Legal challenge seeks to quash Broads National Park name change

[ranworthbreeze]

Indeed Peter, 

This is definitely a two edged sword.

Regards

Alan

[Soundings]

A sound argument and a two edged sword indeed. Personally ,I am not against the idea off a "real" NP but understand why others with a focus primarily on navigation may no be.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Soundings

[Poppy]

promote the broads? one way would be to reduce the hire craft toll, this way the area would appeal to more people as holiday costs would be comparable to other areas of the UK. 

 

who got my soap box out

How about Broads operators producing something like this...... https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/navigating-the-waterways/boaters-handbook

 

Seems it may be a little more complicated to operate elsewhere too  https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/boating-businesses/application-process-and-fees

 

[Soundings]

And when there is no income from boat tolls whose going to pick up the bill?

 

Dave

Well other National Parks survive, Dave. Better than than a linear fish pond full of boats with nowhere to go. And in any event who said with absolute certainty that NP status means no boats for that is what no tolls infers. And that really is just scare mongering in my view - as I have said before there will never be a balanced argument if one listens only to single interest groups. I say that as a boater.

In any event as JM has said the cost of running the Broads should be split across all users/beneficiaries. I agree entirely for that will take the spread of those with an interest into account and not just those with a business /single focus. They can put my tax up a couple of pence if they like but not if the focus remains as is.

[Soundings]

Where did I say anything about percentages. What I said was "in any event who said with absolute certainty that NP status means no boats for that is what no tolls infers".

You are still banging the same drum Dave; you are still inferring that there will be no Toll income if "real" NP status ever becomes a reality (which I doubt but would prefer). I do not believe that one iota. But that is the single interest vision /ideology that prevails in some quarters.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Soundings

[Hockham Admiral]

And so it goes on.................

[Soundings]

Dave, please you are either choosing to misinterpret my posts to somehow prove your point or you have just misunderstood what I am saying. It is not the BA I am accusing of being single interest - they are not and cannot be so. What I am saying is that some of the users of the Broads are single interest and only see the arguments as it affects them and their interest. The picture is far greater. As you say 50% of income comes from Tolls - therefore 50% does not.

We agree that it is a watery haven but there is a lot more to it than just on/in water based activities. In fact standing on Ludham Bridge the other day I found the shed loads of boats tied up along with those looking for mooring a huge distraction from the beauty of the Broadland landscape. Balance is required and I think putting conservation before profit MIGHT be the way to go.....with the correct stewardship. And I do not necessarily agree that the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads have less to offer that the big National Parks - it is just different and more gentle. In any event beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore your view or judgement can only be your personal opinion rather than a matter of fact.

 

 

[littlesprite]

I'm sorry but everyone seems to be equally single interest, some arguing for navigation but equally some are arguing for conservation (full NP status) I thought we currently had the perfect situation with the BA covering all interests none of which take priority. Forget individual groups and self interest the BA controls the area and gives equal priority to all groups, just as it should be.

[Soundings]

Certainly that is the BA's brief, Littlesprite. Whether or not it achieves that is a matter upon which I am sure others are more qualified to comment than I. I do have views but they are just my opinion of course

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

 

I said all along that the BNP rebranding is purely a precurser to the Broads becoming a full national park, and i`ve not changed my mind.  Looking back at what happened to lake Windemere, if the Broads DOES become a full national park, then you can kiss goodbye to power boat racing in Oulton Broad, Water skiing in designated areas, and sea going boats being able to use their engines properly across Breydon.  Later on, there will also be the possibility of a ban on internal combustion engined boats aka Sandford, which is still trying to be implimented behind closed doors on Lake Windemere, even though the NP commitee have denied such murmurings. So Dajens comments are in fact very well put, and something all boat owners and fleet operators should start to question.

[Matt]

From my "over breakfast maths "50% of income does not come from tolls, more like 37% (44% with other nav income). Figures are 14/15

Income from tolls = £2.872m

Other navigation related income = £0.49m

Total other income = £4.34m

The DEFRA grant has been cut by 22% in cash terms.

I would imagine the grant will only go down further going forward.

[Matt]

And if you want to read it:

Review of the Year

General Income and Expenditure

The Authority received National Park Grant of £3,547k and one-off funding of £33k from Defra (£3,775k in 2012/13). In addition to this, the income received from external grant support, sales, fees, charges and interest totalled £762k (£682k in 2012/13). Total income for 2013/14 was £4,342k (£4,456k in 2012/13).

The Authority set a budget for 2013/14 with a forecast surplus of £91k (£272k deficit for 2012/13). The Authority now monitors its budget throughout the year against a forecast outturn which is updated on a monthly basis. The final forecast outturn for the year indicated an anticipated surplus of £87k. The actual outturn saw a surplus of £232k (a favourable variance of £145k). After applying the Authority’s carry forward policy, the net underspend against the forecast outturn budget was £67k for 2013/14 (£70k overspend for 2012/13).

Navigation Income and Expenditure

Income from tolls was £2,872k (£2,800k in 2012/13), other income received for the year from external grant support, yacht stations charges, sales of tide tables, works licences and other miscellaneous services was £481k, (£475k in 2012/13) and interest was £11k (£21k in 2012/13). Total income for 2013/14 was £3,364k (£3,296k in 2012/13). In addition, the Authority received a one-off capital grant from Defra of £82k in respect of urgent repairs to access infrastructure following the tidal surge in December 2013. These works will be completed in 2014/15.

[Soundings]

Yes, the BA would have adopt Sandfprd but they will not HAVE to implement it. That is my understanding anyway. Littlesprite makes some fair points re what might go. Personally I have no problem at all with losing some of this activity. Others, of course, will not agree.

Most of the arguments on this forum are put forward on the basis of what the boating fraternity (who provide less than 50% of income we now hear) wants - more mooring, more electric points, knocking down of Potter Bridge etc,. etc. All to facilitate more complex and ever larger boats and a lot of which are sadly lacking from the visual appeal perspective. I really do hope there is an even louder voice elsewhere that is balancing the books so to speak.

Fishing has been mentioned as it should be. Have you ever tried fishing the Ant on a summers day! It is difficult in the extreme as a boat crashes through one's swim every few minutes (on a good day). Fishing late evening is much better but why should one groups interest be dictated (overpowered) by another.

Interesting what has been said re Windermere and Sandford. The Authority says it is not implementing but we know that behind the scenes they are. Do we have categoric evidence of this?

[smellyloo]

As a local I can;t see what all the cuffuffle is about. The Broads has always been a commercial highway and with the holiday trade, still is.

If becoming a National Park changes this then we in Norfolk & Suffolk should be very worried. Sadly a few "walkie" people wandering around looking for the lesser spotted bog warbler will bring in very little revenue.

Being a rural economy we rely very much on the holiday trade and although we locals might moan about them this trade needs to be encouraged, not controlled by some bloated fat feller in a suit pawing over his latest spreadsheet.

Now if we could open up more of Broadland to cyclists & walkie people whilst embracing the holiday trade then surely we have a win win for all.

[Soundings]

I am a local. There there are those who think profit and money is all there is and they are welcome to it. That said the finances (for the Broads) do have to be managed in a proper and fair manner. Time will tell but I think the Broads will die if they continue as is; they will just become an overcrowed morass of largely unsightly boats. Incidentally, has the Broads always been a commercial highway; a really busy commercial highway? Sure it has has had holiday boats for a number of years but they were not things that were demanding of more and more resources. They were more built to work with the resources available.

But you are right smellyloo in that the Broads should be made attractive to a broader spread of holiday maker. It is not the boater who is going to frequent that nice little pub or eatery three or four miles away from the waters edge. That though means redirecting some of the cash away from navigation, or to be correct (as JM will rightly have a dig) divert more of the none navigation budget into broader development. It will also mean working in partnership with other interests parties.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Soundings

[Soundings]

Sorry, Soundings but that is wrong, the N.P.'s are legally oblidged to implement the Sandford prinviple when ever there is a conflict between conservation and other matters.

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/learningabout/whatisanationalpark/aimsandpurposesofnationalparks/sandfordprinciple

It is and has been used on many occasions by the various N.P's

 

Dave

I am not entirely wrong, Dave - they are not obliged to implement it UNLESS their is a conflict, but thank you for clarifying. I for one would applaud such a course for to be against it suggests that one cares little about the environment and what their preferred activity might do to damage it. Sort of boating, angling, water skiing (enter preferred activity of your choice) at all costs. 

Edited August 15, 2015 by Soundings

[Soundings]

But is is not an equal view, Dave. Not when you read a lot of the threads on here. There is a leaning towards personal interest taking the lead (I am not saying you are in that camp) when to be frank if anything should take precedence it is conservation - for if it is ignored then the Broads will deteriorate. You have to protect the asset and that is what the NPs are trying to do IMO. I agree there should be a balance but at the end of the day the asset must be preserved or there will be nothing at all . Do you not fear for an environment called the Broads that is full of boats, moorings, more boats and plugin points all over the place! Extreme vision? Well maybe, but listen to some of the wants and look at the way the hire fleets are developing their boats (which all end up private boats in the end).

And we must not forget the wild-life (flora and fauna). They are users and part of the character of the area. Thy cannot speak for themselves either.

As you say sustainable balance. 

[Soundings]

We are not far apart, Dave. But at the end of the day my personal take is that if anything HAS to take precedence then it must be conservation for that is the only way to ensure the environment stays available. It is a bit like being a landlord - if you let the building fall down there is nothing to rent out! Now as to the ability of any Authority to discharge that ambition in a way that pleases all is always going to be open to question. What I do believe, though, is that in general terms they try very hard but they are damned if they do an damned if they don't. Look at the BA, there are those who are always ready to jump on them, to encourage the conspiracy theory, to rubbish their sometimes herculean efforts. That does not mean they get it right all the time but I bet they certainly try!

I do not believe conservation is messing with evolution (or it should not be). It is the difficult responsibility to try and maintain an ecological balance where everything broadly remains as it should be. I do not necessarily agree with reintroduction of species that are reducing naturally but there-again I do agree with reintroduction where man originated decimation has occurred. You could argue keeping the Broads dredged is interfering with the natural order of things for as we all know the Broads will not be here forever - the sea will attend to that. On the other hand it is conserving what we currently have for as long as we reasonably can.

Kids playing with Wolves. Now there is an interesting concept. There are certainly some I would encourage to do that   

Edited August 15, 2015 by Soundings

[JennyMorgan]

Personally I believe that we should be preserving & conserving the Broads as the Broads and that means that navigation should take reasonable precedence. If it hadn't been for boats the Broads would not be anything like they are today. Take boats out of the equation, such as at Hoveton Great Broad, and, as has happened, that Broad has deteriorated to a point that it now needs major attention. The Broads, once again, are the Broads. With that in mind our conservation efforts should be with that in mind.

[Soundings]

That is a valid point of view, JM and I would not argue with it. Save that too much navigation will also kill the Broads. It is about balanced conservation.

[JennyMorgan]

 Save that too much navigation will also kill the Broads. It is about balanced conservation.

If by too much navigation you, Soundings, mean too many boats, or unsuitable boats, then I can only agree. Problem is just who will decide? Will folk be rationed to specific days on which they can go boating? Horning can be a nightmare, it can be like Tesco on the last payday before Christmas, but what can be done, force half those boats down onto the Southern Broads, heaven forbid? 

Like most boaters that I know I'm keen on conservation, I want somewhere nice to go boating but, equally, I don't want boating to loose out to conservation. Yes, it is about balance, but if we compare the alacrity with which Oulton Broad is being dredged against the irrational reticence to dredge at Hickling then that balance has not yet been achieved. 

[Soundings]

I believe Hickling is a lost cause, that Bridge is a  tool for those who want to turn that area over to nature and smaller boats. It will never be a significant cruising ground again and as sea levels rise it will get worse/better dependent upon personal view point.

The number/type of boats is a problem and it will be a growing one, yes. There are one or two ways to freeze/reduce numbers I suppose -  put a cap on the number of licenses and/or increase the tolls for instance. I can hear the cries of anguish already, and understandably so, but when something is scarce its value goes up and supply and demand is controlled. There are many things I want and cannot afford and I just have to accept that and move on. It just does not make sense to carry on as we are but the delay in taking action has just exacerbated the problem. Here I certainly do think the BA has failed.

So, yes, JM we are on the same page. Conservation should try an keep the Broads as a nice cruising area that harmonises well with the natural environment. It should be a shared resource where no single activity damages another. All we need is the right people in the job.

I still favour the Broads as a real NP. Maybe it should be a "special" NP with Sandford being tweaked to suite the region and its history (after all the Broads themselves are man made). Or maybe that is what the Broads is supposed to be now, but the BA are seen to be struggling with the management.

[JennyMorgan]

The Broads is only man-made in part, the Waveney is largely natural albeit maintained by man. Oulton Broad was in part a mere although peat digging did extend it. I'm not adverse to the idea of being a National Park, tweaked or not, provided that that status is not used to further upset the balance between boating and conservation. I'm afraid that is one control that the Doctor must be denied. As for supply and demand being controlled by dosh, it is to a degree right now, and it is the big money that is destroying the very character of the Broads as we know it so for that reason I would oppose further control by people's ability to pay. The Authority is struggling with its senior management as are The Broads themselves, in my very honest opinion.

[Soundings]

I believe the Broads is a very cheap waterway toll wise if contrasted to the EA and CRT.  I agree big money (big business) will kill the Broads without doubt but then so will over usage. If pricing is not the answer then a limit on boat numbers and type must be. A tighter control in respect of Broads based business expansion might also be welcome - both in terms of whether the expansion is warranted in a particular area or at all.

Must admit JM I cannot see how increasing tolls will have an adverse impact on the Broads. At least not in the same way as big business and development thereof. Either way these are all tools that are available but they do require deployment by capable individuals. Therein lies the problem I guess.

[JennyMorgan]

I sat on a previous toll review & valuewise, based on information supplied by the BA itself, I no longer see the Broads as a cheap waterway, after all there are only 150 odd miles of waterway, the bridges are maintained by Rail Track & county Highways Departments and we only have one 'lock'. A large part of the dredging, water quality and bank work has been done by the Environment Agency. 

As for the impact of rising tolls, boat insurance etc, there is plenty of evidence to back the fact that smaller cruisers and boats have deserted the Broads in droves. Rise the tolls further and all that will remain are the larger boats, boats that are questionably not best suited to the Broads, large boats that demand extensive moorings. 

National Parks aren't just about conservation, allegedly they are also about providing space and recreation for us humans, only such as English Nature, or whatever they are called today, seem to have forgotten that 'inconsequential' fact! Should the Broads really only be for the well heeled?