Broads Authority Posts

[marshman]

Well if thats the case, two planning inspectors and the High Court are clearly in Mr Packmans pay, or perhaps they know something you  don't!!!  My guess is that someone needs to read it all again to see what they missed!!

You will all know better than me, but was not the argument that planning permission had lapsed?? And no, I do not want an in depth discussion about it - I am happy that the rule of law by the above was correct.

[MauriceMynah]

9 hours ago, Ricardo said:

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

I don't doubt that for one moment Ricardo, but in this instance (well in all instances really ) should we not wait until some skulduggery has actually taken place rather than have trial by forum for what we think they might do.

Is it not possible that they will want to have the land kept attractive and stop it being used as "nimby spoiling" moorings?

....

on the other matter, may I request that if this thread is merged with the others, that it carries a more "BA neutral" title to encourage balanced debate.

[quo vadis]

Same **** different day 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, quo vadis said:

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

All I will say is this , it was private information that is covered by data protection as agreed by a senior figure at BA that was leaked into the public domain , both he and I agree on the like source of the leak and I have left it with them to deal with , neither BA or myself can actually prove exactly who leaked it but it most certainly did happen and was used against me , I won't say who the person was who used it against me as I know he has connections with this forum but I know who he is and so do BA , incidentally this did not happen on this forum , either way it proved to me at least that without a shadow of doubt there are staff within BA that release information that they should not do by law for yge benefit of others .

[JennyMorgan]

I rather suspect that this saga has just acquired a new set of wheels and that they are set to run! More details if and when they become public. 

[Vaughan]

27 minutes ago, marshman said:

You will all know better than me, but was not the argument that planning permission had lapsed?? And no, I do not want an in depth discussion about it - I am happy that the rule of law by the above was correct.

This is how I am advised by 3 planning professionals, all of whom have been involved in Roger's case, and all of whom disagree strongly with the appeal verdicts.

1/. If you obtain planning permission but do not build the building (or basin) then the permission will become abandoned after a period of years.

2/. If you have permission for use as moorings, but a new owner then wants to use the basin for growing watercress or fish farming, or whatever, then that is a change of use which requires new permission. At this point, the original permission is abandoned.

3/. If, as in Roger's case, there has been no change of use, but just a lapse of time in that use, then it has not been abandoned.

4/. In two cases in Wroxham where boatyards have sold off their hire fleets and now use their moorings for private boats, this was deemed not to be a change of use and the BA lost their case. When Roger bought Hearts (before Jenners) he had a letter from the BA to inform him that the mooring of private boats there was not a change of use and would not need extra permission.

5/. Photographic and sworn evidence of regular use was presented to the appeals but was discounted by the judge, who called it "boatyard use".

I hope that answers your question, Marshman.

[Vaughan]

 

8 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I rather suspect that this saga has just acquired a new set of wheels and that they are set to run!

 

[marshman]

I am sure you are right Vaughan, but how come that the Inspectors and the Judge did not talk to your planning consultants??

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed as if there was any real doubt why did that not come out at the time? If the above did not feel it had any impact then I am happy to go along with their decision.

Indeed i am happy that that end of the island has been bought and in reality that decision is not going to be reversed and we should all move on.

 

[Vaughan]

Just now, marshman said:

I am sure you are right Vaughan, but how come that the Inspectors and the Judge did not talk to your planning consultants??

They did indeed, Sir, and I was shown copies of the detailed depositions that they presented to the appeals.

Confidentiality means I am not allowed to post them here but I can assure you that you would find it very hard to argue against the facts, and law, that they put forward.

You may be happy that the island is now sold but that seems to me simply because you didn't like the look of the boats moored there. You have not presented any other factual reason other than to rely with blind faith, on the opinion of one judge, in London.

Meantime I don't think we are going to "move on" just like that. There is a suspicion of malpractice here which has even reached the local press.

Watch this space.

 

[ExMemberBobdog]

One judge who is tasked with considering all the arguments and evidence provided by both sides and then to assess both fact and law.  And having considered all the evidence he found for the BA.  Game over.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

One judge who is tasked with considering all the arguments and evidence provided by both sides and then to assess both fact and law.  And having considered all the evidence he found for the BA.  Game over.

Ok so then explain why roger sold them the land so cheaply ? They wanted that land to stop any development so he was in control regardless of HMCS /BA on his back for payment he didn't owe that much according to BA and he could ask for time to pay , thing is he was backed onto a corner by both the objectors and BA n please don't tell me they don't converse because I know they do they always have , face facts those 2 haven't lived there since this begun they simply jumped on the band waggon for personal gain , if they produce something in the future that's outside the planning inspectors guide lines that Mr wood had trust on him then god help them and BA there's no way that will pass under the radar like so much of BA activity does to most of the general public 

[MauriceMynah]

This is the problem with this topic, there are some members that have (perfectly justifiably) very strong views on it. We need to be careful not to let our feelings cause us to write posts that make the matter even more contentious than it already is.

For my part I think that all that needs to be said, has been said.

This new development of the people buying the plot who were objecting to things under its previous owner, needs watching, but until they try something underhand, then watching is all that's needed.

[ExMemberBobdog]

Good grief.  Having lost the court case the previous owner presumably saw sense, cut his losses and ran.  Seems to me he was remarkably fortunate to find anyone to pay him a penny for a rather worthless patch of land.

[finny]

A worthless patch of land .........perhaps it seems not ? a good few quid has by all sides been chucked over this land so perhaps it went for a song . the big question is who will end up doing all the singing 

 

Finny

 

[Vaughan]

40 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

 Seems to me he was remarkably fortunate to find anyone to pay him a penny for a rather worthless patch of land.

It would seem like that to you since you clearly know nothing of what actually happened.

And I am not prepared to break the confidence of many of my friends, at this stage, just for the pleasure of telling you how wrong you are.

 

[ExMemberBobdog]

Just now, Vaughan said:

It would seem like that to you since you clearly know nothing of what actually happened.

And I am not prepared to break the confidence of many of my friends, at this stage, just for the pleasure of telling you how wrong you are.

 

Good.  Because I'm bored with this nonsense now.  Cheerio.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Bobdog said:

Good grief.  Having lost the court case the previous owner presumably saw sense, cut his losses and ran.  Seems to me he was remarkably fortunate to find anyone to pay him a penny for a rather worthless patch of land.

You must know Roger pretty well to know that's a fact , I know that he plays his cards pretty close to his chest as it were hence my assumption that that's a pure guess , he's hardly fortunate just look at what his neighbours put him through basically to gain the view they wanted , if its so worthless then why did the 2 objectors spend 200k on the land and a significant amount via a 24hr security company that were there for a month 24/7 , that cost a fortune for no return .

I  fully agree with MM this has a long way to go yet as to me there's no way anyone with a business head would buy that land without a very good reason n BTW a view isn't the reason , of these 2 are so smart they could easily be headhunted and have to move , then what , will they do the same elsewhere if it doesn't meet what they think is a view ?? , who knows , what's perfectly clear is this whole situation has much further to go despite what some think .

[Vaughan]

Just now, Bobdog said:

Good.  Because I'm bored with this nonsense now.  Cheerio.

Bon voyage!  

[JennyMorgan]

Those wheels are running and quite likely to overheat.

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2017/07/thorpe-island-episode-4.html

[marshman]

To my view they still overpaid for the land!! As to whether it has further to run, unless you exhort to crowd funding, my guess is none of you can afford to do a great deal about it!!

All talk of malfeasance or whatever at the BA has to be proved - not at any stage have I ever been convinced by these so called revelations from individuals with chips on their shoulder or "leaks" of important information. I have yet to see any and guess like all previous spats, it will just die away over a period without any real evidence of not a lot anyway.

I know just a few people continue to be aggrieved for one reason or another but I guess with leave to appeal refused, and the land being sold, all you can now do is lump it! And IMHO thats the right result, irrespective of whether I like the boats or not - I didn't by the way!

Neither do I like unauthorised caravans on village greens nor in council car parks, nor in pseudo encampments, but like all of us, we do have to comply with the law as stated by those in charge, whatever shades of grey attach to whether its right or wrong,and I believe, rightly or wrongly, to interpret the law correctly and make the right decisions. I see nothing to suppose that they were not right here. I pay judges to make the right decision and I believe by and large they do.

Others views of course differ, but thats life!!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, marshman said:

To my view they still overpaid for the land!! As to whether it has further to run, unless you exhort to crowd funding, my guess is none of you can afford to do a great deal about it!!

All talk of malfeasance or whatever at the BA has to be proved - not at any stage have I ever been convinced by these so called revelations from individuals with chips on their shoulder or "leaks" of important information. I have yet to see any and guess like all previous spats, it will just die away over a period without any real evidence of not a lot anyway.

I know just a few people continue to be aggrieved for one reason or another but I guess with leave to appeal refused, and the land being sold, all you can now do is lump it! And IMHO thats the right result, irrespective of whether I like the boats or not - I didn't by the way!

Neither do I like unauthorised caravans on village greens nor in council car parks, nor in pseudo encampments, but like all of us, we do have to comply with the law as stated by those in charge, whatever shades of grey attach to whether its right or wrong,and I believe, rightly or wrongly, to interpret the law correctly and make the right decisions. I see nothing to suppose that they were not right here. I pay judges to make the right decision and I believe by and large they do.

Others views of course differ, but thats life!!

That's quite a bold and  damming statement Marshman,  to state that without crowd funding that no one who objects to the way this has been handled has the funds to afford to do anything about it , seriously that's not what this is about , its not about who's got the finance to do what ever they please or maybe that's exactly what happened , my point is this if it all boils who's got the most money and who knows who how is that ethical and more so reasonable ? That's capitalism at its worst nothing less its not justice in anyway at all , you might be able to support that but I certainly do not and never will , all tax payers pay the judges and the judicial system not just you and they have a duty to serve all not just the individual regardless of their financial status !!! 

[Vaughan]

Members may like to know that episode 4 of James Knight's report is now available on thebroadsblog.

Also worth reading his home page, and I quote this from it :

And I'll be revealing the name of the senior member who told me that blighting Roger Wood's land was a perfectly legitimate commercial aim for the BA, so that "somebody more suitable can buy the marina and turn it into a little gold mine".

 

[Hockham Admiral]

The three threads have been merged as requested and put under a "catch-all" title.

[marshman]

Its hardly going to be a goldmine! What stills puzzles me is why Mr Wood did not apply for permission for the 25 (?) boats as agreed by the last Inspector. Of course some will argue that that was blocked too but my understanding is that he did not in the end apply!

Sorry Ricardo what I meant was that to try and take it further with any further appeal denied will surely cost someone something rather more than I could imagine - especially as I remain unconvinced about the underlying so called evidence!

Neither particularly, do I believe that "further revelations" will reveal a great deal more! Every organisation , particularly for some reason public bodies, have disgruntled whistleblowers and indeed some have value, but the vast majority amount to not a lot! Thats often why they are disgruntled!!

Still I await these new ones with bated breath and yes I will take note if they are credible and backed up by evidence that can be substantiated and corroborated - but with the land now sold to establish a gold mine its all a bit late in the day - nonetheless it will always be good for a discussion with no real news around!!!

[JennyMorgan]

Re the startling revelations, I don't for one moment see these undoing the present appeals or consents. If they come to anything it will lead to an inquiry, and they can go on for years.  Hopefully an early retirement will result but not so hopefully some serious compensation claims that will probably impact on the navigation spend.

At the moment Mr Knights and Dr Packman are manouvering, each trying to corner the other. If James has the tenacity and wherewithal, he does have some serious money in the background, then I think, having had experience as to how the Executive operates, that James has a very, very strong case. There is no question in my mind that there is clear evidence within the national parks saga, for example, to illustrate the manipulation of reality that goes on within the hallowed walls of the BA's executive suite.

Personally I don't see James as a disgruntled whistle blower, more that he's a highly principled individual with the future well-being of the Broads at heart. Things are NOT right at Packman Towers, no question in my mind, the control exercised is heading towards frightening if not just plain excessive. For a kick-off the Authority is very clearly controlled by the Executive rather than the Executive being controlled by the Members, that can not be allowed to continue, the present situation is objectionable.

Thorpe Island, Jenners in particular, is a done deal. The ball is rolling with Packman & Knights squaring up to each other. Hopefully it won't peter out because that would only strengthen Dr Packman's hold over the Broads and also the Authority, that would not be healthy. 

Why did Roger not take up the offer of consent for twenty five moorings? Obvious, surely, he believed, as I would have done, that historical use and consent already existed for more. Regretfully Roger was 'advised' by a total WCQR who in no way helped his case but nevertheless I do see where Roger was coming from, not that I agree with the way he fought his corner.

In the meantime I shall watch James's fight of principle with interest. James has clear evidence that the Executive has meddled with reality, although for whatever reason we can only guess, I'm also not convinced that smooth talking is going to help JP this time.