Legal challenge seeks to quash Broads National Park name change

[ranworthbreeze]

Please see the following link:-

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/legal_challenge_seeks_to_quash_broads_national_park_name_change_1_4093243

[Hockham Admiral]

Oh Dear, Alan........ can of worms comes to mind!  :cry

[Timbo]

So pro National Park people are taking the Broads Authority to court for calling the Broads a National Park when it's not a National Park, because to call the Broads a National Park when they are not a National Park they have dropped the Sandford principle and have promised not to become a National Park in the future?

 

Its those bobble hats squeezing the head!

[Poppy]

Remember - My enemies enemy is not always my friend.......

[Soundings]

It's like little boys squabbling over a lollipop. So sad but....who is gonna contribute to the costs gang?

 

Hell in the real world (the one outside egos) what the hell does it all matter...provided nothing is changing that is. Get a life I say.

[JennyMorgan]

In a perverse way I see this as excellent news. Whilst I don't want to see the sandford principle rear its ugly head again, but lets be honest, it had never truefully gone away, just gone into hiding, this could be the start of a new start. There are one or two enlightened people now both on the Authority and the Nav com and should the high court rule against the Authority there is no guarantee that the quest for National Park status will be reignited. In other words the whole issue will have to be reviewed at committee level.

 

Soundings, whilst I do appreciate your opinion the harsh reality is that it does matter and if someone is rich enough to be able to go to the high court then all power to their elbow. 

 

I really don't care what the issue is, anything that puts a stop to the present Chief Executive's domination of the Authority and its committees has to be a good thing. In my honest opinion the 're-branding' has made an outright fool of the man, brought matters to a head and out into the open, revealed his modus operandi, all of which can only be a good thing and if matters have to now be referred to a round table and a fair and open consultation then so be it.

[JennyMorgan]

Just a thought, Packaman & co spent an estimated minimum of half a million defending the Broads Bill, what will they now spend defending this rebranding nonsense and what account will it all come out of, sure as hell it won't be the Chief Executives!

[Soundings]

I thought you'd say that JM as this is a particular flag you fly continuously. And so you should if you feel that strongly. For me it is all a silly storm in a teacup and I wish it would go away. All this will give rise to is costs (as you point out above) and it is the Broads boat owners who will contribute I reckon.

 

If it all goes awry please do feel free to came back and tell me so as I will undoubtably deserve it

[Baitrunner]

I can see both sides to JM and Soundings arguments - it's about where you stand I guess and how you see it making eventual changes to the areas use.

 

Of course the danger is they change tack and to keep the national park name and go for the Sandford principle.

 

To be honest they can call it the Norfolk Broads National heritage outsandingly beautiful state park if they want to - as long as we can all carry on doing our thing then I don't have an issue.

 

Mind you seeing as most of it was man made in the first place if they wanted to be true to the principle shouldn't they fill it all back in? We wont need the BA then  

[BroadScot]

I can see both sides to JM and Soundings arguments - it's about where you stand I guess and how you see it making eventual changes to the areas use.

 

Of course the danger is they change tack and to keep the national park name and go for the Sandford principle.

 

To be honest they can call it the Norfolk Broads National heritage outsandingly beautiful state park if they want to - as long as we can all carry on doing our thing then I don't have an issue.

 

Mind you seeing as most of it was man made in the first place if they wanted to be true to the principle shouldn't they fill it all back in? We wont need the BA then  

Mark!!! Don't give Grot Yarmouth Council ideas, they will use Breydon as a landfill site!

 

 

Iain.

[JawsOrca]

Mark!!! Don't give Grot Yarmouth Council ideas, they will use Breydon as a landfill site!

 

 

Iain.

 

That would solve the "Bin argument"...   

[Baitrunner]

See Iain - now why didn't i think of that - the BA cant afford to collect waste so for the next 20 yrs we are all allowed to just dump it in the rivers etc and heh presto it's all sorted - no tipper lorries (that has to be good for the environment)? And the Broads back to it's original status.

 

Oh we are good on this forum!  

[Baitrunner]

See, Alan and I are onto something here.

[Paul]

Whilst I object strongly to the Broads being called a National Park that does not make me support this current action in any way, and I am surprised you are Peter. Poppy has the right of it as far as I see, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. If this was being fought just over the name then more power to it, but it is easy to see that it is not. The couple concerned are not bringing this action because they object to the National Park name, but to try and force the Broads Authority into adopting full National Park status, especially the Sandford Principle before they do.

 

These people are, in my opinion, conservationists of the very worse kind, using their wealth and influence to try and force their preferences on everyone else, preferences that would see the absolute prioritization of conservation at the cost of all else, including navigation. A totally odious attitude. Again, just my opinion and Mother always told me to share.

 

This situation was inevtiable when the authority took the decision to misrepresent the broads by calling it something that it is not. Somebody, somewhere was bound to stick their head above the parapet and mount a formal challenge, and now many tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spend on the legal framework, not only by the authority in mounting their defence, but by the country as a whole putting this through the high court.

 

I think the only people who will not be out of pocket will be the claimants, you can bet your bottom dollar that some organisation or another who share their opinions are bankrolling this fiasco, one which does not want to be seen to be publicly active in the matter. Now I wonder who that might be ......

[BroadScot]

Errrr clears my throat....the RSPB ? Just a thought.

 

 

Iain

[Soundings]

Whilst I object strongly to the Broads being called a National Park that does not make me support this current action in any way, and I am surprised you are Peter. Poppy has the right of it as far as I see, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. If this was being fought just over the name then more power to it, but it is easy to see that it is not. The couple concerned are not bringing this action because they object to the National Park name, but to try and force the Broads Authority into adopting full National Park status, especially the Sandford Principle before they do.

 

These people are, in my opinion, conservationists of the very worse kind, using their wealth and influence to try and force their preferences on everyone else, preferences that would see the absolute prioritization of conservation at the cost of all else, including navigation. A totally odious attitude. Again, just my opinion and Mother always told me to share.

 

This situation was inevtiable when the authority took the decision to misrepresent the broads by calling it something that it is not. Somebody, somewhere was bound to stick their head above the parapet and mount a formal challenge, and now many tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spend on the legal framework, not only by the authority in mounting their defence, but by the country as a whole putting this through the high court.

 

I think the only people who will not be out of pocket will be the claimants, you can bet your bottom dollar that some organisation or another who share their opinions are bankrolling this fiasco, one which does not want to be seen to be publicly active in the matter. Now I wonder who that might be ......

Interesting theory.

[Soundings]

Whilst I object strongly to the Broads being called a National Park that does not make me support this current action in any way, and I am surprised you are Peter. Poppy has the right of it as far as I see, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. If this was being fought just over the name then more power to it, but it is easy to see that it is not. The couple concerned are not bringing this action because they object to the National Park name, but to try and force the Broads Authority into adopting full National Park status, especially the Sandford Principle before they do.

 

These people are, in my opinion, conservationists of the very worse kind, using their wealth and influence to try and force their preferences on everyone else, preferences that would see the absolute prioritization of conservation at the cost of all else, including navigation. A totally odious attitude. Again, just my opinion and Mother always told me to share.

 

This situation was inevtiable when the authority took the decision to misrepresent the broads by calling it something that it is not. Somebody, somewhere was bound to stick their head above the parapet and mount a formal challenge, and now many tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds will be spend on the legal framework, not only by the authority in mounting their defence, but by the country as a whole putting this through the high court.

 

I think the only people who will not be out of pocket will be the claimants, you can bet your bottom dollar that some organisation or another who share their opinions are bankrolling this fiasco, one which does not want to be seen to be publicly active in the matter. Now I wonder who that might be ......

Interesting theory, although it comes as no surprise that there are others who share a passion for the Broads but not where boating is concerned. I really think it is all scare mongering but that is just my view. What is interesting is the way the debate always takes the view that it is conservationists working against the interests of boaters - shows how this forum is mainly a single interest environment. I bet somewhere there is a crowd saying it is the boaters working against the interests of the natural environment. Reading all this I do begin to fear that battle lines are being drawn up to the point where there is no room on the Broads for both interests......what a dreadful shame it would be if that were to materialise!

 

Of course the net result is silly squabbles and egos giving rise to all sorts of actions that costs a fortune to the users no matter what their persuasion. Sad, so very sad :-(

 

Can we not just work together?

[JennyMorgan]

At least things are now back in the open, rather than subject to the underhand, devious tactics of recent times. All things considered I'm quite content for these two conservationists to tackle the National parks issue as they have. Should they win, and I hope that they do, it will still take an Act of Parliament to turn the Broads into a National Park. The Broads National Parks Bill has already been thrown out of Parliament. This latest situation would not have occured had the Broads Authority, & Dr Packman in particular, accepted the many refusals to their petulant pleas to call the area something it isn't.

 

As for filling in the unnatural parts of the Broads, the Waveney is largely natural!

[JennyMorgan]

Soundings, there are divisions, regretfully growing, for that we have to thank just one person, guess who!

 

Me, like many Broads boaters, I am also a Broads conservationist.

[Soundings]

 

 

Me, like many Broads boaters, I am also a Broads conservationist.

I am genuinely pleased to hear that JM. It is not always obvious to the uninitiated...and that is not a snipe!

 

Having a foot in either camp is good and illustrates why there is a need for the two interests to work openly together. If that fails then there will be a winner/loser situation arising, even if only perceived. That will damage the entire experience in my view.

[Paul]

Soundings, I think your argument falls apart when you consider that for boaters, or for anglers the conservation of the area is an important part of what makes it what it is, and what we enjoy, so you would have to go along way to find anyone from either camp who would not support appropriate conservation. For conservationists however, many see angling or boating as directly opposed to their ends and so many wish to exclude, or restrict those activities.

 

The Broads Authority is charged with tending to the needs of conservation, navigation and access equally and in my opinion manages to do quite a good balancing act in a difficult position despite the attempts of empire building by it's Chief Executive and rampant pofligacy typical of such KWANGOs.

 

But NEVER underestimate the power and influence of certain "conservation" organisations. I will put on record that I did not previously mention the RSPB, but taking it purely as an example it is one of the largest landowners in the UK, much of that land is not accessible to the public. It is automatically included in the planning process of any major development, road project etc and holds a virtual veto. Government and Industry frequently seek and nearly always accept it's counsel on matters relating to the countryside, land useage etc. It purports to protect our birdlife yet there are many small British bird species in serious declie which are receiveing little or no help or reognition from the RSPB, whilst large raptor breeds with numbers on the increase appear on virtually every leaflet, brochure or booklet. Why, because the RSPB knows what brings in the pennies, what stacks it's war chest. They are one of the most dangerous organisations in this country.

[Soundings]

We all have our views Paul and I respect but do not share yours. I really do not buy into these conspiracy theories. Maybe someone from the RSPB would like to speak up? They seem to get "slagged" off a lot but I never hear their side of the argument or any real specifics. Until I do I will stay where I am on this.

 

Incidentally, I have seen many instances where some boaters and anglers have displayed less that acceptable levels of conservation awareness, so the argument goes both ways. I still believe working together is the right thing to do. 

[JennyMorgan]

Paul, a few years ago the RSPB published it proposals for the Broads, its still available via google.

 

The Broads is the Broads, that is what we need to conserve & protect. It has its identity, why change it? Yes, we should work together, to maintain the Broads for what it is.

 

I would love to see the Broads as a national park if that was the means by which we could protect our Broads for what they are but I fear that others are intent on turning the Broads into just another national park. I do not believe that we can trust the BA with the existing national parks legislation but we do have the Broads Act so Packman & Co should be content with that.

[Paul]

Was that the one that proposed turning the Yare valley into an an undredged natural river valley and limiting the number of fossil fuel powered boats to 50%, adoption of the Sandford Principle, prohibit arable farming in the river valleys, revert large areas of the upper thurne to salt marsh, amongst other things? The same one that gave showed no concern about the livlihood of the many farmers who would be affected, that gave no account of where the money for the many wonderful projects they suggested might come from?

 

I received a copy once, all green and glossy from a suited wonder at an environmental conference a couple of years ago. I gave it back to him, and far be it for me to repeat what I told him to do with it on a forum such as this, enough to say he would have needed a colo-rectologist to recover it!

[JennyMorgan]

The Authority, bless its biodegradable socks, has put itself in a cleft stick, in my opinion. By various, and probably nefarious means, it has managed to make good the reduction in its national parks grant by raiding the tolls revenue. Boaters now pay about 50% of their tolls for Authority overheads. In order to increase income for those overheaads it needs to increase that tolls income. To do that it needs to market the Broads, a duty it actually does not have in legislative terms. So to suggest that the rebrand is for marketting purposes is possibly not their wisest of moves!  However, the Authority does have conservation, recreation and navigational duties, as we all probably know. Does being branded as a National Park actually fascilitate those statutory duties? Personally I don't think that it does so I support the suggestion that the Authority is acting irrationally and is using powers that it does not actually have. Branding the area as a National park is, as has been admitted, for marketting purposes, nothing to do with the three existing, legislative duties of the Authority. Some might argue that the Authority has a duty to promote the Broads, which is true, but that is not marketting.  I do understand the suspicion that some of you have over this challenge but the Courts, in this case, will not be telling Parliament to pass legislation creating the Broads National Park, that is an entirely differant issue for an entirely differant day, in my honest opinion.

 

On another track, do we really want to see the Broads return to the crowded hay-days of the 60's and 70's, just so the Authority can have more cash for its overheads?