Broads Authority Posts

[Hylander]

When I worked in Conveyancing I have seen comments regarding under values.   Property being sold to family etc.  Don't ask me,  because I cannot recall why.   Robin still works in the legal world I have been retired for 12 years.

 

 

[ExMemberBobdog]

1 minute ago, Hylander said:

When I worked in Conveyancing I have seen comments regarding under values.   Property being sold to family etc.  Don't ask me,  because I cannot recall why.   Robin still works in the legal world I have been retired for 12 years.

 

 

That's probably when some fiddle is going on to avoid tax, hardly the situation here.  For all the previous owners protestations, the land was not worth what he paid, and he was probably lucky to realise the price he did!

[marshman]

The only thing "dodgy" about it was that some bloke paid an inflated price for land years ago when told that he could not keep boats on it and when he subsequently had to sell, two blokes also paid over the odds for a piece of marsh!!!

[Guest]

At the time of the sale Mr wood was being held over a barrel in as far as what he had to do with the basin and land , somewhat surprisingly these conditions such as removing the ex PT boat don't apply to the new owners , it stinks all of it from start to finish there were many ways BA could have stepped in and helped but they prefer to go down the legal route at great cost to the tax payer , yes it looked a mess a few yrs ago but there are ways of helping people without resorting to legal action , I fully accept that Mr wood didn't do himself any good in avoiding the issue for so long and he should have applied for planning but everyone know it would have been rejected no matter what he proposed , the comment's by BA officials are pretty appalling considering their positions in the authority , do I trust the authority ? Not at all , they have clearly got a anti live on board policy regardless of if thats backed up by bylaws etc , its to the stage now that as a live aboard I won't bother to help them in reporting anything be it deflects at Mooring's or anything else , if there's one set of BA employees I feel sorry for its the ground troops they are taking the flack for those that sit in an office and have literally no idea , they are accountable to some one that's the end user be it hire or private but they take little notice of either , central government should be in charge of BA but seemingly not and that's exactly what is wrong .

 

[MauriceMynah]

18 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

I won't bother to help them in reporting anything be it deflects at Mooring's or anything else ,

Whilst I sympathise Ricardo, I don't think that attitude will achieve anything useful or constructive. Under normal circumstances your riverside philosophies are a credit to both yourself and the environment in which you live. Please do not change that out of spite however justified you feel in doing so. Keep your powder dry and hit back when the target is more appropriately focused on.

Keep your ear to the ground and your eye on the ball (and prey you're not playing golf) The time will come when you will be far better positioned to "go public" on something that will really hurt.

[Vaughan]

47 minutes ago, marshman said:

paid an inflated price for land years ago when told that he could not keep boats on it

Not true, Marshman, as I am one of those who know very well that he bought that land with existing planning permission to moor boats.

It was the BA who later, when under pressure from NIMBY reaction by the couple who are now the new owners, claimed that there was no planning permission. It was me, on behalf of Rogers agents, who subsequently found that permission, to the fury of a certain person on the BA planning committee, who clearly did not want it found.

As to your last sentence, yes, you are right!

[Vaughan]

Mods, could I please suggest that there are now 3 threads running on the same subject and what is more it is a most serious subject.

We have "well I never", "more lies from Yare House" and "legal battle over Thorpe Island".

Could we group them please?

[Guest]

My thought's exactly Vaughan 

[JennyMorgan]

Hats off to Lana.

[JennyMorgan]

10 hours ago, marshman said:

These new revelations are just so..........nothing!!!

Maybe, maybe not.  But when TWO authority members publically voice their disquiet then it is time to sit up and take notice, or not if the wearing of blinkers is your preferred option

Methinks there is an unpleasant aroma emanating from along Thorpe Road.

[Vaughan]

I have just asked the mods, on another of the three threads which are running on the same subject,

Could we group them please?

This subject is serious enough, without the confusion of running multiple threads.

[ExMemberBobdog]

47 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Not true, Marshman, as I am one of those who know very well that he bought that land with existing planning permission to moor boats.

It was the BA who later, when under pressure from NIMBY reaction by the couple who are now the new owners, claimed that there was no planning permission. It was me, on behalf of Rogers agents, who subsequently found that permission, to the fury of a certain person on the BA planning committee, who clearly did not want it found.

As to your last sentence, yes, you are right!

And the High Court found that there was no planning permission.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Whilst I sympathise Ricardo, I don't think that attitude will achieve anything useful or constructive. Under normal circumstances your riverside philosophies are a credit to both yourself and the environment in which you live. Please do not change that out of spite however justified you feel in doing so. Keep your powder dry and hit back when the target is more appropriately focused on.

Keep your ear to the ground and your eye on the ball (and prey you're not playing golf) The time will come when you will be far better positioned to "go public" on something that will really hurt.

Very wise words MM , infact iv addressed the authority this very afternoon regarding something that should and indeed does come under data protection my only problems is I can't prove where the leak came from but I do and have records of what was sent to me via a pm from another place , i left it with the person I spoke to this afternoon to deal with and I have faith ( well a bit of faith ) that it will be dealt with and no further incidents of that nature will occur .

Love the golf reference BTW I was the only in my family that didn't play , but yea my ear is firmly planted on the ground as it were its kinda wise to be one step in front , for warned is for armed so to speak .

[Guest]

Just now, Bobdog said:

And the High Court found that there was no planning permission.

Prey do tell me what BA did when it was applied for ! Yea exactly sat on it until the sale went through !! 

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

And the High Court found that there was no planning permission.

NO THEY DID NOT!

Excuse me, but this sort of ill-informed comment has been part of the problem for the last 10 years! I suggest you read the 79 pages of the thread on this forum which relates to this subject, before making such a "throw away" remark.

The high court, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the permission had been abandoned, although this is theoretically impossible in planning law. They never said that there was no original permission.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by Vaughan
last sentence deleted, in the interests of decorum!

[Vaughan]

34 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Prey do tell me what BA did when it was applied for ! Yea exactly sat on it until the sale went through !! 

You are not talking about the same thing as me, here, but you are quite right.

I was talking of the original permission, granted when Jenners developed the site in 1967.

You are talking of the result of various appeals, when Roger was recommended by the high court to apply for permission to moor 26 (I think it was) boats.

The BA did indeed sit on it after that and blocked all his attempts to submit it by demanding further "reports".

As a result the the land was sold "without" planning permission.

Was this a deliberate and subversive attempt to drive down the price of the property to the advantage of a preferred offer?

Therein hangs the tale, perhaps?

[Baitrunner]

I wouldnt look into this as deeply as some of you are. 

Not everyone is up for a dodgy deal. 

[Guest]

Some of us have first hand experience of how dodgy BA can be my recent experience being one .

[quo vadis]

Well if you don't tell us Ricardo we wont know

[Vaughan]

I apologise if I over-reacted yesterday to a simple remark, especially as Bobdog may not have meant it in the way that he put it.

It is just that, after all this time, and whilst I am the first to admit that Roger has been his own worst enemy in many ways, I find it frustrating that he is still made out to be more of a fool than he really is.

He bought that land (the land, not just the basin) with permission for the mooring of boats and as there had been no change of use on that land, then that is what he had the right to expect. It was the BA who later put what was and still is, an incorrect interpretation on it.

I know, it has all been to High Court, etc., etc., but a principle of planning law is that permission cannot be abandoned if there is no change of use.

[Hockham Admiral]

11 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Mods, could I please suggest that there are now 3 threads running on the same subject and what is more it is a most serious subject.

We have "well I never", "more lies from Yare House" and "legal battle over Thorpe Island".

Could we group them please?

I'll confer with the others this morning, Vaughan, but it does seem like a fair point.

Perhaps someone can suggest a new title?   

[Boatingman]

I entirely agree with Vaughan's statement in the last paragraph

I am a planning consultant and have no knowledge of any planning rule that allows a planning authority to overturn planning permission previously granted.

Ray

[Hockham Admiral]

11 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I have just asked the mods, on another of the three threads which are running on the same subject,

Could we group them please?

This subject is serious enough, without the confusion of running multiple threads.

 

Now in the Mod Room.

I'll confer with the others this morning, Vaughan, but it does seem like a fair point.

Perhaps someone can suggest a new title?   

[marshman]

Much Ado About Nothing?????

[Baitrunner]

How about "no love lost island"? 

Or more seriously "The BA, Thorp Island and other shenanigans"