The Broads National Park? Time to decide!

[LondonRascal]

It all seems rather pointless and a shame. 

 

Yes I know it sounds good, and goodness me the local economy and jobs which depend on visitors will be grateful of any boost to those numbers - along with the freedom to call the area something like 'Britain's newest National Park' .

 

The problem really is (to me) that in the past when something was called something new it did not cost a great deal - now it costs a fortune.  The last branding 'Britain's Magical Waterland' happened in 2010 and cost around £20,000 - Simon Middleton was the 'Brand Guru' behind it being devised by the Broads Authority and the Broads Tourism Forum.

 

I am certain that back in 2010 round whatever table the above sat, it must have cropped up about the fact the Broads is a 'member of the National Park Family' and could that be played on more - but that a 'magical waterland' was more original and sounded perhaps more enchanting to visitors than visions of the National Trust, ramblers and 'country types' that maybe the National Parks of this country conjure up in one's mind.

 

So that was done and local businesses and the wider tourist industry was told this the brand spread the word - and they followed the line and did just that but the thing is did it really bring more people because of an overall new name - probably not because 4 years on the Broads Authority have done as they see fit to cal an area something it is not technically - a National Park.

 

I recon this time around the table it was not so much a 'Guru' who came up with the idea, but a cheeky monkey who said 'if we call it a National Park will we get into trouble' and then the Lawyers got involved to find out and trust me, they would charge more than any marketing department knew how.

 

So there its people  a National Park - only it is not. Does that mean the real  National Parks are any less special since the annoying 'second cousin' has now come round and decided to use the family name in full?  How would you feel if you had no idea about legal statuses and in the coming months were looking for a new holiday idea and found the Norfolk Broads - a National Park - you thought of amazing open spaces, green open lands quite waterways and meadows lapping at slow moving rivers oh the wonderment, then you book it (and no disrespect Norfolk and Suffolk but you're no Lake District) and  arrive eagerly expecting some outstanding natural beauty and end up in Kens Fish & Chips after a couple of hours in a bright blue day boat where a £1.00 was donated to a project you were not quite sure about since you're wondering if you Love the Broads or not.

 

Brand, promote, spread the word be proud of what you are and what you offer - but to call it something it is not really just leaves a bad feeling in my mind it is a bit like Carlsberg - only probably the best not actually.

[Oddfellow]

This is all very interesting and hugely debatable. I have skim read this for a while so please excuse me if I have missed this important point elsewhere. 

 

Marketing Fraud / False Advertising. Call it what you will, but I am now residing in and running a business from within a lie. It isn't legally a NP but we'll call it one anyway? 

 

Perhaps this isn't in the league of fakery on the scale of far-eastern knock-off copy goods, but the principal is the same at heart. 

 

Nobody will enjoy their holiday here any more or any less because of a label and, as Clive says, it is likely to be good for tourism and as long as the law of NPs isn't applied, it seems like a worthwhile exercise on that score.

 

It just does not sit comfortably on my conscience that  there is an element of deception being used. Worse that that deception got through on a vote.....

[Guest]

.......And if you want an example of how a national park can have a devastating effect on boating, just look at what happened on Lake Windemere when they brought in draconian measures and a 6mph speed limit....

 

Sorry Neil, your example of Lake Windermere shows just how little effect National Park status has had on general boating there, even though it became one 64 years ago. There's no sign of the end of navigation rights that keeps getting predicted for the Broads.

 

There's no restrictions on engine fuel types, colours or boat building materials. The lake is open to sailing craft, canoes, and motor cruisers with any type of engine. White GRP diesel and petrol motor cruisers are still as popular there as ever.

 

The only thing that has changed is the speed limit of 10 mph, reducing to 6mph, in some of the more congested areas. Even most UK tidal creeks and harbours have similar speed limits for safety reasons, very few of them being in or near National Parks. We already have a speed limit of 6mph max over 95% of the Broads, from long before the National Park aspirations or even BA control.

 

Loch Lomond has also been a full National Park for decades too, there's far more space on it than Windermere, so the speed limit over most of it is 56 mph, with no restriction on boat construction material or engine type or power.

 

Time will indeed tell, but if Windermere and Loch Lomond are any indication (and they should be), the chances of boating being banned on the Broads is virtually nill...... 

[ranworthbreeze]

Sorry Strowager the 6 miles per hour restriction has always been the same in the clearly marked area's on lake Windermere at Bowness, and at each end of the lake.

 

What did change was the speed between these area's which was unlimited down to 10 mph. the effect of this has taken its toll on the area. The boating community and all the retail outlets protests could not dissuade the draconian quango from banning speeding on the lake. These limits were brought in 2000 but enforced from 2005.

 

Speed boats and water skiers made up only 4% of all the visitors in the lake district but accounted for well over 20% of the tourist revenue in the area supporting the local hotels, pubs & restaurants.

 

The public slipway & car park (near to the car ferry) used to be full to capacity before the ban, the last time we visited Bowness the car park was virtually empty and we used to always go in the first week in August.

 

Yes Bowness is always busy, plenty of tourists and hikers but most of the trailable boats other than yachts have gone to pastures new such as Loch Lomond and of course taking their needed revenue with them.

 

Loch Lomond became a National Park on 19th July 2002 but was officially opened by Princess Anne on 24th July 2002.

 

Regards

Alan

[Guest]

Sorry Strowager the 6 miles per hour restriction has always been the same in the clearly marked area's on lake Windermere at Bowness, and at each end of the lake.

 

What did change was the speed between these area's which was unlimited down to 10 mph. the effect of this has taken its toll on the area. The boating community and all the retail outlets protests could not dissuade the draconian quango from banning speeding on the lake. These limits were brought in 2000 but enforced from 2005.........

 

I didn't express myself clearly Alan.

 

Yes, what I meant was the only change has been the introduction of the 10 mph speed limit over the main area of the lake.

 

This was indeed a sore point with waterskiers and the planing boats, but the fact remains that it is the only restriction on boating on the lake, even though it's been a "full" national park for 64 years.

 

My point was that if some people really think that all boating would be banned if the Broads became a full National Park, then why hasn't it happened their ? or on Loch Lomond National Park ?

 

They are still areas of intense boating activity.

 

So the only thing that has been banned by this "Draconian Quango" is high speed boating and water skiing.

 

Neither of which are permitted on almost all of the Broads now anyway.

 

Indeed, many people on the forums have expressed their annoyance that it is even allowed on Breydon and parts of the Yare. Something of a double standard there.....

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry Strow, but the speed limit per say isn't the issue, it is that a certain section of the boating fraternity has been banned from that area, in the name of conservation.

[Guest]

Sorry Strow, but the speed limit per say isn't the issue, it is that a certain section of the boating fraternity has been banned from that area, in the name of conservation.

 

Sorry MM, the real issue is the so often stated but naive belief that National Parks will wield the Sandford principle to ban all forms of boating.

 

Whereas even the "Draconian Quango" of Windermere have only now imposed a 10 mph speed limit in their 64 years of management there.

 

Which is a higher speed limit than already exists over most of the Broads and almost all UK inland waterways.

 

That "certain section of the boating fraternity" are very controlled and restricted in almost all public boating areas except the open sea.

 

 

.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Sorry MM, the real issue is the so often stated but naive belief that National Parks will wield the Sandford principle to ban all forms of boating.

 

Whereas even the "Draconian Quango" of Windermere have only now imposed a 10 mph speed limit in their 64 years of management there.

 

Which is a higher speed limit than already exists over most of the Broads and almost all UK inland waterways.

 

That "certain section of the boating fraternity" are very controlled and restricted in almost all public boating areas except the open sea.

 

 

.

 

What you seem to be ignoring Strow is the point very well made by Allan (Ranworth Breeze) in that as a result of the 10mph speed limit, water skiing has gone, as have all the speedboats. Think about the loss of revinue all the local filling stations have had to cope with, some having gone to the wall completely. Not to mention the loss in revinue to the tourism industry as a whole, be it hotels, or campsites etc for those with speed boats. It`s loss of parking fees for boat trailers, loss of bookings at hotels (as stated above), loss of income to the marine traders in the area. The simple 10 mph limit has had a massive effect on the whole economy, each individual part only being a minor section, but add them all up, and that`s millions lost in tourism, which then got added to the cost of every other form of tourism in the area.

 

 

Yes, you`re spot on, it HAS`NT destroyed boating altogether, but with the National Parks authority becoming increasingly involved in political issues such as green tourism, it won`t be long before Windemere will be restricted to non internal combustion engined boats, meaning they will all have to be elctric, and there simply WON`T be enough power available to support the continual recharging of electric boats. And before you say it won`t happen, i read in one of the local papers while on holiday up there that all elctric boaing on ALL the lakes in the area has been mooted by the NPA for several years.

 

Now jump forward 5, maybe 10 years, and just think what such an action would have to boating on the Broads?.

 

Don`t  laugh about it, it would`nt surprise me to find out the BA (or shoul that now be the BNPA?) have already put out the idea, or else why would hirefleets like Barnes Brinkcraft and others be dipping their toes in  "green electric boating"?.  Imagine how many powerstations or wind turbines you`d need all over Norfolk to generate all that required electricity for overnight charging?.

[Guest]

.......it won`t be long before Windemere will be restricted to non internal combustion engined boats, meaning they will all have to be elctric, and there simply WON`T be enough power available to support the continual recharging of electric boats. And before you say it won`t happen, i read in one of the local papers while on holiday up there that all elctric boaing on ALL the lakes in the area has been mooted by the NPA for several years........

 

Well their National Parks management haven't tried it for 64 years so far Neil !

 

...and that word "mooted" again, is a long way from stated intention.

 

Last time I was up there, (after the speed limit introduction), the place was still heaving at capacity, so any  void left by the water skiing  enthusiasts has already been filled by other boating activities.

 

 

[ranworthbreeze]

I didn't express myself clearly Alan.

 

Yes, what I meant was the only change has been the introduction of the 10 mph speed limit over the main area of the lake.

 

This was indeed a sore point with waterskiers and the planing boats, but the fact remains that it is the only restriction on boating on the lake, even though it's been a "full" national park for 64 years.

 

My point was that if some people really think that all boating would be banned if the Broads became a full National Park, then why hasn't it happened their ? or on Loch Lomond National Park ?

 

They are still areas of intense boating activity.

 

So the only thing that has been banned by this "Draconian Quango" is high speed boating and water skiing.

 

Neither of which are permitted on almost all of the Broads now anyway.

 

Indeed, many people on the forums have expressed their annoyance that it is even allowed on Breydon and parts of the Yare. Something of a double standard there.....

Hi Strowager,

The 10 mph limit has been updated to 11 knots by the NPA, more than likely to accommodate the various larger trip boats that operate every day on Windermere, these tend to act as the main public travel from place to place on the lake.

We had a time share cottage at the Windermere Marina Village which we would have still have been using today if the speed ban had not come in, Because of the downturn on the site that was no longer hiring off their rental cottagers to speedboat & Skiing crews the Marina owners put pressure on the quite elderly timeshare owners. In the end rather than paying even more in management fees we were up to £1000 per week for a two bedroom cottage, the majority of the owners voted to give our rights to the cottages back to the free holders.

All very sad, even though the original problem which was down to jet ski use had been resolved the speed ban still came in.

Regards

Alan

[Oddfellow]

I feel that it is highly unlikely that the BA would look to impose restrictions on engines for many, many years. The income gained from boating on the Broads is too large to kick the goose that lays the golden egg, whether that goose is private or hire. 

 

The fact that Barnes has ONE boat that is powered by electric (which is derived from batteries charged by an engine driven generator) is hardly any form of proof. This would seem to be much more an experiment by Barnes of such a thing's impact on hirer's desires more than a serious attempt at future proofing. 

[marshman]

Strow is of course correct - just like all the silly rhetoric being banded around by certain contributors about the impact of the Sandford principle being used with draconian effect ,there is no doubt that boats are very much alive and well on Windermere and no attempt has been made to ban them on navigation grounds alone.

 

Yes they have banned speeding but that has got rid of the noise pollution as well - even here one of the negatives about the boat testing zones is the noise that emanates from them.

 

And guys, reading comment about the impact of these changes, it does seem on balance that after the initial period, the area as a whole has adapted well. Whilst some have been driven to the sea, where they belong IMHO, others have been attracted simply because they have gone. All change causes upheaval but again IMHO, the area is better for the ban as imposed and a more tranquil place has emerged with little or no long term negatives, and many more positives.

 

Whilst i am very aware of the impact Sandford could haver, in reality there is little evidence that it is applied anywhere to the extent of some individual  fears - indeed i struggle to find examples of where it HAS actually been applied. They have quite categorically stated it will not be applied here because of the additional needs of the area and it would require a change in the law for it to actually be applied.

 

And I also believe the change will have benefits, tangible or otherwise, and I prefer my glass to be half full, rather than half empty and I quite honestly see no reason to adopt a Victor Meldrew attitude and change my stance. It is just too easy to be negative about everything in life  - lets look on the bright side and be more optimistic about the future of this incredible area we use  and protect it as best we able for our children and theirs too if we can.

[littlesprite]

With the current set up Conservation, Tourism and Navigation are all given equal rights, if people believe this system isn't working then what do they think isn't working.

Changing the area to national Park status will put Conservation at the forefront, whilst relegating Tourism and Navigation into second place and therefor the ones to suffer if a conflict of interest should arise.

If on the other hand people are happy with the way things are, then what is the point of making the change, if it isn't broke don't fix it.

 

I can understand people arguing in favour of a change if they consider the present system doesn't work, but please don't suggest that the changes will have no effect other wise what's the point of changing. 

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

 

 

 but please don't suggest that the changes will have no effect other wise what's the point of changing. 

 

 

Very nicely put Sprite, and a point i was trying to make earlier.  

 

I think the point in changing is the probability that now they`ve "opened the door" via a supposed "ineffectual re-branding",they have paved the way of future changes, which as you rightly pointed out will be at the expense of certain navigational issues.

 

As for Marshmans comment about the Windemere speed limit having a short term effect which has seen certain visitors replaced by others, you fail to grasp the financial impact this has had not only on the tourist industry, but the livelihoods of many  reliant on it. Many buisness struggled financially putting people out of work, and rendering those buisness losing a lot of income, which they will never recoup.  Buisnesses have closed, people have lost their jobs and their livelihoods and a possibly much more, and all because some selfish people want to see speedboats / water skiing and jet skis banned from Englands largest lake.

 

Yes, a minority few would have gone to the coast, but what else is available to those that prefer the safety of a lake. You mention about peace and quiet, so if those that prefer the safety of a lake WERE to find another suitable inland venue, that then becomes even more crowded and noisey forcing even yet more restrictions elswhere.

 

It`s all very well saying you want peace and quiet, so do i, but at least i have the generosity to think they should be able to enjoy their pastimes just as much as i enjoy mine. Live and let live and all that?.

 

Like i said before, and others have said, if there`s no change, why re-brand it?. time WILL tell.

 

 

.

[Guest]

...... but please don't suggest that the changes will have no effect other wise what's the point of changing. 

 

IMHO the point of changing was to simply capitalise more on the  the "National Park" aspect of the Broads from a marketing point of view. The truth has indeed been "stretched", but the chances of any tourists suing over misrepresentation is slim.

 

This latest spat over the so controversial National Park title has once again given the anti John Packman lobby another chance to make wildly exaggerated predictions of denial of navigation.

 

The Broads forums have again illustrated some surprisingly naive beliefs that have no provable substance, only "mootings" and conjecture.

 

We are told that boating will certainly be banned on the Broads altogether, and yet it is still hugely popular in other full Sandford National Parks like Windermere and Loch Lomond, after half a century of NP control.

 

I'm as passionate about the Broads as anyone could claim to be, and I'm very relieved to know that Conservation is as firmly managed as well as Navigation.

[littlesprite]

Softly softly catchy monkey.

 

 

Back in the 1960's smoking was banned from theatres, followed shortly after by cinema's, then trains and buses, then all public buildings, now it's plain packaging and smoking in cars, even talk of all public places covered or not.

 

Whilst you may be totally anti smoking, this is just a example of how banning something can be done in stages over many decades, I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means but have been around long enough to know that most public bodies whether government or quango have the public version of events and the truth.

 

Using a chisel to remove wood in seconds or sand paper taking hours the end result is still your wood shrinking.

[Guest]

With the greatest of respect Martin, there have been many analogies put forward like this.

 

Whilst I totally agree that many things in life do gradually overwhelm from small beginnings, there's a world of difference between people wanting to risk cancer, (and the people around them), and the banning of boating on the Broads.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

First of all Strow, unless i`m very much mistaken, you`re saying that somewhere in this tread, somebody has said that re-branding the Broads as a National park will lead to the outright banning of boating on the Broads?. Please correct me if i`m wrong, but i`ve been following and contributing to this thread, and cannot remember ANYONE saying, or writing, that this re-branding will do anything of the sort. What i`ve been saying is that with National park status, there COULD, not WILL be the serious chance of either the BA or the NPA bring in strict new rules for boating on the Broads. I hope i`m wrong, but that seems to me to be a case of either misunderstanding of someone`s posts, or possibly even misrepresenting :norty: .

 

As for Martins analagy, i can`t see (or read) anything offensive about it. It`s just an easy way to describe the underhanded way authority ride roughshod over the public.

[MauriceMynah]

Fully agree with speedtriple here, on both points.

Nobody has said Will,  though many have pointed out the risk.

The smoking analogy is right, but as with any analogy, take it too literally and the similarities will be lost in the semantics.  

[Guest]

First of all Strow, unless i`m very much mistaken, you`re saying that somewhere in this tread, somebody has said that re-branding the Broads as a National park will lead to the outright banning of boating on the Broads?. Please correct me if i`m wrong, but i`ve been following and contributing to this thread, and cannot remember ANYONE saying, or writing, that this re-branding will do anything of the sort.........

 

If you read my posts carefully Neil, you'll see that I've always said "forums" , not just this particular thread.

 

.........As for Martins analagy, i can`t see (or read) anything offensive about it. It`s just an easy way to describe the underhanded way authority ride roughshod over the public.

 

...and where on earth did I give any implication that Martin's analogy was offensive ? 

[Paladin]

 

Loch Lomond has also been a full National Park for decades too...

 

No, only since 2002.

 

 

Whilst i am very aware of the impact Sandford could haver, in reality there is little evidence that it is applied anywhere to the extent of some individual  fears - indeed i struggle to find examples of where it HAS actually been applied. (my emphasis)

 

 

Really, marshman? Only yesterday, you were given four examples, and I could give you quite a few more, but just one extra for now - canoeing in the Exmoor National Park is restricted because of the conflict with conservation, Sandford being quoted during the decision-making process. With respect, that you struggle to find the examples is perhaps more a comment on your researching skills than on the use of Sandford.

 

 

This latest spat over the so controversial National Park title has once again given the anti John Packman lobby another chance to make wildly exaggerated predictions of denial of navigation.

 

The Broads forums have again illustrated some surprisingly naive beliefs that have no provable substance, only "mootings" and conjecture.

 

We are told that boating will certainly be banned on the Broads altogether,

 

Where have these wild exaggerations been posted? There is only one other Broads forum on which this 'latest spat' has been discussed in any depth. The most pessimistic opinion on there was that the introduction of the Sandford Principle "could spell the end to boating on The Broads,"  and we're all entitled to express an opinion.

 

Most correspondents, here and elsewhere, who are against that introduction, fear that it could be used to limit boating, not ban it totally. Note, could, not will.

 

You seem to have forgotten the kerfuffle in, I think, 2004, when the BA threatened to fine anyone who dared to navigate on  Horsey Mere between October and March, notwithstanding there is a right of navigation. There is now a 'voluntary agreement' that the mere is closed from 1 November to 1 March, except by permit. Do you really think that Sandford would not have been used, had it been available?

 

It seems to me that those who would welcome Sandford are ridiculing the arguments against it, which, in my opinion, have been very calmly and sensible put (both here and elsewhere), without putting up any reasonable arguments themselves.

 

This is a post from another forum, "John Packman will first get the area changed to The Broads National Park ...then, under the guise of conservation taking precedence over "damaging" navigation, he will shut down navigations starting with waters above Potter Heigham bridge. Just look what happened over Horsey Mere..."

 

No, that wasn't a post from the current discussion, it's from 2006. The first part was right, what's the betting the second prediction won't come true if Sandford is introduced?

[Guest]

Yes, you have me there Paladin, Loch Lomond has not been a full National Park for 50 years, but only 13 years. (Still plenty of time to wield the Sandford principle on boating, if they wished to, and haven't, as far as I'm aware.)

 

I was right with the main example being wrangled about though, Windermere, which has been an NP for 64 years, and with no restriction on boating at all, apart from the 10 mph speed limit. It still has large Marinas, open water moorings, etc etc..

 

As for the exact extent of belief in a total ban, I'm sorry, I'm not going to start quoting or linking content in another forum, (which is against the TOS on here anyway).

 

This discussion has now drifted well away from the pertinent subject itself, and has become more of an exercise in winning  arguments.

 

In the past I've been a great admirer of your debating style and the amount of effort you spend on researching the facts.

[JennyMorgan]

I had intended to remain quiet on this one whilst debate is taking place on Facebook on a dedicated thread but there are a few points that perhaps will help this discussion.

 

Whilst I can't prove it, I was party to a personal debate with John Packman and Trudi Wakelin where it was made perfectly clear that both anglers and boaters would have to accept some limitations as to where they could go in the interest of conservation. Proposed 'special directions' in the draft Broads Bill, on record, were clearly intended to have the power to exclude boats from specific locations. At no point, either in conversation or in the Broads Bill, was there any suggestion, or even the faintest hint, that boating would be banned on the Broads, just that limitations and controls were needed in order protect specific locations. We must be realistic, the BA exists on our money, over 50% of their money comes from our tolls. However, as Paladine has pointed out, we mustn't forget what happened at Horsey, or that Cockshoot is still closed to navigation.

 

Personally I see Sandford as a very real threat, despite assurances. The big push could come from elsewhere, not necessarily the BA. It could also apply to many activities, not just boating and angling.

 

Back into my cupboard.

[marshman]

I am finding myself agreeing with Stow again and sadly for once disagreeing with Pally !!! But perhaps I should not take sides although in the case of Horsey there were other forces at play other than the wildlife organisations and the BA and this influence applied then, is still very much in evidence to this day.

 

But point scoring is unnecessary and the two sides will continue to be separated by a gulf, with now perhaps one difference. Its happened and to all intents and purposes, the Broads National Park exists for those who want to call it one and if they think it benefits them, then they can use it. Those who don't need or want to, can just go on as before calling it whatever they want.

 

But I know its not legally one and that slightly differing rules apply here (and so do you all !! )  so perhaps we should leave it there and stop worrying departments such as Trading Standards and Trade Descriptions so they can do more worthwhile work. At least there is now little point in anyone taking umbrage and issue with anyone daring to call it a NP in any literature and firing off the seemingly rather pointless email or letter!!

[MauriceMynah]

Amen to that MM