The Broads National Park? Time to decide!

[Guest]

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!

 

The Ordnance Survey map OL40, published many years ago, begs to differ Peter...

 

 

...long before the ***** hit the fan on here.....

[JennyMorgan]

The Ordnance Survey map OL40, published many years ago, begs to differ Peter...

 

 

...long before the ***** hit the fan on here.....

Ordnance Survey agreed to stop using the name a year or two back, after I corrected them! 

[JennyMorgan]

Just curious, had a peep at:

http://thebroadsblog.blogspot.co.uk/

I see Packman is not yet crowing, I wonder why?

[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.

 

 

Precisely....

 

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

Strowager, I don't normally regard you as being obtuse, but, in case my point really did escape you, I will make it as clear as I can.

 

The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 enshrines the THREE functions of the BA  (conservation, enjoyment by the public and maintenance of the navigation) and requires that they are each equally as important as the others.

 

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 ensures that of the TWO national park functions (conservation and enjoyment by the public), conservation is always given more weight, in the event of an irreconcilable conflict. So there is no equality.

 

If the Broads is treated as a national park, you will not get your wish.

 

But you knew that, didn't you.

[Paladin]

JM, you're quite right. The current map labels that yellow line as 'Broads Authority Boundary'.

[Paladin]

Just curious, had a peep at:

http://thebroadsblog.blogspot.co.uk/

I see Packman is not yet crowing, I wonder why?

Probably because the BroadsBlog allows comments to be added and they don't want to provide another avenue for the little people to use to vent their ire.

[Guest]

No, I wasn't trying to be obtuse Paladin.

 

I simply misunderstood your response.

 

It did seem to be quite a U turn for you.

[ExMemberBobdog]

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 ensures that of the TWO national park functions (conservation and enjoyment by the public), conservation is always given more weight, in the event of an irreconcilable conflict. So there is no equality.

 

The 1949 Act is no longer relevant, the key piece of legislation governing national parks is now the 1995 Environment Act.

 

The Environment Act 1995 s62 (1) (2) states:

"In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park."

 

There is a difference of emphasis here than in the so called 'Sandford Principle'.  Sandford said "priority must be given" to conservation.  The 1995 Act says that all the evidence must be taken into consideration, different interests considered, and ONLY if different interests cannot be reconciled does conservation have "greater weight".  'Greater weight' is not the same as 'priority'.  It is assumed that in the overwhelming majority of matters compromise/reconciliation will be possible.

Note also that the phrase in the Act is "conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park".  The third of those is crucial.  Boating is very much part of the 'cultural heritage' of the Broads.

The world is not going to end because of a branding exercise, nor would it end if the Broads did become a full National Park.

[JennyMorgan]

Probably because the BroadsBlog allows comments to be added and they don't want to provide another avenue for the little people to use to vent their ire.

Approved comments are allowed, but not unhelpful criticisms, these tend to fall at the first hurdle, at least mine do!

 

Bob, you wrote:

The world is not going to end because of a branding exercise, nor would it end if the Broads did become a full National Park.

That is probably true, but would we like the resultant changes?

[Paladin]

The 1949 Act is no longer relevant, the key piece of legislation governing national parks is now the 1995 Environment Act.

 

The Environment Act 1995 s62 (1) (2) states:

"In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park."

 

 

Oh dear! If you're going to quote legislation, please get the context right. You have quoted the 1995 Act wrongly. Section 62 is an amending section.

 

The effect of section 62 of the 1995 Act is to amend the 1949 Act by creating a new section, section 11A, in the 1949 Act and that new section in the 1949 Act will contain the passage you have quoted. The 1949 Act is still the primary legislation for national parks.

 

S 62 (1). After section 11 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (general powers of local planning authorities in relation to National Parks) there shall be inserted—

11A Duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated.

(1)...

(2)In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.

[Paladin]

No, I wasn't trying to be obtuse Paladin.

 

I simply misunderstood your response.

 

It did seem to be quite a U turn for you.

Yes, I thought that might be the case, which is why I explained  more clearly.

 

A U-turn? Have you only just noticed?

 

My previous staunch defences of the Broads Authority have been on a basis of forum discussions and debate, and a willingness to believe the best of people.

 

For the past couple of years, I have been involved with the Authority, at all, and I mean all, levels, in a manner that might be called close-up-and-personal. I have seen the inner workings for myself. After each encounter, I perform the sign of the cross. Not because I am religious, I'm just checking I still have my spectacles, testicles, watch and wallet.

 

That pathetic attempt at humour expresses the high level of distrust I now have of the Authority, which has been brought about, not by listening to their critics, but by my own personal experiences.

[JennyMorgan]

Believe it or not, Strow, I was once a staunch supporter of the the Authority. I was just so proud to become a member of the Navigation Committee. However, as I witnessed the inner workings and listened to the executive that pride and support soon started to dwindle, regretfully hitting rock bottom with the shenanigans surrounding the Broads Bill consultation. This latest NP saga has done absolutely nothing to make me reconsider my opinion.

[Guest]

......U-turn? Have you only just noticed?......

 

This time you have misunderstood my comment Paladin.

 

When I said it seemed "quite a U-turn for you",  I meant that it looked as though that your reply was highlighting that the Broads act is still the current legislation, and that Sandford could still not be applied, whatever tactics the much hated CEO is trying with the name.

 

I've always conceded that you are much more astute regarding chapter and verse on the law, so I would never challenge any of your extensively researched postings based on written evidence.

 

My own personal opinion on the National Park renaming issue remains though, despite the contrary opinions raised on the forums.

 

• Sandford cannot be applied to the Broads without a further act of Parliament.
• The Government's specific written response to the BA paper that started this thread specifically reinforced that point, and "could see no change to that position."
• I do not share the view that such a law can be changed by "softly softly" word of mouth influence.
• The petition ostensibly against the name change is being used as a complete no confidence vote in the BA (not just the CEO), in an effort to get more support for that extreme view.

 

I interact face to face with many more Broads residents and boat owners than the relatively few people that actively participate on Broads forums, and in fact hardly any of those people even know about the forums, let alone read them.

 

My impression is that people grumble (predictably) about the cost of the tolls, but that they have no major dislike of the BA, and are otherwise appreciative of the way the area has been protected and managed.

 

Indeed, the majority of Broads fora members don't get involved in these arguments either, so these threads are always instigated by a certain few people, and then gradually recede into the background due to a lack of general response.

[Paladin]

Strowager, I share some of your opinions, but no longer have any trust whatsoever in the BA executive (and some of the members).

 

Have you ever looked at the preparations for the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and the subsequent amending Acts? The movement for change started more than a decade or so earlier and now acts which were criminal are now acceptable behaviour in the eyes of the law. This was brought about by the gradual manipulation of public opinion. I can quote other examples, but I don’t want to encourage a debate about the rights and wrongs of other legislative decisions.

 

A few years down the line, once the term Broads National Park has been deeply embedded in the public psyche, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that further attempts will made to get the legislation changed. The executive has already shown how it is prepared to ignore any Defra advice that is not to its liking.

 

The reason threads disappear is because there is only so much that can be said in any discussion and other topics take over. What is newsworthy today is replaced by tomorrow’s news. You only have to look at world news to see that that is the case.

 

But this is just a discussion forum. It doesn’t actually get anything done. Just because something goes out of the headlines doesn’t mean to say that actions don’t continue behind the scenes.

 

I’ve been surprised at the names that have appeared on the FaceBook group. Very few of those people populate the forums.

[Guest]

Paladin, I can honestly say that I've never read the preparations for any act, least of all "the sexual offences act" !

 

Further attempts to specifically  get the legislation changed may indeed be tried, and if so, I will oppose and add my support and signature again, as I did with the Broads Bill.

 

I do not however wish to sign a petition that "has no confidence" in the BA.

 

Yes, all threads run their course and eventually dissapear, but my point was that very few members in any of the Broads forums appear to get embroiled in  repetitive BA bashing, always instigated by the same small minority.

[JennyMorgan]

Perhaps many previously unknown do populate the forums, even as spectators, but under various 'handles'. I know of one face-book character who uses three different names under which he trawls the forums. 

[Paladin]

• I do not share the view that such a law can be changed by "softly softly" word of mouth influence.

 

 

 

Further attempts to specifically  get the legislation changed may indeed be tried, and if so, I will oppose and add my support and signature again, as I did with the Broads Bill.

 

I mentioned the 1967 Act because I am old enough to remember the intense debates of that time and it is an issue that has been once again brought to the fore by the film The Imitation Game.

 

In more recent times, I would mention the ban on smoking in certain places, the dumbing-down of certain classes of illegal drugs, the ordination of women. I am not commenting on whether any of these measures are good or bad, simply that each has come about by an acceptance by the public (or large sections of it) through focussed campaigns and lobbying, which has made the law changes viable.

 

If the Broads are promoted and widely accepted as the Broads National Park, which is the clear intention of the Broads Authority, by the time the final push for legal national park status comes, I believe it will be too late for you or anyone else to raise any meaningful objection. There will be too much momentum in the campaign and the steamroller will just roll over you. The CEO learned from his defeat over the Broads Bill. He won't make that mistake again. And I don't make the mistake of underestimating his resolve.

[Guest]

.... very few members in any of the Broads forums appear to get embroiled in  repetitive BA bashing, always instigated by the same small minority.

 

 

19 out of 930 on the NBN so far.

[GeoffandWendy]

Personally, I think that it is time to lay this thread to bed. It seems to have just become a slanging match between some members, and won't achieve anything at the end of the day.

What will be, will be and that will be the end of it.

[Lucky]

Thank you for your opinion Geoffandwendy - of course you are fully entitled to it.

 

However, my opinion is that I am finding this thread incredibly interesting, so please keep going guys. Paladin espcially !

[Paladin]

Personally, I think that it is time to lay this thread to bed. It seems to have just become a slanging match between some members, and won't achieve anything at the end of the day.

What will be, will be and that will be the end of it.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But a 'slanging match'? I thought it was a very civilised exchange of views, which might not actually change the way the World functions, but debate is a function of this forum. You don't have to read it it, if you find it boring or useless. I actually like to hear other members opinions, even if I disagree with them.

 

As far as I am concerned, regarding the topic of this thread, sitting back and doing nothing isn't an option.

[Paladin]

19 out of 930 on the NBN so far.

Actually, I prefer quality to quantity, any day of the week

[Guest]

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But a 'slanging match'? I thought it was a very civilised exchange of views, which might not actually change the way the World functions, but debate is a function of this forum. You don't have to read it it, if you find it boring or useless. I actually like to hear other members opinions, even if I disagree with them.

 

As far as I am concerned, regarding the topic of this thread, sitting back and doing nothing isn't an option.

 

I agree completely with Paladin and Lucky on this. Personally, I found reading about Paladin's change of heart on the issue more chilling than anything I have heard for quite a long time. Paladin, if you are able to share more details I for one would be most interested.

[BroadScot]

Hi Geoff,

 

If it was a slanging match I or another Mod would have intervened. As it is, in this instance I find like others, find it a very interesting thread, especially as I live a long way from Norfolk, and anything that can be gleaned to the benefit of members IMHO has to be good.

 

Do carry on the debate folks.  BTW Geoff these gents are well versed in all things Norfolk and Suffolk Broads.

 

Iain.

[Mowjo]

Geoff and Wendy! some debates here can always get a bit heated because some of the members here are very passionate about certain subjects, sometimes to a newish member it can seem like it's getting a bit heated, but believe me! in 99% of cases we are still all friends here, we mainly self regulate ourselves and you may notice that the mods here very rarely have to step in, you will see that in many threads a certain three of four people get very passionate about something, (You know who you are), trust me these members do a lot of research into any subject although I often don't agree with them I have total respect for them, sometimes a post will appear that is just hearsay, these guys do the research before commenting and give us the facts/truth, true we might not change anything or make a difference at the end of the day, but if no-one stands up we will never know and after all forums are for debating and thats what we do even if we don't all agree, it only takes one person from somewhere like the BA to check the forums to see the general feeling of people that actually use the Broads, and that one person may be the one to say Whoo! we need to do things a bit differently,,

 

Frank,,,