Adjacent waters - to toll or not to toll

Following recent coverage in the EDP, I would like to talk about tolls for static vessels in adjacent waters. In particular, I would like to talk about an ongoing disputed case which has cost over £35,000 of public money in pursuit of a £500 toll, and which has not been properly brought to the attention of Members for a balanced, informed discussion or decision for over 5 years.

In 2009, the Broads Act gave the Broads Authority some additional powers. These were primarily aimed at ensuring boat safety and adequate third party insurance cover for vessels moored in “adjacent waters”, such as marinas which are attached to the navigation area but don’t form part of it. All boat owners - whether in the navigation area or adjacent waters - are now required to have an up to date boat safety certificate and insurance policy, a move which has significantly raised standards and safety on the Broads.

Additionally, it was argued that vessels moored in adjacent waters should pay a toll, because some boats had been “hiding” in marinas and pretending never to use the river, avoiding payment of their dues and placing an unfair financial burden on other toll payers. Tolls in adjacent waters were therefore set at the same level as those in the navigation area, on the basis that such boats had full access to the navigation area and it was up to the owner whether or not they chose to do so.

Unfortunately, this adversely affected one very specific type of vessel - static boats, such as barges which never move. A reasonable person would conclude that, if such a vessel cannot use the navigation, then they really should not have to pay a navigation toll. Please bear in mind that the definition of a “toll” is a payment for passage, such as on rivers and roads, and is not a parking charge. However, rather than simply charge a registration fee for a static vessel in adjacent waters, instead of a toll, the Authority has embarked upon a legal battle which has so far run for over 5 years and cost tens of thousands of pounds of public money.

In 2012, I attempted to raise the issue at navigation committee, but failed because it had apparently “already been decided” by members at a previous meeting. However, this was not strictly true - whilst members had agreed to the general principle that charges in adjacent waters should be the same as those in the navigation area (for the reasons above), there was no consideration given to the potentially contentious case of static houseboats within the context of this policy. Subsequent events have demonstrated that this type of vessel should have received special attention in the debate.

I also tried to raise the issue again during the Tolls Workshop a few months later, and was shot down by the then-Chairman on the instructions of the Chief Executive, on the basis that members could not possibly debate such tolls because of an ongoing court case between the Authority and Alan Fry - the owner of a Dutch barge - who was being asked to pay a toll of over £550 to moor his static vessel in a private marina. I should at this stage point out that the marina is at Waveney River Centre, of which I am a Director.

Whilst it would clearly have been wrong to discuss the merits of an ongoing court case, the Chairman incorrectly took the view that sub-judice rules should be invoked in order to prevent a debate on that category of tolls in general. It is possible that the Chairman was not aware that there were a number of other vessels affected in a similar way, but the stifling of debate was unhelpful. This is why it is important for Members of the Broads Authority to keep an open mind at all times.

After Alan Fry won his case in May 2015, I asked for it to go on to the navigation committee agenda for discussion. Surely now the committee could discuss the matter, come up with a fair system for static vessels in adjacent waters (a small registration fee, perhaps) and stop wasting money on persecuting people?

Instead, the Authority announced its immediate intention to appeal, but reluctantly agreed to include a report in the navigation committee agenda for 4th June. However, the Chief Executive conspired to ensure that I could neither listen to the officer’s report or contribute to the debate, by bringing in a solicitor who alleged that I had a financial interest in Mr Fry’s toll.

Self-evidently, I cannot have a financial interest in the payment of Broads Authority tolls by my customers. Mooring fees yes, BA tolls no. And in any event, it would be up to me to make that judgement call and to take the consequences. It’s not up to the Authority’s solicitor to accuse me of having a financial interest and to tell the committee that I could be prosecuted if I stayed in the room whilst the matter was being reported. This is a complete misrepresentation of the law and a breach of due process. But again, it had the desired effect, because I was forced to leave the room (under protest), whilst members were told that the Court judgement was wrong and that the Authority must appeal it because it would undermine their right to charge any tolls at all in adjacent waters. Which wasn’t remotely what the judgement said - but how many members do you think took the trouble to read it?

No doubt realising that the Authority’s standing orders had been breached - as well as the law - I was leaned upon not to make a complaint, on the basis of a promise that the issue of tolls on static vessels in adjacent waters would be brought to the next tolls workshop meeting. The minutes record the concerns of members and an agreement that this would need to be discussed at a separate meeting.

Of course, there was no “separate meeting” - and the “tolls workshop” permitted no ideas to be put forward by members, instead paving the way for a hand-picked “tolls review group” to formulate a new system for calculating tolls.

At the October 2016 navigation committee meeting, the Tolls Review Group announced their proposals - which included a rushed last-minute confirmation that adjacent waters tolls would remain the same as those in the navigation area, and that a Court decision had confirmed the Authority’s right to make such charges. This was true, but does rather ignore the important principle that such charges should be reasonable and fair.

Members were also told that it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss adjacent water tolls, due to the ongoing dispute with Mr Fry which remained in the Court system after more than 4 years, but that they would be allowed to discuss it “in the future”. This was a year ago.

Nevertheless I raised my concerns and called for members to be allowed to debate the subject, resulting in the Chief Executive once again accusing me of having a personal financial interest in the case. He later denied having said this and produced a set of meeting notes which sought to prove that he had not - but his notes bear no resemblance to what was actually said in the meeting, and I can prove this as I have a recording.

In the middle of all this shenanigans, in September 2014 the Authority started a new battle front at a marina on the River Yare, by attempting to draw more floating things into the tolls net. Notices suddenly appeared on floating pontoon cabins, telling the owners that their properties were in fact “houseboats” under the “strict wording” of the Broads Act 2009, and needed to pay a toll.

In fact, houseboats are not mentioned anywhere in the Act. The Act says that tolls must be paid for “vessels”, and I can find no definition of “vessel” - either in the 2009 Act or any dictionary - which would include these floating cabins. The 2009 Act requires any such vessel to be capable of being used for transportation by water, which obviously wouldn’t apply to these houseboats, so the Authority decided to extend the statutory definition by adding the words “or being moved”, in an attempt to justify their position. It was even claimed that the inclusion of sailboards in the 2009 Act’s definition of “vessel” must mean that it was open to the inclusion of anything else!

Unfortunately, the 2009 Act provides no mechanism for appealing against these charges (unlike navigation tolls which can be appealed under s31 of the Harbours Act 1964). So the Authority has dug its heels in, safe in the knowledge that the organisation could never be held accountable for its actions.

The 2009 Act is, in fact, so badly drafted in relation to the nature of adjacent waters charges that it has been impossible to get the Courts to agree with one another - which is why Alan Fry’s case has gone on for so long. The most recent judgement (from July 2016) declared that the tolls regime - and the navigation charges - were “reasonable”, but the transcript of the case makes clear that the Court relied upon the Authority’s evidence that these toll charges had been considered by members. I wonder if the Judges would have reached the same conclusion had they known not only that tolls for static vessels in adjacent waters had never been discussed by members, but that they’d been prevented from doing so for the previous 4 years?

Since 2012, the Authority has pursued this case without ever allowing members to debate the issues or re-consider the charges for static houseboats in adjacent waters. The focus has always been on whether the law allows the Authority to make such a charge - and not on whether the toll charged is fair or reasonable. As a result, tens of thousands of toll payers’ pounds have been expended on batting the ball back and forth over the net and, the longer it’s gone on, the more difficult it has been for the Authority to consider reviewing its entrenched position. Even the courts who have found in the Authority’s favour have largely done so reluctantly, agreeing that the charge “seems to be unfair” but finding that the law is “unfortunately” unarguable.

And so it goes on. The ridiculous cost of pursuing this case has far outweighed any benefit to toll payers, and the executive have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent members from scrutinising their actions - including false allegations of financial interests, inappropriate use of sub judice rules, falsification of meeting notes, broken promises and general obfuscation & procrastination.

How can a publicly funded authority be allowed to run up legal bills over 5 years and yet prevent its members from holding it properly to account? Another spectacular failure of governance.

Note - this article represents my personal and private views, and not those of the navigation committee. I attest that I am not acting in my capacity as a member of the navigation committee, as the committee has not been allowed to discuss this matter, and 5 years is more than enough time for it to have been permitted to do so.

Vice Chairman admits to changing the rules to exclude elected councillor

The Duty to Cooperate scandal has intensified, following a meeting of senior members of the Broads Authority and Broadland District Council.

BA Vice Chairman and unelected member Sir Peter Dixon boasted to Broadland leaders that both he and fellow Secretary of State appointee Prof Jacquie Burgess had openly canvassed members to oppose any attempt to reinstate Cllr Lana Hempsall on to the planning committee, going on to say that she was “not liked” at the Authority.

Warming to his theme, he accused her of being “disengaged”, which is a bit rich when you consider that he conspired to remove her from the planning committee without notice or reason, and that both he and Prof Burgess have steadfastly refused to reinstate her.

Standing order 32(2) states that “a member … must not in any way try to influence improperly the choice of candidate for any appointment”, putting Sir Peter and Prof Burgess in clear breach of standing orders - as well as as numerous elements of the code of conduct. Members must never use their position improperly to confer a disadvantage on others, for example, and must treat others with respect.

Proudly confirming that he had altered the Duty to Cooperate statement in direct response to Vic Thomson’s attempt to make the BA comply with its own rules, Sir Peter asked “why shouldn't that happen in such a circumstance?” He seems to think it quite normal that he can change the rules to suit his own personal agenda, and appears unaware that he is placing the Authority’s Local Plan at risk by putting his antipathy towards an elected member ahead of the BA’s Duty to Cooperate with local authorities.

Sir Peter concluded by saying that if Cllr Hempsall “behaved herself” for 6 months then he “might” re-consider the whole situation again. Unless and until that happens, Broadland will remain without any representation on the BA’s planning committee.

The comments from the Authority’s Vice Chairman reveal the staggering degree to which senior members are able to silence dissent and marginalise any member who does not subscribe to the “correct” opinions of the liberal elite. The fact that members appointed by the Secretary of State - who are elected by, and accountable to, nobody - are able to disenfranchise elected members and their stakeholders sends a clear - and unpalatable - message about accountability and freedom of speech at this publicly funded authority.

Readers should note that this article represents my personal opinions and should not be construed as being the view of the Navigation Committee. They are made in my private capacity as an individual, and not as a co-opted member of the Navigation Committee.

BA clears itself of breaking rules by changing rules

What do you do when someone spots that you’ve breached your own rules?

Easy - change those rules.

As I reported last week, the Authority has refused to reinstate Broadland District Council’s elected representative on to the planning committee, despite this action being in clear contravention of the Authority’s Duty to Cooperate statement.

The existence of this duty was completely ignored at the meeting - even though a member asked a direct question about constitutional documents relating to committee membership. Having questioned the Authority subsequently, I was told that the document is not part of the constitution and is neither mandatory nor prescriptive. What then, I asked, is the point of having it? I couldn’t get an answer on that one.

In fact, the Authority doesn’t have a constitution as such, although there are a number of “Constitutional documents” on the website - which the Authority seem to treat as a kind of pick & mix, to invoke or ignore according to their preference.

It is a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011 to have a Duty to Cooperate Statement, as part of the Local Plan. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities “to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation”. If a local planning authority hasn’t complied with its duty to cooperate, then its Local Plan will fail examination and not be adopted.

Armed with that knowledge, you would expect the Broads Authority to comply with this duty by including all local authorities in the planning process. But why do that when you can just change the rules?

Two weeks ago, it was claimed that there was no known document which related to the composition of the planning committee. Just 2 days later, a report was completed for the August planning committee meeting featuring the latest updates to the Local Plan, including a subtle amendment to the allegedly “unknown” Duty to Cooperate. Tucked away on page 129 is a sentence which has been altered from:

“Each of the 6 Districts and 2 County Councils have representation at the Planning Committee by virtue of one of their Broads Authority appointed Members.”

to

“A number of the Local Authority Appointed members sit on the Planning Committee.”

This change is not highlighted in any way, and the remainder of the statement is virtually identical to the previous version. This is nothing more than a contemptuous attempt to change the rules after the event, to justify the arbitrary exclusion of a member on personal grounds, in the hope that nobody notices. Does the BA Chair and Vice-Chairman’s obvious personal dislike for one particular member really merit compromising such important documents as the Local Plan - and the BA’s relationships with other Authorities?

I recall also that at the meeting of the full Authority, the proposal not to include “all local authority members” on the planning committee was defeated on the basis that any such decision should wait for the upcoming governance review. Why, then, is it ok to sneak such changes through the back door of the Local Plan consultation process?

How much longer must it be before Members stop acquiescing to these abuses of process & power, and become accountable for the Authority’s actions?

Readers should note that this article represents my personal opinions and should not be construed as being the view of the Navigation Committee. They are made in my private capacity as an individual, and not as a co-opted member of the Navigation Committee.

Latest Shenanigans at the Broads Authority

I attended last Friday's meeting of the BA as an observer and a member of the public. I will probably be attacked (again) under the Members' Code of Conduct for writing this, but I've taken the view that any person who is attending a meeting purely as an observer cannot possibly be bound by the code of conduct if they were not part of the decision making process.

Sadly, the meeting demonstrated - for me - the continued disintegration in the processes of governance of the Broads Authority. Divisions between Secretary of State appointees and elected councillors are becoming ever more apparent, and the pre-scripting of proposals, amendments and comments was embarrassingly apparent.

As it was a long agenda, the Chair proposed that standing orders should be followed and that members should only be allowed to speak once to any motion. Unfortunately, the application of this policy was sporadic, with some members far exceeding the 3 minutes speaking time permitted by the standing orders, whilst one member was stopped after only 45 seconds and not allowed to continue with further questions.

The matter which sparked the greatest debate was the item on committee appointments. The Chair had proposed a list of appointments to the planning committee, which included the representative of every single local authority with the exception of Broadland. This followed last year's removal from the planning committee of Cllr Lana Hempsall, for disagreeing with a planning officer. Members were promised a full explanation at the September meeting, which never happened, and she has not been found guilty of any breach of any code. Nevertheless, despite the fact that all district councils have always been represented on the planning committee, Broadland was specifically omitted again this time.

A well-argued proposal by Vic Thomson (South Norfolk) and seconded by Paul Rice (North Norfolk) that all local authority appointees should be present on the planning committee was strongly opposed by a vociferous group of Secretary of State appointees, who characterised it as a plot to exclude SoS members and to create two tiers of membership. To me, however, it looked more like an attempt to put right the wrong of arbitrarily excluding one member because she happened to stand up for stakeholders and the law. Surely the Chair should be harnessing diverse skills and contributions, rather than exacerbating divisions? Her action serves only to highlight the schism identified by member feedback, and which has resulted in a record number of member-on-member code of conduct complaints in the past 18 months.

Sarah Mukherjee, invited to speak in the debate for a second time (against the standing orders invoked earlier in the meeting), was then led by the Chair to propose an alternative motion, which effectively kicked the proposal into touch by making it part of the future review of governance. This alternative motion was approved.

In reply to a question, members were informed that no constitutional documents could be found which determined or informed membership of the planning committee. Well, I would like to refer members to the Authority's Duty to Cooperate Statement, which forms part of the Authority's Local Plan and is quite clear on the subject (para 2.2):

"Each of the 6 Districts and 2 County Councils have representation at the Planning Committee by virtue of one of their Broads Authority appointed Members."

The current situation is that Norfolk County Council have representation by virtue of both of their appointed Members, whilst Broadland have no representation at all, in clear breach of the Authority's own duty to cooperate.

What was particularly ironic was the comment from Sir Peter Dixon, Chairman of the planning committee, who was most critical of the fact that Vic Thomson's proposal came "out of the blue" and without warning. Could this be the same Sir Peter Dixon who, exactly a year ago, removed Cllr Hempsall's name from the list of appointees on the day of the annual meeting - out of the blue and without warning? And was it the same Sir Peter Dixon who, along with Jacquie Burgess, canvassed members in advance of the meeting - in breach of the code of conduct and standing orders - to oppose any proposal to reinstate Broadland District Council's appointee to the planning committee?

Sir Peter also expressed the view that Members are "here to serve the Broads Authority". I must tell you, Sir Peter, that you are wrong. Members are appointed solely and exclusively to serve the public interest, not the interests of the Broads Authority. This oft-repeated mantra - that members must defend the Authority, rather than the public interest - lies at the heart of the Authority's governance failure, in my view.

The Authority also approved changes to a number of other constitutional documents, including the Code of Conduct for Members of Planning Committee and the Member Development Protocol, along with a new Social Media policy. I can't help thinking that I may have been responsible for a number of these changes, which are focused on ensuring that Members act as ambassadors for the Authority and that "the positive reputation of the Authority is nurtured and protected". Of course, all organisations seek to protect their own reputation and I have no problem with that. However, I do take issue with the code of conduct being used to prevent legitimate debate and criticism, especially when that debate surrounds the abuse of process to obtain specific outcomes. Former Navigation Committee Chairman David Broad's thoughts on the subject are worth re-reading, for context and background.

Finally, I noted the new "Guidelines for Members Appointed by Local Authorities", written to help councils select the right type of person to sit on the Broads Authority. Make of that what you will!

Footnote: Although meetings are now being formally recorded "on a trial basis", the recordings are currently only available on request. According to the meeting papers, "Investigations for making recordings available on the website are being undertaken" - though it's hard to know what possible investigation is required into clicking the upload button!

Readers should note that this article represents my personal opinions and should not be construed as being the view of the Navigation Committee. They are made in my private capacity as an individual, and not as a co-opted member of the Navigation Committee.

Thorpe Island - Episode 5

2015 image showing moored boats on river bank. EDP copyright

The story continues - following The Sad Tale of Jenner's (Thorpe Island), Thorpe Island Planning Policy Update, Thorpe Island - Episode 3 and Thorpe Island - Episode 4…

The Chief Executive and I continue to go in circles, with me asking him to explain why members were misled and misdirected over the new planning policy, and him failing to answer.

On 5th July, I received a 3 page letter from the Chief Executive, most of which didn't deal with my concerns. He touched on them briefly, however:

I have considered your 11 points against the recording of the May Planning Committee and the briefing provided to the June meeting and concluded that none of them have any substance.

A full and thorough Yare House “investigation”, then.

A further email received this week spent 4 pages summarising our correspondence to date (a bit like writing out an exam question in full rather than get on with answering it) before finally having a go at addressing the first of my 11 concerns. This was the business of members being told, in response to a direct question, that there hadn’t been any boats moored at the western end of the island.

I'm struggling to make out the Chief Executive’s response to this, but he’s either saying a) that officers had no idea that boats had moored historically on the river bank; or b) that they did know, but they gave a tricksy reply which required a very literal interpretation of the word “always”, and a new definition of the noun “mooring” which would require the permanent presence of a boat.

Here is the Chief Executive’s response - you decide what he meant:

I have listened to the recording from the meeting of the Planning Committee on 26th May 2017 and this is a transcript of what was said: 

Member: “The comment that there will be no moorings along the river frontage. As far as I know there has always been moorings there”. 

Officer 1: “Not on the basin. Not at the opening of the basin and along that end. No there haven't been.” 

Officer 2 : “Not at the western end’.

Officer 1: “But they have at River Green”.

If I understand it correctly, you are stating that [Officer 1] and [Officer 2] knew for a fact that there had always been mooring at the western end of Thorpe Island, and that they therefore deliberately misled and misdirected Committee members in their response. You have not provided any evidence to substantiate that allegation. 

To support your case, you draw my attention to a number of photographs, some from the 1960s and 1970s, which show mooring taking place at the western end of Thorpe Island. However, there are as many photographs that show a complete absence of moored boats at that location, which demonstrates that boats have not always been mooring there.

On the basis of the solicitor’s advice, [Officer 1] and [Officer 2]’s negative response to [Member]’s comment that there has “always been mooring there” appears to me to be factually correct in regard to the river moorings at the western end of Thorpe Island.

There was no attempt to address the remaining 10 concerns, or answer my question about why the Broads Authority is so keen to abandon these mooring rights in perpetuity.

Instead, the Chief Executive has referred the matter to the Chair of the Authority and the Monitoring Officer, on the grounds that he believes my questions to be a breach of the protocol on member / officer relations. This is in spite of the fact that I have made clear that I am asking these questions as a member of the public, and not as a member of the navigation committee.

For the benefit of anyone wanting to investigate this in more depth, I've put a collection of documents on to Google Drive. This includes the (redacted) correspondence between the Authority and myself. Anyone can look at them by following this link.

I will add to this over time, if more documents come my way.

Readers should note that this article represents my personal opinions and should not be construed as being the view of the Navigation Committee. They are made in my private capacity as an individual, and not as a co-opted member of the Navigation Committee.

Thorpe Island - Episode 4…

Readers might recall from Episode 3 that I have raised 10 instances of Broads Authority members being misled over the past 6 weeks, in respect of the proposed new planning policy for Thorpe Island.

Unfortunately, the Chief Executive is refusing to investigate these clear misrepresentations of fact and has instead given me an ultimatum to prove that officers had an unlawful motive – or withdraw my comments. He continues to duck all of the questions and instead persists in claiming that I’ve alleged a hidden, illegal, agenda - which I have not.

In place of investigating the issues I raised with him,  he’s raked back through my dossier (the one which the former head of communications reported doesn’t exist), and found a comment which I made on the EDP website 16 months ago: 

“I have at least 4 documented instances of officers altering the wording of legal documents (including the 2009 Broads Act and the Thorpe Island Section 52 Agreement) in order to change their meaning to persecute individuals.” (EDP 29th February 2016)

to which he responds:

“May I take it from this that you accept that your previous public allegation … made in a post on the EDP website, has no foundation, is unconnected with your recent allegation and is withdrawn? … You appear to be continuing to promote the view that officers are deliberately misleading members with a specific motive behind it.”

I wonder why he should suddenly raise this matter, over a year later, despite showing no interest in investigating it at the time?

He continues:

I would be grateful if you could confirm the following: 

1) Whether you are alleging any unlawful or illegal behaviour on the part of officers of the Broads Authority. If so, can you please produce evidence of this, including the documented evidence of officers altering the wording of the Broads Act and the Section 52 Agreement referred to in your post of February 2016 so that I might fully investigate the matter;If you are not alleging unlawful or illegal behaviour on the part of officers then please can you retract it in an email circulated to members.

2) If you are alleging that officers have wilfully misled members, then please can you indicate what you believe the motive behind it to be so that again I might investigate this further and could you provide me with any evidence that you have to support your claim.

Or alternatively if you are no longer making allegations about officer behaviour, can you please retract your allegations in an email circulated to members.

So, instead of addressing the legitimate questions which I’ve raised, the Chief Executive of this publicly funded authority has decided that now is the time to investigate something which should have been dealt with over a year ago, and which is of only passing relevance to my current questions which relate to far more recent events.

And I have an ultimatum which says that if I’m not prepared to provide evidence to support an allegation which I haven't made, then I must withdraw the allegations which he refuses to answer.

I have clearly stated the misrepresentations which were made to members - both verbally in the May committee meeting, and in the briefing note on the eve of the June meeting. I am seeking a point by point explanation of each item, detailing either why my understanding is wrong, or why the officers felt it necessary to mislead members.

However, protected by a Chair and Vice Chair who will do whatever it takes to preserve collective responsibility regardless of the public interest, the Chief Executive is able to act with total impunity as he ignores the misrepresentations and focuses instead on silencing the person asking the questions.

Readers should note that this article represents my personal opinions and should not be construed as being the view of the Navigation Committee. They are made in my private capacity as an individual, and not as a co-opted member of the Navigation Committee.

Thorpe Island - Episode 3

Note: The original version of this article contained an error - I believed that the bridge was not mentioned at the May 2017 planning committee meeting, due to background noise on the recording. In fact, the bridge was briefly mentioned (see revised point 5) and I am happy to make a correction.  This only came to light two days before a code of conduct hearing against me 16 months later, when I was provided with an official transcript of the meeting. Amazingly, the Chief Executive did not notice my mistake last year - despite allegedly spending 3 days “investigating” my concerns including “listening carefully to the recording”.

My first article on Jenner’s basin – which was intended to close an unhappy chapter in the history of Thorpe Island and express sorrow at the loss of moorings – resulted in two code of conduct complaints against me, both of which are still under investigation. One of them – a lengthy tirade by a senior officer – included a long appendix featuring details of my contributions to public internet forums and screenshots of my “friendships” on social media. This, from an Authority which described allegations of keeping dossiers on members as “a worrying untruth”. [Update September 2018 - the BA have decided not to determine those complaints, rather than dismiss them or make a decision].

These complaints follow a series of attempts to control the behaviour of members and to isolate, marginalise and discredit the ones who will not be controlled. This includes carrying out an “investigation” of BA members who might have had any form of contact with the Save the Island group, demanding copies of private and personal emails and other correspondence in confidence, and then circulating selected responses amongst all members in order to discredit the “offenders”. The Chief Executive attempted - on two separate occasions - to have at least one of these members removed from the Authority by their appointing Authority. Fortunately, the council leader concerned refused to accede to this clear affront to democracy.

My second piece, concerning the new draft policy for the island, resulted in a “briefing note” being sent to members of the planning committee on the eve of their June meeting, which continued the theme of misleading them about the decisions of the appeal inspectors, action taken for trespass and the historic mooring situation at the western end of Thorpe Island. 

I emailed members, concerned about the way that they were being comprehensively misled in order to persuade them to sign up to a new planning policy which continued the assault on mooring rights on this stretch of the river Yare. As usual, however, the response of certain members was to refer my email straight to the Chief Executive’s censorship department, rather than perform their public duty to scrutinise the actions taken by officers.

Instead of taking responsibility for investigating the misleading statements made to members, Dr Packman has demanded that I either prove an unlawful motive for these actions, or retract all my comments. It’s as though he thinks it’s ok to mislead members, as long as nobody can prove an illegal motive for doing so.

I’ve never claimed an unlawful motive, I’ve simply asked why the Authority is so desperate to prove abandonment of mooring rights on a navigable river, that it would spin a web of untruths to convince members to support a policy which extinguishes these rights in perpetuity. If it wasn’t in response to the relentless pressure from objectors, then what was the reason? Whatever the motive, the action is not to the benefit of navigation stakeholders, and there is no obvious wider public interest being served.

I’ve replied to the Chief Executive, asking him to respond to the following points:

1. At the May planning committee meeting, the committee were told unequivocally by the Authority’s two most senior planning officers - in response to a direct question from a member - that there had not been any mooring at the western end of Thorpe Island. This is not true.
2. At the same meeting, members were told that the 2012 planning inspector had said that the width of the river, and concerns over the amenity of residents, precluded mooring on the island side of the river. This is not true.
3. At the same meeting, the chairman told members that there was no means of accessing the mainland from the western end of the island other than by dinghy. This is not true - there is a bridge. Officers supported the Chairman’s statement, in the full knowledge that it was untrue.
4. At the same meeting, officers led members to believe that the policy could not permit any use other than that indicated by the appeal inspectors. This is not true.
5. At the same meeting, officers claimed that it would not be possible to establish visitor moorings on the island side of the river, because the bridge was “private” and could not be used for accessing the mainland. This is nonsense - the bridge is in the same ownership as the island itself.
6. In an email to planning committee members sent on the eve of the June meeting, officers claimed that any rights to moor on the river had been abandoned and that this point had been proven through the courts. This is not true.
7. In the same email, officers claimed that owners of riverside dwellings have an automatic planning consent to moor a boat at the bottom of their garden, but that such a right does not extend to owners of marinas, boatyards and other commercial operations. This is not true. 
8. In the same email, officers claimed that the right to moor on the northern (mainland) side was proven by the evidence of photos and corroboration of local people, whilst suggesting a lack of similar evidence to demonstrate the same right to moor on the island side. This is not true.
9. In the same email, officers alleged that action for trespass was taken because Norwich City Council were "interested in trespass mooring over their land where someone was receiving a financial gain by using their land rather than domestic use”. This is not true. The action was instigated at the express request of the BA, as a more expedient means of dealing with specific moored boats than using the planning process, and had nothing to do with financial gain.
10. In the same email, officers tried to dodge my legitimate and important concerns about the risk of Norwich City Council claiming trespass anywhere on the River Yare, by claiming that trespass is in some way related to financial gain or commercial activity. This is not true. If it was true, this would leave the Dockyard and all boatyards & moorings between Norwich and Hardley Cross open to the threat of trespass action.

Membership of an unelected quango like the BA is a privilege which comes with clear responsibilities to act in the public interest, and stakeholders are entitled to expect that members - especially the Chair and Vice-chairman - will scrutinise the decisions of the executive rather than defend them at all costs. The Chief Executive, meanwhile, has a duty to uphold all three of the Broads Authority’s statutory purposes, and the public should have confidence and trust in his ability and willingness to do so.

I will share his responses to my questions on this blog.

Readers should note that this article represents my personal opinions and should not be construed as being the view of the Navigation Committee. They are made in my private capacity as an individual, and not as a co-opted member of the Navigation Committee.