The Broads National Park? Time to decide!

[Polly]

Bigger mast means bigger sails? Are you aiming to fly over the bridges?

[C.Ricko]

We will have to see about our bridge strategy, it is already a bit of a mission so flying may be easier!

I didn't say anything about carbon

[JennyMorgan]

I didn't say anything about carbon

Nor anything about a fully battened, roached main!

 

http://engine.tech.netuse.gr/filesystem/images/20110728/low/prototype_LARGE_t_11_165.JPG

[Poppy]

A little more research Peter ?

 

I simply googled for River Cruiser adverts, and found most were 4ft or over, like these two:......

 

http://www.broadlandyachtbrokers.co.uk/boats/339

 

http://www.topsail.co.uk/boat.php?refnum=1715

Strow, You will find that both of these fine craft date from an earlier period - when dredging WAS considered important.

[LondonRascal]

Talking of dredging...

 

You do know I have my very own design for a dredger – non-stop operation being able to dredge entire rivers or broads.  Moving at a slow speed it would have no need for lagoons to place the waste silt and water returning to the water would be pure and drinkable!

 

How would I manage that?

 

Well it originally came to me when in a coffee shop seeing how the ground coffee was compacted once the machine had forced the water through it at high temperature and pressure I thought of the coffee as mud I then combined this with a Dyson vacuum cleaners cyclonic action and so came about the idea of the dredging machine.

 

A large barge would suck up silt from the river bed (along with a lot of water) through a large suction pipe – this would then be put through various high speed vacuum cyclones - just like on a Dyson. The larger particles being pushed away from the finer. Much of the water could be removed in the vortex as the centrifugal forces get to work.

 

The water and particles are now heading for being two separated things – one liquid the other a dry mass however the water is still going to be heavily contaminated with silt of a very fine, almost power like texture (think printer toner). The heavier silt slurry however will contain a lot less water and will therefore be the consistency of a thick soup or over wet concrete mix. 

 

The heavier less water saturated silt is then passed into molds – think back to the coffee machines but instead of using high pressure steam and water, hydraulic rams push the silt under extreme pressure into the block through a fine mesh. The result will be a lot more of the contaminated water then is released and the silt now resembles a damp mass much like the compressed ground coffee I referred to earlier.

 

Water from this process (along with the water from the first process contaminated with the fine silt) is passed through a network of pipes super heated (much like a steam engine) which boils the water/silt mixture.

 

The water evaporates into steam, this steam is then sent off through further pipe which travel under the hull of the barge and the cold river water causes the stem inside the pipes to condense the as steam back to water – this then is pumped overboard into the river as pure water.

 

The now dry sediment left over now the water has gone, is forced out under high pressure compressed air.  This joins the damp mass of the main portion of silt we talked of earlier having been compressed into its molds.  The additional dry silt can be used to further bind the two masses together – such again being compressed into manageable cubes – say of 1 metre square each.

 

The cubes are then unloaded via conveyor into a sister barge and since are nice squares can be easily transported.  They also can be used in different ways, maybe made into pellets for using in garden centres or people’s home gardens – the local council could use them their parks, planters and flower baskets or around the rivers as part of helping Reed beds etc.

 

It would cost a lot of money, and all that heat to boil such qualities of water needs an awful lot of power or gas and carbon dioxide given off into the wider environment would occur to process it - but it would slowly go along sucking, separating, and compacting the silt without need to stop and surly could be used in other inland river systems here and in Europe.

[JennyMorgan]

A similar idea has been explored by the Authority, Dr Packman was in America, at his expense, when he explored the possibilities on offer. Basically, if I understand correctly, separation would be by centrifugal force as well as filtration.

[SGWilko]

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.

Boating and or visiting the Norfolk & Suffolk isn't bad for your health (unless one is so challenged) and doesn't therefore add a colossal burden to the taxpayer funded NHS.  Remember, the tax take on cigarettes is huge, so there is no incentive to reduce smoking, other than on genuine health grounds.

[Wussername]

I am but a Norfolk boy. Normal for Norfolk is phrase often used. That will be me then! I have several GCE. I failed every one. I don't think I even got the date right on any of the papers.

I have avoided contributing to this very important thread because of a feeling, a belief, of insecurity amongst people who are articulate, knowledgeable, well versed in debate.

However there is one very important point in my view, I would like to bring to your attention:

A legal claim can centre on an allegation of passing off, which is legally defined as “making some false representation likely to induce a person to believe that the goods or services are those of another”.

We are not a National Park

It is a false representation.

We do not provide the services of a National Park. Neither do we wish too. Therefore it would seem to me that some people are using their position as a vehicle for personal enhancement, to pursue an agenda which is unacceptable to the those who understand the implication of these matters.

It would seem to my simple mind that the term National Park is illegal

Regretfully, the vast number of Norfolk folk, the majority of Norfolk folk, who do not understand, have very little interest. Normal for Norfolk.

Until of course the realisation of their ignorance becomes apparent in the fullness of time.

Is there any individual, anybody, any organisation able to have the finances, the will, to challenge this injustice. I fear not.

There are some who trawl through past statements, commitments, and quote the most emotive of intent. It is to no avail.

We have an obligation. Our generation have a duty to our children, our grandchildren. If we do nothing we will have been deemed to have failed.

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.

Tootle pip

Old Wussername

[littlesprite]

Boating and or visiting the Norfolk & Suffolk isn't bad for your health (unless one is so challenged) and doesn't therefore add a colossal burden to the taxpayer funded NHS.  Remember, the tax take on cigarettes is huge, so there is no incentive to reduce smoking, other than on genuine health grounds.

 

You miss the point totally, it's a analogy and was never intended to compare in such a literal way.

 

However your argument defeats itself  "colossal burden to the taxpayer funded NHS" is one argument, yet you then use "the tax take on cigarettes is huge, so there is no incentive to reduce smoking, other than on genuine health grounds" 

Surely the two points argue against each other.

[Paladin]

I am but a Norfolk boy. Normal for Norfolk is phrase often used. That will be me then! I have several GCE. I failed every one. I don't think I even got the date right on any of the papers.

I have avoided contributing to this very important thread because of a feeling, a belief, of insecurity amongst people who are articulate, knowledgeable, well versed in debate.

However there is one very important point in my view, I would like to bring to your attention:

A legal claim can centre on an allegation of passing off, which is legally defined as “making some false representation likely to induce a person to believe that the goods or services are those of another”.

We are not a National Park

It is a false representation.

We do not provide the services of a National Park. Neither do we wish too. Therefore it would seem to me that some people are using their position as a vehicle for personal enhancement, to pursue an agenda which is unacceptable to the those who understand the implication of these matters.

It would seem to my simple mind that the term National Park is illegal

Regretfully, the vast number of Norfolk folk, the majority of Norfolk folk, who do not understand, have very little interest. Normal for Norfolk.

Until of course the realisation of their ignorance becomes apparent in the fullness of time.

Is there any individual, anybody, any organisation able to have the finances, the will, to challenge this injustice. I fear not.

There are some who trawl through past statements, commitments, and quote the most emotive of intent. It is to no avail.

We have an obligation. Our generation have a duty to our children, our grandchildren. If we do nothing we will have been deemed to have failed.

No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.

Tootle pip

Old Wussername

There are many avenues by which this decision may be challenged - I doubt very much whether 'passing off' will be one of them. It would, IMO, probably be for a national park, or a trader in a national park, to bring such an action. Judging by the responses from the various national parks authorities and national park organisations, I don't think any of them will make such a challenge (although the response of the Peak District National Park was rather equivocal). Unless trade drops dramatically in the national parks, I wouldn't expect any NP traders to become involved, either.

 

In that respect, I agree with the legal advice that was given to the Authority. But that advice is seriously  flawed in other aspects.

 

Finances don't really come into it, but the will does. I agree that chewing the fat, sitting back and hoping 'someone' will do 'something' will achieve nothing. Which is why I am not prepared to do that.

 

Depicting Norfolk folk as ignorant is hardly helpful. Not only is that not true, the decision does not only affect people born in Norfolk. It affects people from all over the country, even from abroad, who visit the Broads, have businesses here or keep their boats here.

 

I prefer to use the power of positive thinking.

[JennyMorgan]

Follow this link to the Norfolk & Suffolk Boating Association and scroll down on Latest News page until you come to the Autumn Newsletter 2014. 

http://www.thegreenbook.org.uk/

[JennyMorgan]

Nice pictures!

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.128058424520.96643.21047304520&type=1

[marshman]

And?????

[JennyMorgan]

Just thought that folk MIGHT find them interesting, I did.

 

https://www.facebook.com/uknationalparks/photos/a.128058424520.96643.21047304520/10153067047184521/?type=3&theater

[JennyMorgan]

This, I think, people will find interesting, from the EDP's letter page:

 

 

A fine example of suppressing 'unhelpful' information, some might call it cherry picking. Either way a pretty damning letter.

[Mowjo]

I could be way off here! but I know one of you will know, could the reason BA have pushed for National Park status have something to do with Lottery funding?? I've only have a brief look but it seems National Parks get all sorts of Grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund, I came across this and it just got me thinking,, http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/current-news/2.5m-heritage-lottery-fund-boost-for-peak-district

 

 

Frank,,,,

[Guest]

I could be way off here! but I know one of you will know, could the reason BA have pushed for National Park status have something to do with Lottery funding?? I've only have a brief look but it seems National Parks get all sorts of Grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund, I came across this and it just got me thinking,, http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/current-news/2.5m-heritage-lottery-fund-boost-for-peak-district

 

 

Frank,,,,

 

 

Quite possibly Frank.

 

The marketing Kudos of being a National Park (or appearing to be "more" of one) can lead to many benefits for the Broads and it's tourism businesses.

 

So much effort on the forums has been expended on amplifying the likelihood of Sandford and personal opinions of the management that the positive aspects have been conveniently ignored.

[marshman]

Mowjo - short term I don't think that is exactly an issue but for example, if you look at the USA some 25% of national park funding is classed as "private funding" and whilst in the UK it is all very new, the National Parks generally are currently being sponsored by Airwick. In the future with funding always under scrutiny from the Govt i do think commercial sponsorship is worth considering and I am sure that whilst others will pour ridicule on the idea, I think this is in its infancy here and it will grow.

Seems logical that whilst almost everything else is sponsored NP's are not - its a huge resource which need to be fully explored and  these are I believe the first tiny steps. Hardly any shortage of an audience to target IMHO

[JennyMorgan]

Malcolm Martins, the writer of the above letter, has written elsewhere that he suggests that other local parishioners check out whether their parish councils responded and whether the BA 'received' their comment. Seemingly the BA's agenda suggests that a lot of PCs didn't respond, Thorpe St Andrew being one of them. Worth checking. 

[GeoffandWendy]

I started reading this topic after it was first started, then it started going of track and the the mention of the smoking ban got dragged into it. Then we got the mention of dredging, which led to Robin describing his state of the art dredging craft, which came to him whilst having a cup of coffee, by noticing how the coffee machine, produces nice little cakes of compressed coffee grains. Combining this with Mr Dyson's cyclonic action vacuum cleaner, could be the beginning of a complete new idea, to dredging. 

Of course, to build a dredger on this scale would cost vast amounts of money and I doubt whether anything like this would ever be built. If I were you Robin, I would stick to your Captains Blog, which everyone really enjoys and leave dredging to the Broads Authority to worry about.

 

To get back to the main subject on this topic, I don't think becoming a National Park will make any difference. It will still remain a haven for wildlife and be a leisure area for boating. Both can live in harmony with each other as long as it is regulated properly. If boating was restricted on the Broads, many jobs would be lost and peoples livelihoods would severely be affected. I doubt that this will happen and boating will play its part as it always has done. It has not affected boating in the Lake District or even the Canal network, where some canals run through areas of SSI's. 

[Paladin]

To get back to the main subject on this topic, I don't think becoming a National Park will make any difference. It will still remain a haven for wildlife and be a leisure area for boating. Both can live in harmony with each other as long as it is regulated properly. If boating was restricted on the Broads, many jobs would be lost and peoples livelihoods would severely be affected. I doubt that this will happen and boating will play its part as it always has done. It has not affected boating in the Lake District or even the Canal network, where some canals run through areas of SSI's. 

I wish I shared your confidence. This is a pretty evenly balanced report, but it does indicate that the economy of the Windermere area has taken a hit, over and above any widespread economic downturn, because of the speed limit imposed several years ago. The Sandford Principle has also been used to block a planning application which included the improvement of jetty provision  and car/boat parking.

 

The canal network is managed by the Canal and Rivers Trust, which has no national park function. Comparison to the Broads is, therefore, meaningless.

[Guest]

........ I don't think becoming a National Park will make any difference. It will still remain a haven for wildlife and be a leisure area for boating. Both can live in harmony with each other as long as it is regulated properly. If boating was restricted on the Broads, many jobs would be lost and peoples livelihoods would severely be affected. I doubt that this will happen and boating will play its part as it always has done. It has not affected boating in the Lake District or even the Canal network, where some canals run through areas of SSI's. 

 

Well I agree with Geoff and Wendy.

 

I'm a BA toll payer and I consider myself lucky to live within the "National Park" boundary.

 

Like them I also wish the area to remain "a haven for wildlife" and "a leisure area for boating", as equally  important goals.

 

The current level of discontent on the Broads forums from a number of posters seems to be concentrated on their total opposition to any restriction of navigation rights, no matter how small.

 

Their argument projected is that it would be "the thin end of the wedge", to gradually ban most or all boating, and turn the area into a restricted access nature reserve.

 

Yet the only significant impact of Sandford control on Windermere is the 10 mph speed limit after over half a century of full National Park control, and it's still a haven for boating, power and sail.

 

Although only time will tell, it's difficult to make a convincing argument that boating will ever be significantly restricted on the Broads, since it is so key to the area's primary attraction to the Public.

[JennyMorgan]

On the other hand I don't live within the National Park boundary because, as far as the Broads is concerned, it doesn't exist!

[Paladin]

 

Like them I also wish the area to remain "a haven for wildlife" and "a leisure area for boating", as equally  important goals.

 

Which is what the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 enshrines, and which the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 ensures can't and won't happen.

[Guest]

Which is what the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 enshrines, and which the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 ensures can't and won't happen.

 

Precisely....

 

(good to see that Peter agrees !)....