|
|
News
Topic has 1283 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 20/07/2008, 7:50 AM
|
john
Joined on 07/08/2007
Posts 1,145
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing I just cannot get my head round is the fact that the conservationists[R.S.P.B.] were stated to be up in arms because the nesting wading birds lost thousands of their eggs due to flooding near the Ouse,and yet they seem quite happy to see the Norfolk Broads surrendered to the North Sea.Keith says it is time that the people should be protesting against money being wasted on things like the Olympic games.True Keith,one way to do it is to stop chasing dreams and boycott the Lottery.I notice that the prize money has dropped from over £8m on a Saturday to less than £4m.Perhaps people are at last seeing sense as to how the money is being spent.John
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
20/07/2008, 10:28 AM
|
gardener
Joined on 04/10/2007
Posts 1,178
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keith, without sitting down and reading up on it I think that the point is already reached because bits of the Fens are below sea level anyway, which is why they are pumped and sluiced to drain them. Past Denver Sluice the water was pulled out by the tide. But yes as sea levels rise then I suppose there will have to be more banks and more sluices and more pumps.
John
Some of the birds that nest on the Ouse Washes are extremely rare and do not nest in many other places. The washes at Welney etc are some of the few places where they can breed as they have done for a long long time. The habitat in the Broads I suppose is a little more general and I assume that if the RSPB are happy with inundation ( although I must have missed that bit) I assume it must be because they believe a habitat of equal value would be created ( it would be like that of North Norfolk around Salhouse and Cley)and that the rest of the broads could absorb the displaced wildlife.
They are after all the RSPB. It is up to the NFU. the CPRE and the affected councils to kick up a stink about land loss.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
20/07/2008, 11:59 AM
|
keith gerrard
 
Joined on 16/04/2004
Posts 10,721
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will never object to protecting wildlife and wildlife environments where possible gardener and I agree with the need for organizations to fight this cause.
The final decision should always rest with the local elected representatives however.
IMO most investment into East Anglia and the Fens in particular is wasted simply because it is used to patch up the effects of sea level rise without addressing the problem itself.
Allowing controlled flooding will only stave off the main problem for a few years if at all, as will limited dredging.
It is inevitable that unless something major is done, all the investments in habitat protection will be lost forever and the problem will end up worse and simply further inland.
Dream on keithgerrard@gerrard24.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
21/07/2008, 11:19 AM
|
Jill
Joined on 15/08/2005
Norfolk
Posts 1,999
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a bit of news on the property situation in this area
I do not know if it is a fluke but two properties in my area have had offers accepted on them this weekend.
They have had to drop the price but one of them is still in positive equity, that is good.
A bit galling for me as one is my next door neighbour who was away on holiday when the viewers wanted to have a look. She asked me to show them round and I actually sold it to them. I wanted her to turn the offer down so I could sell mine but it didnt happen.
I think the other property has shown a loss but as the people are desperate to get away at any cost, they havent quibbled.
But it is good to know that there are peole willing to buy around here after the flooding.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
21/07/2008, 11:28 AM
|
john
Joined on 07/08/2007
Posts 1,145
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is good news,at least for the neighbour Jill.I suppose that anyone in their twilight years,retired and just looking for a place to finish up their days it would be ideal.How about approaching the R.S.P.B. Jill,and tell them you have the ideal property which could be used as a luxury hide or approach Natural England and DEFRA and tell them you have the ideal place for a flood watch warden,going quite cheap,thanks to them.John
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 6:31 AM
|
john
Joined on 07/08/2007
Posts 1,145
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The governments flagship quango Natural England are in trouble again.They are to be given a free reign to organise and plan a footpath around Englands coast line,taking whatever land they need from the landowner[who has no right of appeal] and Natural England will be free of government scrutiny.[Bill before parliament today].I was trying to conjure up in my own mind what happens when they come to the Norfolk Coast after the sea has breached the defences.Issue rowing boats or plan a footpath around Norwich? John
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 8:33 AM
|
gardener
Joined on 04/10/2007
Posts 1,178
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had not seen that they had got the go ahead John.It sounds a nice idea but it is a Labour organisation riding roughshod over the countryside again. I know various organisations representing land and property owners were battling the proposals, partly because they know once a footpath becomes a honeypot because of inclusion in a tourist guide, which is especially likely on the coast, their investment can b reduced in value and privacy will disappear.
I am pro public footpaths in the right place and especially where there is an existing historical use and interest but creating footpaths on "virgin" territory without compensation-that sort of grab does not happen in many other aspects of life/business. Footpaths through fields can restrict what they can be used for eg keeping horses in a field that walkers use can be tricky, so landowners use of their own land can be limited.Many of us will have seen that long distance rights of way get used by a smaller number of walkers on their more remote stretches but at access points and places where cars can park they are over used, suffer litter, erosion, pollution from human soiling where a toilet is not available and from dog mess because dog walkers are big rights of way users. Another problem with rights of way is third party insurance-anyone with a big coast edge garden or farm had better check that their premiums wont go up because of the public having access.
And those using footpaths don't get called to account in the same way that owners of land do.
An acquaintance has a field full of nurse cows and calves and caught a walker crosing the field with several big dogs off the lead.When warned not to have the dogs off the lead the walker asked "Well how long will you have the cows on the field, it is inconvenient I shall have to find another route" This is land that the chap had to buy and makes a living from and illustrates the unrealistic attitude that many people have to the countryside .Such as not knowing the difference between open moorland and a field of young corn or complaining about cows or mud in field or that vegetation is too rough- in my book if a path is needed and used the vegetation doesn't get to grow. Yes I know all about bad landowners and wicked farmer stories but how many factories get picnickers damaging their production line and how many homeowners get walkers passing through their back gardens?. With access should come greater accountablity for walkers' behaviour and more public education.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 8:52 AM
|
john
Joined on 07/08/2007
Posts 1,145
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Gardener,I have just read the full story on BBC/Politics.The Bill is before parliament today and it looks unlikely to get through in its present format.Natural England in league with DEFRA seem to be making a habit of destroying peoples lives and livelyhoods without any form of compensation.the biggest worry to me is the fact that these quango's are not answerable to anyone.They are going to be allowed to snatch land,set their own compensation,if any! ,to which there is to be no appeals.Watch out Jill,they might want your back garden.I dont know what the map is called Gardener but there was one which showed the coastal path runnig down from Hunstanton to Great Yarmouth and it ran just behind the caravan site at Waxham.John
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 9:37 AM
|
gardener
Joined on 04/10/2007
Posts 1,178
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just read it John and had no idea it included this proposal-
The aim is to give people access on foot to land all around the English coast, including a coastal route and nearby "spreading room" for outdoor recreation. ( my italics and underline)
So in theory there could be someone with a three acre paddock that they could have bought for £12K finding families rolling up in £40K + luxury 4x4s and making their paddock unusable because they are spreading out from the right of way and playing football drinking beer and other chav activities. To introduce into rights of way legislation the woolly concept of being able to use undefined areas off the actual footpath is appalling and show a total lack of regard for and understanding of how people make their lving in the countryside. Imagine the outcry if pedestrians were given the right to use gardens alongside pavements for outdoor recreation. Same principle-someone had to find the money to buy it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 11:07 AM
|
keith gerrard
Joined on 16/04/2004
Posts 10,721
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worked it out yet?
It is an attempt to bring control of the coast (spreading room!) into uncontrolled organizations to avoid the cost and responsibility of government for flood defense.
Dream on keithgerrard@gerrard24.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 11:12 AM
|
john
Joined on 07/08/2007
Posts 1,145
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We might have sussed it out Keith but have some of those thick idiots sitting in London done so?John
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 12:23 PM
|
gardener
Joined on 04/10/2007
Posts 1,178
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about when you get people camping over night because that is their interpretation of spreading room for reasonable outdoor recreation Jill? Fancy a few surf dudes on the doorstep? Silly I know but if this legislation is muddled could become reality for coastal dwellers near the proposed footpaths.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 12:33 PM
|
keith gerrard
Joined on 16/04/2004
Posts 10,721
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All designed to discourage people from living or working near the coast, to allow access for the sea gardener.
Not our problem voters, blame those unelected organizations, what! nobody there to take responsibility, well what did you expect.
Perhaps you should all wake up.
Dream on keithgerrard@gerrard24.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
22/07/2008, 12:46 PM
|
Jill
Joined on 15/08/2005
Norfolk
Posts 1,999
|
Re: R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was not commenting on the proposal, gardener, just telling of my situation
We have quite a few surf dudes on the doorstep with the jet skiing, bikers, trippers and such like and accept this as where people want to spend their recreational hours. After all, it is where we first found our home. We are fortunate to be in a quiet location where these people have no reason to park or even visit although they are only at the end of the road.
That however, does not mean that the countryside should be "flooded" with visitors where amenities do not exist or damaged by unauthorised camping or other activities.
Our previous home was beside a local pathway to the school and it was a nightmare with damaged fences, litter, unruly behaviour and security, so I do realise the potential anti social and enviromental aspects of this proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
EDP24 Forums » EDP24 General » News » R.S.P.B.Broads report.
|
|
|
|