Legal challenge seeks to quash Broads National Park name change

[Soundings]

Some good reasoning there JM  . Taken per available mile the Broads are not cheap but as a debit to the bank account I still think they are cheaper than some, without offering the spread. So yes not such good value on that basis.

No I do not believe the Broads should just be there for the "well healed". But there are more and more of us humans on this planet with more disposable income. Surely the Broads cannot be expected to accommodate this ever increasing demand. As you say there are only 150 miles.

I really do take your point about the smaller boats. So cannot the tolls be adjusted to favour them and deter the big stuff? I would not have a problem with that and it could still be combined with an overall max number of registrations if necessary.

Should mention, I know a few small boats that are no longer on the Broads. These are not because of cost but because of congestion/lack of facilities at peak times. 

And I most certainly agree, NPs are not (or should not be) just about conservation. I have always believed and understood that to be the case.

[Soundings]

Dajen, I used the words "maybe" and "special" as opposed to a current NP varient. It is my firm help belief that anything can be tweaked if Govts put their mind to it - nothing is set in stone. It really is not beyond the wit of man to progress an idea because it does not suite a specific scenario. It is called evolution. And there are many ways to dress that change up. Do not the Scots have a "version" of the Sandford principal?

There is no reason to apologise...oh yes there is I really do object to your assumption that I do not understand. 

[Soundings]

Now that is rubbish. I am certainly not single interest. If I am perhaps you would be so kind as to let me know what that interest is? Please do share.

I said "Or maybe that is what the broads already is supposed to be now" which infers that we may need no further legislation. But personally I still favour Sandford as a general principle and I see conserving the Broads as conserving its unique character in terms of usage, culture and wildlife - the balance is critical. Does the Sandford Principle really stop that, is that the intention, or is it management's potential interpretation that is the concern?

You can justifiably argue that we do not need Sandford as the legislation covering the Broads provides the protection we need. I do not disagree, except that I am not so sure the protection is really there. In any event the NP label is rather nice from the tourism perspective; but only if it does not destroy the heritage.

So if a concern that the Broads is properly and fairly cared for is single interest I happily stand guilty as charged.

[Paul]

Soundings, you show a terrifying ignorance of national park processes and responsibilities when you suggest a "tweaked" Sandford Principle might be applied to a Norfok & Suffolk Broads as a full National Park. Sandford is absolute, it is what prevails when all other compromise has failed and rules wholly in favour of conservation.

Sandford would end navigation on the broads.

What your comments advocate is exactly what you have now? I can understand Dajen's comments as you seem to say one thing but advocate another .

 

[marshman]

Dave - I did not really want to get involved and I shall probably regret it, but you keep going on here and probably elsewhere about the Sandford  principle as though a) it is often used and  it is used because there is nothing else.

i believe, and no doubt you will now prove me wrong, but there are very very few cases where Sandford has been invoked and conservation forced over other issues, and why is this, b ) because there now many more EU and directives which the BA has to adhere to, and indeed other NP's have to as well. . In many respects I understand ,especially from those in the field, that Sandford is of little real concern simply because the directives and regulations to do what Sandford did exist elsewhere..

Now no doubt someone like Pally should come along and state those directives and regulations are but Sandford is "old" law and,so i am told, largely superseded by more relevant regulations - certainly I don't recall ever talking to people i know that Sandford is ever quoted as being of relevance.

But then i guess I am wrong ,yet again!!

 

 

[Paul]

I also  wonder  at those  who suggest that there are too many boats. Facts are that there are only a fraction of the boats there were 40 years ago, and a far greater number are now privately owned and see little use compared to hire boats. I have no doubt that has led to the demise of the stracey arms and the inevitable loss of the Berney Arms and likely loss of Broadshaven and Beauchamp. The broads desperately needs more  holiday  boaters along with the money they spend if the infrastructure is to survive

[Soundings]

Dajen, I thought you had gone!  However, If you accept, as I do, that conservation is about maintaining, protecting and improving what is there in a way that maintains a fair balance, then yes I stand guilty as charged.  But then I have already said that.

What I do not want to see, and there is some evidence of it, is one interest group getting a bigger share of the asset to the point where it starts to damage that asset.

[Soundings]

I also  wonder  at those  who suggest that there are too many boats. Facts are that there are only a fraction of the boats there were 40 years ago, and a far greater number are now privately owned and see little use compared to hire boats. I have no doubt that has led to the demise of the stracey arms and the inevitable loss of the Berney Arms and likely loss of Broadshaven and Beauchamp. The broads desperately needs more  holiday  boaters along with the money they spend if the infrastructure is to survive

There are I am told about 13000 boats register on the Broads and growing. It often seems like they are all Up North. It really is hectic or can be unless you are one of the hardy soles who do not mind crowds. It is exacerbated by the reduction in mooring places, especially wild moorings. There is also the increasing demand for more power points and with boats getting bigger and bigger. Have no idea what the numbers were 40 years ago but I bet there was a lot more wild moorings and the boats would have been simple and designed to work with the environment.

As JM has said, if a lot of the boats could be encouraged to move South it would help. But they remain North and so do the bigger hire fleets I believe. I love boats but not crowds, at least not all the time, and mud weighting is not always an option or desirable

[Soundings]

 Sandford will have to be part of the package and in my opinion that will impact on boating.

 

Dave

I don't disagree with that at all. All I am saying is it could be beneficial if the word "conservation" could be used sensibly and this seems unlikely. Given that we have no alternative to the BA but I think they have a problem being impartial given the funding. I would prefer NP status if Sandford could be applied in a reasonable way that benefits all. However for some reason that I do not understand it appears that Sandford and Navigation are in constant opposition.

[marshman]

You see , I don't think Honister is a good example at all and just proves my point. Whilst I agree it was mentioned, the real reason why the original application was refused was simply no one wanted it except perhaps the applicant. The Planning Committee was against it as were 2/3 rds of the locals and Sandford was not invoked simply because there was no chance it would get through at that time.

I believe subsequently through compromise, some agreement has been reached, and whilst I am unsure of the exact current position, if Sandford were invoked and  applied,they would be forced to close it down. Perhaps it has or perhaps i misunderstand!!

On another issue in Soundings post re overcrowding, " wild" moorings appear as a result of overcrowding. It is no good pointing out that there are x number of boats and overcrowding exists because of this, simply because a huge number of private boats never move - only today where I moor my boat there were just 15/20 cars in the park serving perhaps 80 moored boats. There are just about 800 hire craft today against a peak in the early 70's of, what was it, 3/4000??

Put that number of hire boats on the river today and more "wild" moorings will open up simply because they will need to - I can think of lots of old" wild" moorings now overgrown which could be opened up with a brush cutter - Lord Paul has long been an advocate of this!!

I do accept that there however is a proliferation of "Private" signs as well - whats mine is mine and shall stay that way!!! A bit like the Norfolk Archaeological Society and that St Benets mooring  - always moored there for many years!! A bit hard but serviceable - along come the NAS, put a wooden front on it so the Bishop can use it ONCE a year and then slap "Private" all over it!! Thanks a bunch - I would not encourage this but those signs should be unscrewed!! No wonder people rightly ignore them!!!!

[BroadScot]

Whilst the beauty of Loch Lomond will never change, IMO since it became a NP it is NOT the place I visited when younger. Too many regulations?

My worry about the Broads is a group with a lot of clout. NSPB. I have not become involved in the discussion, and this is a one off reply. You may well not agree with any of it, but its how I see things going. Maybe though, NOT in my lifetime.

Iain

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

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. 

If you want a classic case of deterioration on the Broads, look no further than beyond the limits of navigation on the river Ant, past the junction of Dilham Dyke and the North Walsham and Dilham Canal, also, above the now disused lock at Coltishall, and above Geldeston Lock. These three stretches of the broads are badly overgrown, silting up, and in some places, unnavigable, even by canoe. But hey, by not having any boats using them, that`s conservation, or is it?. These three stretches of rivers and canals have been left to mother nature, and are now vitrually unrecogniseable as former navigable rivers, and bear more resemblence to a stream. Sometimes consrvation is NOT in the best interest of the location.

 

As for fishing the Ant on a summers day, with the hire boat season being little more than May to Spetember inclusive, that`s precious little more than 4 months. anglers have 9 months of the year to fish the Ant.

 

[JennyMorgan]

Interesting quote in the official, Parliamentary records in Hansard:

' . . . for the avoidance of any doubt, the Broads are NOT LEGALLY a national park and DO NOT come under the national park legislation, AND NOR WILL THEY.'

This is a quote from 2015 and from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA himself.

The obvious comment to that is 'if it isn't and won't be a national park then why call it one'?

 

 

[Soundings]

If you want a classic case of deterioration on the Broads, look no further than beyond the limits of navigation on the river Ant, past the junction of Dilham Dyke and the North Walsham and Dilham Canal, also, above the now disused lock at Coltishall, and above Geldeston Lock. These three stretches of the broads are badly overgrown, silting up, and in some places, unnavigable, even by canoe. But hey, by not having any boats using them, that`s conservation, or is it?. These three stretches of rivers and canals have been left to mother nature, and are now vitrually unrecogniseable as former navigable rivers, and bear more resemblence to a stream. Sometimes consrvation is NOT in the best interest of the location.

 

As for fishing the Ant on a summers day, with the hire boat season being little more than May to Spetember inclusive, that`s precious little more than 4 months. anglers have 9 months of the year to fish the Ant.

 

If you say so. The fact that there are four months a year when the Ant is solid with boats is incidental then? Not in my books. But in all seriousness conservation and silting up are not necessarilyhe same thing are they? It could just be bad management or an ownership issue  Does the BA have powers over the areas you are referring - not sure what the divides are re the NW & D Canal nor above Coltishall lock but the locks probably leak and that will certainly drop levels. The same re Geldeston, who is responsible for the lock and beyond. I do know there is a canal trust restoring the NW&D Canal but where its responsibility starts and stops I do not know.

Conservation is preserving where preserving is a realistic option. I would not condemn or support the BA in the areas you refer for I do not know the legal position. Maybe some one can enlighten me? It would be nice to see the canals restored though, I do agree.

[littlesprite]

50 years ago most of the canal systems in England were dry, derelict and supported very little life. Without the need for legislation or NP status, groups of volunteers and narrow boat enthusiasts started work on restoring and bringing the canals back to life which was of benefit to narrow boaters and nature.

The broads has shown steady improvement under the BA over the last 20 years, why upset the balance now?

[Soundings]

I think it is more about not letting the balance get skewed, Littlesprite. There have been some great improvements but as in all things not everything is for the better. And some things might actually help the area generally and not just the waterborne activity. I genuinely do worry about the quest for business expansion and profit and the long term effects that can have.

Incidentally, the NW&D Canal Trust is apparently working with the canal owners and land owners to regenerate. That presumably means it has nothing to do with the BA? I can remember going up to the lock in a small Mayland cruiser and hammering the Roach. That was some years ago now though.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Soundings

[JennyMorgan]

50 years ago most of the canal systems in England were dry, derelict and supported very little life. Without the need for legislation or NP status, groups of volunteers and narrow boat enthusiasts started work on restoring and bringing the canals back to life which was of benefit to narrow boaters and nature.

The broads has shown steady improvement under the BA over the last 20 years, why upset the balance now?

Has it really? Or are most of the substantial improvements, like water quality, really down to the Environment Agency? I can't deny that in many respects things are better but having been involved on the inside I would suggest that many improvements are despite the Authority. I recently noticed on another forum a comment from a visitor about the 'demasting pontoon' at Gt Yarmouth which is 'located between two bridges'! Personally I avoid the damaging 'hard' surfaces at BA 24hr moorings, the grit used is nasty stuff on paint and gelcoat. Plenty of examples, good and bad, but on balance not an altogether impressive record, imho.

[littlesprite]

Before the BA took over the broads were dying, boating was shrinking fast, water quality was poor, visitor numbers were down, businesses were suffering, many species of wildlife were disappearing.  You can if you choose ignore the BA's part in that but whatever the improvements are there to be seen so I ask again why upset the balance.

[Soundings]

And I say again because there is a risk of that balance being skewed. So rather than upset it we should make sure we have an infrastructure that maintains it. I am not so sure I would call the loss of all those moorings at South Waltham Broad (Fleet Dyke) an improvement. I would not call the butchering of all those trees and shrubs above Potter Bridge in the name of flood defences an improvement. And I would not call the ever increasing numbers of larger high tech craft requiring power points an improvement. There are  many other example good and bad - there is a way to go yet.

But that is just my take.

[JennyMorgan]

 

Martin, over the last decade there can be little doubt that the pressure to upset the generally reasonable balance that is The Broads has come from the upper echelons of unelected power within the Authority. If you choose to ignore the influence emanating from above then so be it, but the trust has gone, the threat to the balance is clear, if you care to look.

[JennyMorgan]

And I say again because there is a risk of that balance being skewed. So rather than upset it we should make sure we have an infrastructure that maintains it. I am not so sure I would call the loss of all those moorings at South Waltham Broad (Fleet Dyke) an improvement. I would not call the butchering of all those trees and shrubs above Potter Bridge in the name of flood defences an improvement. And I would not call the ever increasing numbers of larger high tech craft requiring power points an improvement. There are  many other example good and bad - there is a way to go yet.

But that is just my take.

Soundings, please don't confuse the work of the Authority with that of the Environment Agency. With regard to the ever increasing number of large, high tech craft, that is down to the hire yards and their perception of customer demand rather than the Authority. Where there is, in my opinion, an error of judgement by the Authority, is their pandering to the owners of these craft. However I understand that there is discussion within as how to milk the owners by readjusting toll calculations for large boats, both hire & private.

Edited August 17, 2015 by JennyMorgan

[Soundings]

Fait point JM, but they are all things that have gone awry. Re the big boats, I mention that as it would not be a bad thing for the BA to get to grips with the issue. From what you say this is on the cards so a big thumbs up for that.

[JennyMorgan]

I read that Norwich is in the National Park, despite being outside the Broads Authority's administrative area! It gets dafter and dafter!

http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/17/12-reasons-why-norwich-is-the-best-city-in-the-uk-5341804/

I suppose Gt Yarmouth can now claim to be a National Park too.

[JennyMorgan]

For your delectation and interest:

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/618680/Update-on-Judicial-Review-Claim-National-Park-Branding-Decision.pdf

Amazing, even horrifying.

[Hockham Admiral]

Interesting, with a top QC costing abt £20k a day the bill could be £100k, at least it's not coming out of the Nav Acccount.

 

Dave

Dave, hi.

It's coming from the "Authority's national park reserves" as stated in Peter's link......   

At this stage it is not possible to determine the potential legal costs that may be incurred by this Authority in seeking to defend this claim up to and 
including the hearing next year. As of the renewal hearing, the Authority’s costs were estimated to have reached just over £10,000. Any costs will fall 
within the Authority’s Legal budget and should, as expected, those sums lead 
to an overspend of the Legal budget for 2015/16, any additional sums shall be 
met from the Authority’s national park reserves.