Hickling Broad

[JennyMorgan]

There are inescapable facts that surround Hickling, as good a place as any to start! The Broads Authority has a responsibility to both conservation and to navigation, with neither taking precedence. Thankfully the Broads is NOT a national park thus the Sandford Principle does NOT apply. It is also a fact that Hickling is susceptible to prymnesium parva attacks.

 

Now, in my case at least, it's down to opinion. It does appear that Hickling has, for many years, been shamefully neglected. As to why, we can only guess.

 

There is an opinion that this neglect was part of a sustained agenda which would lead to the eventual exclusion of boats. There have certainly been people in the past that have made no secret of their desire to see Hickling as a wetland dedicated to conservation, that natural siltation would provide the barrier.  

 

If it was a conservation agenda that was behind the neglect to the Broad then, in my opinion, it has gone spectacularly wrong. 

 

This very recent PP attack is proof, if any were needed, that anglers have been right to preach caution. Perhaps whilst some of their claims have been a bit extreme their caution is wholly justified.

 

What now? The restoration of Hickling is surely of international interest thus is more than a local, navigation based matter. Tolls alone can not finance this restoration. This is as much a conservation issue as it is a navigational one. 

 

At the end of the day the obvious neglect thrust upon Hickling is down to the Broads Authority. Large grants were made available for the Authority to catch up on the backlog of work on the Broads. Much of that money was frittered away on projects such as the Broads Bill and Dragonfly House whilst Hickling was allowed to further deteriorate. My feeling is that a well intended conservation lobby is behind much of the neglect. 

 

The future? Well, the bull has to be taken by the horns and that might mean closing the Broad and even removing the fish for a year or two, in other word a very major project. If there is a will then there is a way, it won't be a five minute fix, that's for sure! 

[ExMemberBobdog]

Oh for goodness sake give it a rest.  Last winter the BA dredged Heigham Sound, to ensure that Hickling could be accessed by boats with a deeper draught.  This year (before the fish incident) there were plans to dredge the shallows up around the Pleasureboat Inn and the entrance to the dykes at Whispering Reeds, and indeed over into the bays at Hill Common.  None of that is commensurate with a 'hidden agenda' to close the broad to navigation.  All these conspiracy theories are making me wonder, are you David Icke in disguise?

[JennyMorgan]

Bob, in turn, please give it a rest, your constant almost personal attacks are becoming tiresome. This is intended to be a serious debate. If you think that the recent work done by the Authority is sufficient then so be it, but the grim reality is that none of us know the facts, that research is needed, that the whole issue needs a strong lead. Hickling is sick . . . .  surely worthy of serious debate.

[ExMemberBobdog]

Serious debate yes, Hickling deserves that, but the endless negative carping about the BA impedes rather than helps that debate.

[Paladin]

Serious debate?

 

OK. Start with the attached document, which clearly shows that there is a need for there to be a change in farming practices in the adjacent area, if water quality is to be improved.

 

Then progress to the local landowners, who won't provide anywhere for the deposition of dredged material.

 

Next is Natural England, who halted the current proposed dredging because of an apparent high copper content of the silt, and now yet another scientific survey is underway.

 

Finally, the anglers, who raise a hue and cry at the very mention of dredging.

 

Edited, because I forgot to add the constriction of water flow, thus restriction of any flushing effect, caused by Potter Heigham Bridge, solutions suggested including increased dredging of the Lower Bure.

 

Add the resistance to increases in the tolls, which might help to pay for this work and the conclusion must be...

 

...Yep, it's all down to neglect by the Broads Authority! Not.

Thurne_Research.pdf

[jeffbroadslover]

Has anyone thought about contacting the BA and asking what their specific intentions are ?

 

 

Jeff

[Paladin]

There was a Lake Review Project last year, which concluded that the Hoveton Great Broad Restoration Project should take priority over the restoration of Hickling Broad. That's how I read the conclusions, anyway. Presentation starts at para 2/9.

BA-Minutes-260914.pdf

[Labrador]

'Apparent high copper content',good God Hickling might end up like Cornwall with engine houses and chimney stacks for the copper mines all over the place!!

[Poppy]

Norfolk Wildlife Trust own Hickling Broad and almost all of the surrounding land - certainly the banks. It is they who have consistently, over a number of years denied permission for spoil to be placed on the banks!

 

This has been the problem faced by the Broads Authority.

[JennyMorgan]

Norfolk Wildlife Trust own Hickling Broad and almost all of the surrounding land - certainly the banks. It is they who have consistently, over a number of years denied permission for spoil to be placed on the banks!

 

This has been the problem faced by the Broads Authority.

Which takes us back to a question raised on another thread, that of compulsory purchase. My impression, rightly or wrongly, has been that in the past the BA's executive has almost gleefully grabbed any excuse not to dredge Hickling. Whilst I appreciate there are problems I stand by my contention that we must have a firm lead on this one. There is both a need to and a legislative requirement to dredge. However, can English Nature actually prevent the BA from doing its duty, e.g. dredge? Since, in my opinion, the need is as much navigational as it is a conservation matter. I/We don't know what is going on behind closed doors but over the last twenty five years remarkably little appears to have been done. Little and often might have prevented the need for what is now surely going to be a fairly major project. This recent PP breakout must surely take this issue to the top of the pile.

[ExMemberBobdog]

However, can English Nature actually prevent the BA from doing its duty, e.g. dredge?

 

Well since English Nature ceased to exist in 2006, I would think it unlikely.  However Natural England might have a say.

[Paladin]

Which takes us back to a question raised on another thread, that of compulsory purchase. My impression, rightly or wrongly, has been that in the past the BA's executive has almost gleefully grabbed any excuse not to dredge Hickling. Whilst I appreciate there are problems I stand by my contention that we must have a firm lead on this one. There is both a need to and a legislative requirement to dredge. However, can English Nature actually prevent the BA from doing its duty, e.g. dredge? Since, in my opinion, the need is as much navigational as it is a conservation matter. I/We don't know what is going on behind closed doors but over the last twenty five years remarkably little appears to have been done. Little and often might have prevented the need for what is now surely going to be a fairly major project. This recent PP breakout must surely take this issue to the top of the pile.

Hickling Broad is part of the Upper Thurne Site of Special Scientific Interest. In any SSSI, permission must be obtained from Natural England before carrying out certain operations (dependant on the actual SSSI). In the case of the Upper Thurne (including Hickling Broad) those operations requiring such permission can be found here

 

I draw particular attention to items number 7 and 13b on the list.

 

Continually blaming the Broads Authority for the apparent decline of the broad is as unproductive as it is incorrect. Perhaps there is a need for a better understanding, not only of the issues that are contributing to the decline, but also of the immense difficulties faced by the Authority in trying to overcome extremely powerful (i.e. legislative) hurdles.

[BroadScot]

I personally think, you could discuss this till you are blue in the face. It appears to me as an outsider/holidaymaker it comes down to one commodity.  "MONEY" or rather the lack of it, to complete ALL the work  required. 

 

For those of you who live there, it must be so annoying/frustrating that Hickling Broad is in the mess it is. 

 

 

 

Iain.

[Paladin]

I personally think, you could discuss this till you are blue in the face. It appears to me as an outsider/holidaymaker it comes down to one commodity.  "MONEY" or rather the lack of it, to complete ALL the work  required. 

 

For those of you who live there, it must be so annoying/frustrating that Hickling Broad is in the mess it is. 

 

 

 

Iain.

I wish it was only down to the money. But, in the case of Hickling Broad, lack of money didn't stop the proposed dredging at the top of the broad, Natural England did. The Broads Authority is, literally, at their mercy.

 

But, as we've seen, if it all goes to rat's, it will be the Authority that gets blamed, not Natural England, the Wildlife Trust or any the others who are putting up the obstacles.

 

In other areas, the Authority is getting on with the dredging programme.

[ExMemberBobdog]

And surely this goes to show what a complete red herring the whole 'national park' debate is.  The fact is that, in environmentally sensitive areas, whether or not the Broads have national park status is irrelevant because other legislation outside the national parks rules will ensure that priority is given to environmental protection.

Here's a conspiracy theory - are the anti-national park lobby a '5th column' simply trying to divert our attention from the real issues?

[Paladin]

And surely this goes to show what a complete red herring the whole 'national park' debate is. The fact is that, in environmentally sensitive areas, whether or not the Broads have national park status is irrelevant because other legislation outside the national parks rules will ensure that priority is given to environmental protection.

Here's a conspiracy theory - are the anti-national park lobby a '5th column' simply trying to divert our attention from the real issues?

I have made no secret of my objection to the national park name, simply because it is a LIE. But that opposition hasn't diverted my attention from other issues, such as the failure of Defra to follow their own rules regarding the appointment of BA members.

However, if the Broads was actually a national park, the way would be open to extinguish the navigation rights on Hickling Broad.

[JennyMorgan]

A very public debate/conference involving ALL relevant stakeholders is a possible way forward. I am quite aware of the problems faced by the Authority on this one but nevertheless I do feel that a greater enthusiasm would help. Whatever, greater awareness by the general public would not go amiss. 

[Bonzo]

I can't see why anybody in their right mind would want to close Hickling Broad to navigation.

 

A few boats chugging down the main channel and the odd one swinging at anchor does not make the slightest difference to the wildlife. Even the sailing which is a great amenity has very little impact. The water birds just get out of the way.

[Paladin]

I can't see why anybody in their right mind would want to close Hickling Broad to navigation.

 

A few boats chugging down the main channel and the odd one swinging at anchor does not make the slightest difference to the wildlife. Even the sailing which is a great amenity has very little impact. The water birds just get out of the way.

I can't see why anybody in their right mind would want to sit in an open boat or on a wind-swept river bank, in freezing conditions, in the middle of winter, trying to catch a fish which, if by some miracle they succeed in catching, they promptly return to the water. But they do it in their thousands.

 

History shows that navigational rights on the Broads have been diminished, and even extinguished, by single-minded, selfish, and usually wealthy, individuals and organisations, whose only concern has been the so-called protection of wildlife, mainly birds. Even staithes, which had been public, have been 'privatised' by dubious means.

[imtamping2]

Yes  in this country we have too many narrow minded do-gooders and not enough realists.

[Bonzo]

I have never seen a bird run down and killed by a boat, they usually just flutter up and follow the boats looking for food scraps. Having boats on a broad does not harm or discourage birds from being on the water.

 

Boats rarely approach the reeds so there is no problem in disturbing nesting birds.

 

I daresay it is the little men in camouflage jackets hidden under piles of vegetation with expensive cameras etc that are source of the problem. Having a boat in their pictures really does spoil their day.

 

Lets live and let live I say. Stinkies, Raggies, Walkers, Canoeists, Twitchers and Fishermen, just enjoy the Broads and stop picking holes in each other's pleasure. The Broads is big enough for all of us.

[BroadScot]

Bonzo, well said.  The Broads are for ALL, not just a few. Although sometimes I do wonder, are they?

 

 

Iain.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

It does make me wonder why there is more than one Auhtority that oversee the running and welfare of the Broads, should`nt the BA be solely responsible?. If the BA were alone in this responsibilty, then it would be far easier for any legal claims or protestations to get things done according to their remit. I will always be very wary about the truth behind any authorities reasoning and preferences, because most authorities are run by men in suits with a personal agenda, which more often than not is against the wishes of the majority, or worse still, those that fund them. Could the very fact that the broads are overseen by more than one authority mainly because it`s a surefire way to overcomplicate preceedings, therefore allowing things to fall by the wayside, because of too much inter authority meddling. In the houses of parliament, they call it Philibustering, could the multi authority way be the desired way to ensure that actually, NOTHING really worthwhile gets done to save the BA and Natural England a lot of money that can be spent on "Executive jollies and expenses etc"?.

 

Throught time, Authorities have always been good for Authorities, rather than good for what they`re actually there for.

 

I have to admit though, it does make me suspicious as to why none of the Authorities want to do anything about Potter Heigham bridge, which would open up the upper Thurne waters, thus increasing buisness and industry opportunities in that area.

[Soundings]

I live in Potter at the back of Hickling and it is a sublime walk around what is a quiet and largely unspoilt area. I am quite happy for that bridge to remain in situ and for the area to remain quiet with just enough boats of the smaller or saily kind to make it interesting. Money/business is not everything and in any event I m sure all these houses being built will do their bit to help the economy of Broadland!

 

Sorry 

[Guest]

......I have to admit though, it does make me suspicious as to why none of the Authorities want to do anything about Potter Heigham bridge, which would open up the upper Thurne waters, thus increasing buisness and industry opportunities in that area.

 

You've made it very clear how much you hate bridge Neil ! 

 

I wonder how many other Broads users feel the same way as you do though, and that it should be removed or raised, to allow bigger and much more boating traffic through, making it just as busy as the rest of the Broads ?

 

It would be interesting to see the results on a vote thread on it.....