High Court dismisses Broads National Park rebrand challenge
A High Court inquiry into the Broads National Park rebranding has ruled in favour of the authority behind the decision.
Mr Justice Holgate yesterday gave the go-ahead for the Broads Authority to continue using the Broads National Park branding, after it was challenged by landowners Tim and Geli Harris.
The authority, which voted in January last year to rebrand the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, said while there would be no legal change in status, the image would boost tourism. The Broads has been part of the National Park family since 1989, but has never held the legal status.
In August last year, Mr and Mrs Harris were granted a judicial review inquiry, claiming the authority acted 'unlawfully' and that the decision was misleading.
Yesterday, Jacquie Burgess, chairman of the authority, said she was 'thrilled' with the decision.
She said: 'The Broads fully deserves to be known as a national park – as much as the Lake District, the Cairngorms or any of the US Parks such as the Everglades or Yosemite.
'The National Park brand is
- 1 'Absolute insanity' - Village' in massive backlash to homes plan
- 2 'Heartbroken' pet owner thanks community after missing dog found dead
- 3 Queen flown by helicopter to Sandringham Estate
- 4 Fire destroys roof of Norwich home
- 5 Wrestler sheds five stone in one last bid to chase his American dream
- 6 The most beautiful places to live in Norfolk - according to estate agents
- 7 Seven of the best locations for a minibreak staycation in Norfolk
- 8 Eight dogs up for adoption at a Norfolk rehoming centre
- 9 7 of the best places to get street food on the Norfolk coast
- 10 Taxi driver hopes to be named Miss Voluptuous UK
internationally recognised and hugely appealing to visitors. It is shorthand for a place that is special, is properly looked after and deserves to be valued by everyone who visits and lives there.'
Mr and Mrs Harris, who say they are considering an appeal, said: 'The Broads Authority does not deserve to call itself a National Park for
branding purposes because in our experience it does not give priority to its core conservation objective of protecting the unique habitats of the Broads for future generations but prefers to focus on eye-catching PR initiatives.'
The judge ordered the couple to pay £10,000 towards the authority's legal costs of defending the action.
According to the full judgment, the authority's legal costs 'greatly exceed the figure of £10,000'.
The decision has been welcomed by National Parks UK and Visit East Anglia.
What do you think of the decision? Email firstname.lastname@example.org