UKS Hosting & eHosting Limited act solely as technical hosts for this web domain and accept no liability for content.
Entire web site ©2006 Broads-
Unauthorised reproduction or transmission in part or in whole is forbidden.
Formal Complaint about the Broads Authority. Page 2
The intrinsic level of inefficiency produced by these central costs implies limited returns from any additional funding. This may be symptomatic of an organisational problem. The tiny geographic area and minimal population by comparison with other members of the National Park family may simply be too small to absorb the level of overhead involved with the commitments of running a quasi National Park.
Comparison of areas covered by National Parks.
Lake District 229,198
Snowdonia 214,159
Yorks Dales 176,860
Peak District 143,833
N Yorks Moors 143,603
Brecon Beacons 135,144
Northumberland 104,947
Dartmoor 95,338
Exmoor 68,637
Pembrokeshire 58,431
The Broads 30,292 hectares
_________________________________________________________________________
(Source: Countryside Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, Stevens & Associates)
The Broads Authority boundaries are tightly drawn around the river system. Six local authorities and two county councils overlap their 30,292 hectares and all have their own agendas and priorities, further diluting Broads policy initiatives and significantly increasing the cost and time involved with communication and consultation. Recent significant expenditure on consultancy reported on ‘Branding the Broads’. Quite simply the Broads cannot be ‘branded’ without considerable reorganisation of a large number of existing tourism bodies. Visit Norwich at one end of the river system decides its own tourism priorities, whilst Waveney District Council is busily ‘rebranding’ Oulton Broad; their third largest tourism destination. The Broads Authority carries a brief for Broads tourism, yet so do the other bodies. The Broads Authority’s tightly drawn boundaries often mean that for example one side of Langley Street near Loddon falls under South Norfolk DC and the side nearest the river is within the Broads Authority’s remit. Puddingmoor, a residential street in Beccles is similarly shared with Waveney DC. These boundaries defy effective marketing. Intentions may be worthy but delivery is a simple organisational problem and given current responsibilities, results must inevitably include wasted resources and confusion in the market.
There may be better organisational alternatives for the Broads area that permit both a lower cost structure and more effective, focussed management – for example redesignation as a Trust Port or a Harbour Conservancy, such as Chichester Harbour.
Disposal of Dredging Spoil.
Dredging spoil from rivers, dykes and broads has been deposited on the banks of Broads rivers for centuries. This has had no obvious ill effect and may be considered responsible for much of the Broads landscape. In many instances, putting dredging spoil back on the river banks returns the spoil to its original source.
Following a meeting in July 2005 to complain about the lack of dredging and current depth of Oulton Broad, Bob Blizzard, Waveney MP arranged a meeting with Jim Knight as DEFRA minister on March 16th 2006 to discuss legislation affecting the disposal of dredging spoil. I was present at this meeting when the Broads Authority representatives were asked which legislation they believed prevented dredging spoil being piled on the river bank. The minister was informed by the senior civil servant present that the legislation cited by the Broads Authority was UK, rather than EEC legislation. The Netherlands will be subject to similar EEC legislation and suffer no difficulty in maintaining their system of canals and dykes – indeed if they fail to maintain them, they’ll drown.
The Broads Authority enjoys similar powers of compulsory purchase to any local authority. Unavailability of marshland for spoil disposal cannot therefore be considered a meaningful reason for insufficient dredging. The possibility of CPO would work wonders in any negotiation with landowners.
Concerns expressed over the lack of dredging have been met by a continuous stream of excuses and an absence of effective action. Waffle, feasibility studies and ‘Sediment Management Strategies’ are no substitute for the remarkably simple process of removing silt from the bottom of the waterways – just as hiring consultants is no substitute for effective regeneration measures for the Broads tourism industry. Current management of the Broads Authority exhibits no obvious interest or enthusiasm for navigation, which many find a little strange when it is such a large proportion of their statutory responsibilities. One of the startling revelations contained in the DEFRA letter signed by J.Kilner and dated 28th May, was a final question whether the Broads Authority has decided whether it wishes to remain a harbour board. This consideration would go some way to explaining their approach to navigation. It should not be overlooked that passenger vessels of up to a capacity of one hundred persons ply the Broads. These have a similar potential for disaster as the Bow Belle/Marchioness collision on the River Thames.
Appendices A and B are unaltered copies of documentation produced by the Broads Authority.
Website Contents
