  reason why the Authority should not receive grants  from the government to assist with the cost of maintaining the  navigation, and we applaud any endeavour by the Authority to obtain such  grants. The BHBF does not accept that the requirement to account  separately for navigation income and expenditure should  create any impediment to the receipt of such grants, or that the  careful separate identification of navigation expenditure is expensive,  or risky, or artificial, or that the model itself is precarious or  improper. The quantum of funding available from government  is of course a legitimate subject for debate, and we would be pleased  to see better support for maintaining all of the country’s waterways –  but we see no reason to change the Broads funding model itself which  appears to be perfectly reasonable and allows  for additional grant funding for navigation.
Finally, you will observe that the BHBF made some suggestions such as imposing a  levy on local authorities (which is still a live provision of the Broads Act as far as we are aware) and opening  a wider discussion about dredging – which is hardly unreasonable given that the BA is an organisation with the operational ability to carry out dredging. There is no reason why the Authority should not be contracted either by the Environment Agency or the Port of Yarmouth Commissioners to carry out such work, or for there to  be a joined-up approach to the issue, and it is disappointing to have  our suggestions dismissed outright as they have been in paras 2.9 - 2.12  of the paper. Surely, by now, the Broads Authority  should be able to listen to ideas from outside its own ranks, and  engage with stakeholder organisations to develop policy collaboratively  for the benefit of the Broads and all of its users?
We hope that both the navigation committee and the full Authority will have a good debate on the proposals, including considering the points which we have made.
Kind regards
Matthew Thwaites (Chairman)
James Knight (Vice Chairman)
Tony Howes (Secretary)
The Broads Hire Boat Federation

[Vaughan]

17 hours ago, ExSurveyor said:

For those who don't do Facebook,

I have permission from Norfolk Broads News to publish this on our forum.

Please remember our ToS when discussing it.

I gave a "thanks" to your post as you took the trouble to share it for us.  The actual letter should have had a "sad".

My father was chairman of Blakes for 8 years, in the 50s and 60s and I shudder to think what he, or Jim Brooker the M.D., would have felt if they found they had the need to write a letter like that to the River Commissioners.

Is this another example of the authority "working with partners?

Lamentable.

 

 

[grendel]

for me the most damning part is that the CEO of the Broads Authority had the temerity not once but twice to try and get them to retract/ reconsider  their stated opinion, as it must have taken them some time to carefully consider their stand to have posted such in the first instance.

most people instead of trying to get them to reconsider would have taken time to consider why they posted such in the first place and consider what they were doing that caused it- it just goes to show the audacity of the Broads Authorities guiding power.

[CambridgeCabby]

I would love to be privy to the “ behind the closed door “ reaction of the BA leadership to this letter , and await eagerly any response from them that is placed in the public realm .

Their behaviour in this matter must certainly worry their most ardent of supporters and seriously damage the standing of their leadership in the public eye.

I would respectfully request @tom from the BA that when a press release or similar is posted from the BA to this letter (as it surely must be) that he post it here also .

[Mouldy]

44 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

I would love to be privy to the “ behind the closed door “ reaction of the BA leadership to this letter , and await eagerly any response from them that is placed in the public realm .

Their behaviour in this matter must certainly worry their most ardent of supporters and seriously damage the standing of their leadership in the public eye.

Isn’t it strange how nothing seems to stick to Teflon, but it is able to adhere to so many surfaces, including people?

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, CambridgeCabby said:

I would respectfully request @tom from the BA that when a press release or similar is posted from the BA to this letter (as it surely must be) that he post it here also .

I think, to get it noticed, you need to click @BroadsAuthority and I quite agree with you.

If relationships between the authority and the hire boatyards have been allowed to deteriorate to this extent, it is very serious indeed.

[NorfolkNog]

EDP today 

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24078114.broads-authority-say-no-conspiracy-toll-fee-increases/

 

[MauriceMynah]

Thanks for the link. It seems that I have to pay £3 to read it.

 

 

 

 

[Meantime]

10 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Thanks for the link. It seems that I have to pay £3 to read it.

 

 

 

 

Or you can open a new In Private window in your browser and copy the link to there and read it for free. You will still have to skip through the adverts, but they are in the business of journalism to make money after all!

[Vaughan]

37 minutes ago, Meantime said:

50 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Thanks for the link. It seems that I have to pay £3 to read it.

 

 

 

 

Expand  

Or you can open a new In Private window in your browser and copy the link to there and read it for free. You will still have to skip through the adverts, but they are in the business of journalism to make money after all!

I have the same problem here, as I use the EDP website (and this forum, above all) as a means of keeping in touch with Norfolk from 1000 miles away.

I had always assumed (as an old git) that these internet sites depend on advertising for their revenue. Also, that that revenue depends on the number of visitors to the site who "click" to read the articles.  The more clicks, the more the advertiser will be prepared to advertise.  I assume this is also how the new army of "influencers" make their money.

So I don't see why I should have to pay on top of that, when I am one of those providing the necessary "clicks".

Edited to add : 

That's why I too, can't read the article linked above.

 

Edited January 29 by Vaughan
line added

[Vaughan]

14 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So I don't see why I should have to pay on top of that, when I am one of those providing the necessary "clicks".

After all, for £3 a month I could adopt a snow leopard or a polar bear.

And they would send me a Christmas card and a cuddly toy.

[Meantime]

18 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I have the same problem here, as I use the EDP website (and this forum, above all) as a means of keeping in touch with Norfolk from 1000 miles away.

I had always assumed (as an old git) that these internet sites depend on advertising for their revenue. Also, that that revenue depends on the number of visitors to the site who "click" to read the articles.  The more clicks, the more the advertiser will be prepared to advertise.  I assume this is also how the new army of "influencers" make their money.

So I don't see why I should have to pay on top of that, when I am one of those providing the necessary "clicks".

Edited to add : 

That's why I too, can't read the article linked above.

 

Part of the issue has been the likes of Bing News or Google making some newspaper articles available via their own news offerings. Generally advertisers are expecting to pay less and less for advertising, so increasingly local news sites such as the EDP are going behind what is known as a Paywall, or subscription model.

You will still be able to read the EDP article if you open an InPrivate window and paste the link there, or an incognito tab, or secret mode on most Android tablets and phones. 

[Bikertov]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Thanks for the link. It seems that I have to pay £3 to read it.

Really ??

I just clicked the link and read the article - no payment made I can assure you !

[Smoggy]

8 minutes ago, Bikertov said:

Really ??

I just clicked the link and read the article - no payment made I can assure you !

Much the same I did, may depend on what browser you use, I use firefox.

[Vaughan]

5 minutes ago, Bikertov said:

Really ??

I just clicked the link and read the article - no payment made I can assure you !

So you are not a regular, then.  I think you get allowed about one "click" every 3 days as some sort of incentive.

Personally, I can't help wondering to what extent I am prepared to pay for the new "Local democracy" reporters and their standard of accuracy.

[Meantime]

8 minutes ago, Bikertov said:

Really ??

I just clicked the link and read the article - no payment made I can assure you !

If your not using an In Private tab, then you may be lucky to be able to read one or two articles. Often they will let you read up to 20 articles before they Paywall you. Remember those cookies you agreed to when you first went to the site, well they are tracking and counting how many free articles you are reading. One of the reasons why the In Private tab works because it throws away everything to do with that session when you close the tab.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

After all, for £3 a month I could adopt a snow leopard or a polar bear.

It is also a very sad reflection on the values of our modern society, that saving a young girl in Africa from a fate worse than death would only cost you £2 a month.

[Bikertov]

18 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So you are not a regular, then.  I think you get allowed about one "click" every 3 days as some sort of incentive.

Personally, I can't help wondering to what extent I am prepared to pay for the new "Local democracy" reporters and their standard of accuracy.

Ah, OK - that would make sense. I only read the odd article posted on here, every few days/weeks

[Bikertov]

13 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

It is also a very sad reflection on the values of our modern society, that saving a young girl in Africa from a fate worse than death would only cost you £2 a month.

Not sure that the £2 you send there actually gets that far - unfortunately, most of it will be eaten up by fees, administration costs and fraud/corruption

Yes, a slightly sweeping statement, but that is a big but sad reality of some overseas charity "businesses", even the well known household names

[floydraser]

Nowt new under the sun: Anyone else remember having a small booklet of photos of African kids which we would sell (the individual photos that is) to adults? Then we would return the money to school to help the starving kids. This would have been around 1964 for me.

[MauriceMynah]

7 hours ago, Vaughan said:

After all, for £3 a month I could adopt a snow leopard or a polar bear.

And they would send me a Christmas card and a cuddly toy.

If we give the BA £3 will they give us a cuddly Doctor?

[Smoggy]

10 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

If we give the BA £3 will they give us a cuddly Doctor?

Like a voodoo doll?