The Broads National Park? Time to decide!

[JennyMorgan]

My father was involved with the original consultation process leading to the creation of The Broads Authority. The area eventually chosen relates closely to the navigation area rather than to the catchment area, a fact that I can remember being discussed in great depth at the time. Had the catchment area been included then I would agree that the creation of a Broads National Park would have had great merit but the catchment area was not included.

 

It's worth googling Broads Catchment Area because Dr Packman put together an excellent document relating to it. The Broads Bill, would, in my opinion, have been the ideal opportunity to have sought an extension of the administrative area but that didn't happen. Had it then I think Dr Packman would have deserved a gong! As it is he didn't, and we have the hodge podge that we have and the resultant lies!

[Paladin]

For anyone who may be confused by the announcement in the EDP today by the Brand Manager of Visit Norfolk, Pete Waters, quote:

 

Pete Waters, brand manager for Visit Norfolk, said, “...and that is what Visit Norfolk is doing, promoting the Broads as the only national park with a city in it...”

 

here is the Broads Authority's own map of the area of the Broads.

 

I challenge Mr Waters to show me exactly how much of that fine City of Norwich he thinks is in the Broads.

[marshman]

Oh dear Mr Waters - sleepless nights ahead now you have had a challenge!!!  Looks to be touching Norwich - isnt that enough for "journalisticease"??

 

Actually as ever,  maybe thats the wrong point to challenge him on - you might have more success on challenging the statement about cities and National Parks - National parks should be preceded by "English" as I believe St Davids is a city and within the Pembrokeshire National Park - or so it would appear!!

 

But - why let a fact get in the way of a good story - newspapers have not been doing that for years and I guess most readers have given up trying to correct them!!!

[Polly]

None of this stuff is an issue for me, I also believe in Santa Claus, the Loch Ness monster and Martians.

[Paladin]

Ah, marshman, you're a spokesperson for Visit Norfolk as well as the BA. Promotion indeed.

[marshman]

Must alter my prose then - the intention had been to be sarcastic and certainly not especially supportive!!!

[TrevorAndDeirdre]

Interesting this one

 

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/aboutus/about-the-association-of-national-park-authorities/npos

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

 Very interresting indeed Trev and Dierdre, i notice it just say The Norfolk Broads and NOT the Broads National Park. Is that portentious or just noteworthy?.

 

It looks yet again as though the BA hierachy are now just calling it "The Norfolk Broads" , but this time in the "National Parks quango"?. It sounds like they`ve resined themselve to the Broads being a FULL National park, but how soon in the future?.

 

Very interresting indeed, and i wonder if anybody will be saying "i told you so" to a lot of others sooner than later?.

 

I just love being a scynic.

[Paladin]

New logo sneaking in

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/aboutus/jobs

 

Isn't employing someone a legal contract? Wasn't the BNP name not going to be used for legal contracts? Would someone applying for one of these jobs think they were being employed in a national park?

[JawsOrca]

Completely of subject but there's a broads rangers job going there.. If no one wants it I'll have it.. imagine that.. so much better than sitting at this desk job ... one day... 

[JennyMorgan]

A recent and interesting letter from Mss E Truss M.P. @ DEFRA. No evidence that the BA were given permission for rebranding by DEFRA, rather that DEFRA were leaving that decision to the BA itself.

 

 

[Timbo]

Broads Authority leak reveals pilot scheme for changes to allowed boating activities within a National Park environment...

[Matt]

A recent and interesting letter from Mss E Truss M.P. @ DEFRA. No evidence that the BA were given permission for rebranding by DEFRA, rather that DEFRA were leaving that decision to the BA itself.

I think I may have said before- very little power to control the BA.........

[Paladin]

A recent and interesting letter from Mss E Truss M.P. @ DEFRA. No evidence that the BA were given permission for rebranding by DEFRA, rather that DEFRA were leaving that decision to the BA itself.

 

 

That letter is totally non-committal on the use of the name Broads National Park. Was that because the question wasn't asked?

 

We've been shown the response (appended to the CEO's report to the Authority 23.1.15), but we've never seen the letter from the Authority to Defra. The Authority can consult on anything it chooses. Quite rightly, Defra say it's nothing to do with them.

 

The scene has now changed. What is Defra's opinion on the new state of affairs?

[JennyMorgan]

Broads Authority leak reveals pilot scheme for changes to allowed boating activities within a National Park environment...

A woman leading a man, surely not!

[JennyMorgan]

That letter is totally non-committal on the use of the name Broads National Park. Was that because the question wasn't asked?

 

We've been shown the response (appended to the CEO's report to the Authority 23.1.15), but we've never seen the letter from the Authority to Defra. The Authority can consult on anything it chooses. Quite rightly, Defra say it's nothing to do with them.

 

The scene has now changed. What is Defra's opinion on the new state of affairs?

The letter is a response to a local MP's question to DEFRA. I don't know what questions were asked other than asking for DEFRA's confirmation of its stance on the legal position. 'What is Defra's opinion on the new state of affairs?' A question that needs to be asked.

[TrevorAndDeirdre]

Reading the Broads Authority site just now and it says at the head of one of the pages:-

 

"With national park status and as home to a quarter of the UK's rarest species, the Broads needs careful management to protect it for future generations."

 

Then on another page it says "part of the national park family"

[marshman]

Oh dear - I see Lord de Mauley has effectively said he has no objection - no doubt some of us will search for a hidden meaning somewhere or tell me he cannot say such a thing!!!!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/government_defends_broads_change_to_broads_national_park_1_3964467

[Guest]

Oh dear - I see Lord de Mauley has effectively said he has no objection - no doubt some of us will search for a hidden meaning somewhere or tell me he cannot say such a thing!!!!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/government_defends_broads_change_to_broads_national_park_1_3964467

 

Yes MM, in that linked item, the actual situation now couldn't have been stated more clearly, though as you say, it will no doubt be refuted strongly by conjecture.

 

"He said: “The Broads is not legally a national park, although it does have many features in common and is treated as one of the nation parks family for policy purposes. We have no proposal to change this position. The Broads Authority considers that promoting the Broads as a national park will offer marketing opportunities to raises the profile of the area both nationally and internationally. Given it is not seeking a change to the legal status of the Broads, or of the authority, ministers are content for the authority to make a decision on this matter. We want to see rural areas contributing to and benefiting from economic growth, including tourism, whilst ensuring that valuable landscapes remain protected.”

 

Pasted directly from the article in your link, with two sentences made bold.

[JennyMorgan]

Time for a grown!

 

The

 

Yes MM, in that linked item, the actual situation now couldn't have been stated more clearly, though as you say, it will no doubt be refuted strongly by conjecture.

 

"He said: “The Broads is not legally a national park, although it does have many features in common and is treated as one of the nation parks family for policy purposes. We have no proposal to change this position. The Broads Authority considers that promoting the Broads as a national park will offer marketing opportunities to raises the profile of the area both nationally and internationally. Given it is not seeking a change to the legal status of the Broads, or of the authority, ministers are content for the authority to make a decision on this matter. We want to see rural areas contributing to and benefiting from economic growth, including tourism, whilst ensuring that valuable landscapes remain protected.”

 

Pasted directly from the article in your link, with two sentences made bold.

 

The unarguable fact is that the present Broads Plan states quite clearly that the Broads Authority will continue to pursue its ambition to be a national park. It has now decided to drop that ambition, despite it being a formally adopted policy. Well, so what, you might ask. Quite simply, and it's clear enough, the Authority is not adverse to forgetting previous policy when it suits its agenda. It's done it before, it's doing it again, what's to say that it won't in the future?

[Guest]

Time for a grown!....

 

...or perhaps a groan Peter ?

[JennyMorgan]

Blessed smell checker!

[Guest]

I thought it may have been a Freudian slip Peter

[JennyMorgan]

Naa, the Freudian slip has a wherry hauled up on it right now, the old girl's having tingles on her bottom.

[MauriceMynah]

Most of my posts show me to be very "Groan up"