The Norfolk BroadsThe Norfolk Broads
Username Password
Norfolk Broads Weather

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 7:20 am BST- Light Rain
5 Day Forecast

Wind 2.0 mph @ 40°
48.0°F/8.89°C Humidity 93% Pressure 29.65 (S)

Welcome to The Norfolk Broads Forum
This is THE Worlds Largest Forum devoted to the Norfolk Broads, here you can discuss issues about the Norfolk Broads. Or just somewhere to chat with others interested in the Norfolk Broads area. In 2015 forum members spent 2,048 days afloat on the Broads

Please Help Support The Norfolk Broads Forum
OR

The Norfolk Broads Forum / Broads Authority Issues / Broads National Park
login
join
Graphics Off
Search
Forum Members - Book your Hoseasons holiday today, Just call 0345 498 6296

This is a moderated forum Reply to this DiscussionReply to Discussion | Start new discussionNew Discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Discussion Topic: Broads National Park

Similar Threads That Might Help :
The Broads National Park Authority Bill| Doubts Over Broads " National Park " name | Doubts over Broads 'national park' name| Doubts over Broads 'national park' name| Broads: National Parks plan being drafted| Broads National Park survey|

-- Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

Marshman
Feb-16-2018 @ 9:49 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mardles sometimes
Posts: 3563
Joined: Oct 2006
Marshman
          

Add To Ignore List
I sadly think that this site is being taken over by the "wrong" people!!

Not that I worry too much, but there continues to be a huge negativity here, and very little balance. If you suddenly came upon this site you may be forgiven for thinking the BA have very little support, do a rubbish job and constantly lie, deceive and operate without any consideration for users of the whole area.

In fact, the detractors are in the minority - there is little evidence that the majority have any real issues with the way the area is run generally. Of course we all moan but perhaps this pervading attitude is why this site is no longer the "main" Broads Forum???

I shall still read it and comment, as I have always done but I do perhaps see why others no longer inhabit this area!!!

batrabill
Feb-16-2018 @ 10:00 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 367
Joined: Sep 2012
batrabill
          

Add To Ignore List
Not exactly going to get a reputation as the friendly forum is it?



Bill

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Exile
Feb-16-2018 @ 11:14 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Been Posting For a Long Time
Posts: 2460
Joined: Aug 2007
          

Add To Ignore List
What I dislike most about this subject is the very personal attacks that it seems to generate. Very distasteful and wholly unnecessary.
As a forum we should be more grown up.

JollyRodger
Feb-16-2018 @ 12:22 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 152
Joined: Jul 2010
          

Add To Ignore List
I have watched this topic materialise across various forums and groups. Insults there are, often towards the intelligence and experiences of those of the Little People who dare to be unhelpful to the cause by criticising the Authority.

For the record, in regard to the Authority's clamouring to be a national park I have lifted this comment as it's pertinent to the debate:

Text"The Broads National Park Authority Bill.

It contained an opening statement or two:-

"To change the name of the Broads Authority to The Broads National Park Authority; to confer further powers on that Authority; and for related purposes."

and

"(3) It is expedient that the names of the Authority and of the area of the Broads for which it is responsible should be changed respectively to the Broads National Park Authority and to the Broads National Park:"

and

"“the Park” means The Broads National Park;"

Note that these extracts are verbatim and come from the second draft of the Bill with track changes dated May 25, 2006 after the CEO was told to desist in the DEFRA letter dated May 24, 2006.


Personally I can not believe that John was not aware of the implications of Sandford to the Broads or Sandford's inclusion in national park's legislation.

I look forward to John's responses.

Jolly Rodger

Paladine
Feb-16-2018 @ 12:31 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 7490
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

Going off topic for a moment. To those who complain that this is not a friendly forum, I suggest you take a look at others. We don't have a section in which we hide things that might upset Joe Public. What you see is what you get. Nor is the use of the bad-language filter much in evidence, as it is elsewhere.

Anyone reading the threads should realise that they tend (mostly) to keep to the subject of the thread, which is usually fairly well-defined. To extrapolate a criticism of one area of operation of the BA into meaning that ALL operations of the BA are worthy of the same criticism is, in my opinion, fallacious.

There is nothing whatsoever stopping those who complain about such criticisms from posting information about things that the BA do particularly well. I have done so in the past.

As for being "taken over by the wrong people", that implies an influx of new members with a particular agenda. What I see is a number of long-established members posting their views. That some members have chosen to go elsewhere to post has got nothing whatsoever to do with criticisms of the Broads Authority, as everyone well knows. In fact, some of those who left are just as vociferous in their new homes. I wonder just who the "right" people would be.


"..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."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

Paladine
Feb-16-2018 @ 12:34 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 7490
Joined: Jul 2008
Paladine
          

Add To Ignore List

Back on topic.

John Packman was appointed as CEO of the Broads Authority in March 2001. In July 2002, Defra published a document entitled “Review of English National Park Authorities”. There was a separate section in that document devoted solely to the Broads.

In that section, Defra says (emphasis added):

“We would wish the study to consider:
i) the case for amending the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 to make explicit the National Park status recognised in planning and other legislation; to reflect changes in circumstances, such as the decline in commercial navigation over recent years; to enable the Authority to implement the next phase of its modernisation programme; and to amend its name to make the status of the area clear to the general public and to give effect, if possible, to the wishes of the members of the Authority for it to be known as The Broads National Park;


and

” Representations have been made that Government should consider whether the Broads Authority should, like National Park Authorities, explicitly be subject to the Sandford principle.”

The full document can be read here

Someone obviously asked for the Sandford principle to be applied to the Broads, otherwise why should the Government be asked to consider it. Unfortunately, the document doesn’t specify who made the request.

"..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."
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for DEFRA (Hansard 2015)

batrabill
Feb-16-2018 @ 12:42 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 367
Joined: Sep 2012
batrabill
          

Add To Ignore List
I wrote a long reply but then realised I'd just wasted my time.

BA has said: NO Full NP. NO Sandford.

So all that's left is a personal decision as to whether they're lying.

Hope everyone has a lovely Spring.





Bill

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

GaryCantley
Feb-16-2018 @ 1:22 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Hamster & Screwdriver Keeper
Posts: 7483
Joined: Jul 2005
GaryCantley
          

Who has said they are lying?

Gary.

Cantley
Computers


At the going down of
the sun
and in the morning,
we will
remember them.

TerryTibbs
Feb-16-2018 @ 1:32 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 6748
Joined: Jul 2007
TerryTibbs
          

Add To Ignore List
"I have noted comments stating that, by using the term Broads National Park, the Broads Authority may somehow invoke a change in designation by stealth and that the Sandford Principle could be applied. I can categorically restate that this is not the Authority’s or my intention and I would not support it.

I have never advocated the application of the Sandford Principle to the Broads - quite the reverse."



J.P. It was written in the previous Broads Plan that the Authority was working towards attaining full National Park Status, that is a fact!
Full National Park Status includes adherance to the Sandford Principle, that is also a fact.
In the discussions concerning adopting the name The Broads National Park the Authority specifically stated that it would no longer be persuing it's ambitions for full N.P. status.

How does your statement as displayed above square with the facts.

Dave

if it is to be it is up to me.

Exile
Feb-16-2018 @ 1:45 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Been Posting For a Long Time
Posts: 2460
Joined: Aug 2007
          

Add To Ignore List
I am on record here as stating that I did not believe that the Broads should be known for marketing purposes as a National Park. I could see the marketing potential but was not convinced that was necessary or the way forward. However, that decision was taken and has been ratified, as JP points out in his opening post.
We have to live with that. There is no point going over the same old ground. We are acting like a nimby that has had a house built next door, but still cannot accept it. That is both pointless and damaging to both sides.

On the issue of Sandford. The BA state that is not, and will not ever be, on the cards. We have to hold them to that.
An outsider, with no personal interests in the Broads,
would probably see the current arrangement as a win, win. Maximum marketing potential along with stated protection from the curse of Sandford (as that is what it would be on the Broads).
Shall we move on? Or is it better to keep dragging up past documents and fighting lost battles?



This message was edited by Exile on Feb-16-18 @ 12:47 PM

PAGE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Home Photo Gallery Days Afloat Contact Us
Chat Room Downloads Norfolk Broads @ Amazon Make My Logo
Shops & Businesses Members Gear Norfolk Broads @ EBay Holiday Calendar
Pub Guide Tide Tables SOS List Popular Threads
2017 Calendar Contest Make A Donation Links Hireboat Info
Norfolk Broads @ CafePress FAQ Broads Quiz Forum Events
Advertise With Us Forum Shop Boating Bits Stickys and FAQs Boating Bits Hirecraft List

 

 

 



Copyright © 2005 Y2KInternet, All Rights Reserved.