The Authority Oversteps The Mark?

[JennyMorgan]

Regarding planning and residential moorings/house boats James Knight has posted his pragmatic interpretation of the regulations:

 

I think it's quite important to clarify the planning law about living on boats. The BA have planning policies in place which allow them to apply conditions to new moorings. So, for example, if there was to be a new mooring basin then the BA could impose a planning condition which said that there could be no residential use, or no commercial use.

The same is not true for pre-existing moorings. You cannot impose a retrospective planning condition on moorings, no matter how much the BA might want to, and no matter how much they repeat the mantra that residential moorings are "unauthorised". If a mooring does not have conditions which restrict its use, then there is nothing to stop someone from living on board if they choose.

The reason for this is that planning is about the use of land, not the use of boats. A mooring is a mooring, and what goes on aboard a boat is not relevant to planning, unless the moorings have conditions restricting their use. If, however, the land surrounding the mooring gets strewn with residential 'paraphernalia', then that might well constitute a material change of use of the land. It's all a question of degree.

This has been tested several times in the appeal court. The BA lost an enforcement case in 1999 when they attempted to prevent 2 boats in Hoveton from being used for residential purposes. The Inspector found that if he couldn't see the difference between 2 boats - one used residentially and one not - then there was no material change of use of the land and therefore no breach of planning control.

Although this case has been dismissed by the BA as an "old decision", another appeal inspector came to the same conclusion in 2010 on the Driffield Canal in Yorkshire.

So, although I have no detailed knowledge of the planning conditions in respect of this particular mooring, it is not the case that living on a boat necessarily needs to be expressly authorised by the Broads Authority - or anybody else. If a mooring has no planning conditions restricting its use, then the occupier can feel free to 'live' on board their vessel for as long as he or she chooses.

[JennyMorgan]

Here we go again! When will the planning officers realise that a pragmatic approach to their duties has a lot to recommend it?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/broads-authority-launches-new-waveney-river-centre-probe-1-5238913

[Poppy]

It's high time that the Plannig Department was closed and its activities dispersed back where they belond, with the relevant District Authorities.

The costs incurred must vastly exceed the income raised by the 250 or so applications with which they deal each year! 

I wonder what their problem could be with The Waveney River Centre ? Couldn't be its Managing Director by any chance ?

 

[smellyloo]

The seeming petty nature of some of the costly investigations would suggest that the authority is overstaffed for the amount of work that they have to get through.

Idle hands have a knack for finding work!!

[Vaughan]

James Knight has changed the name of this from "Yurt-gate" to "Access-gate"!

[Vaughan]

I see that someone who seems to know what they are talking about has commented on the EDP that in planning law, unless it is on a trunk road, you do not need specific permission for access to a building site which already has planning permission. If you are going to build houses then it is implied that you will need access to deliver materials.

Don't these planning people from the BA know this?

[JennyMorgan]

There appears to be a great deal that they don't know!

[JennyMorgan]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-national-park-flag-draws-criticism-but-it-is-selling-well-1-5240906

It is abundantly clear that the Broads is not, in legal terms, a national park. A national treasure, yes, with its industrial and agricultural past and unique heritage. Dr Packman should concentrate on the Broads for what it is, not what it isn't. He has yet to grasp the ethos and character of the Broads. Conservation is of prime importance on the Broads, conserving the Broads for what they are, The Broads. Not Lakes, not the BNP, The Broads.

[ranworthbreeze]

I rather like the picture of the good Dr Packman (looks like a Clive Sinclair lookalike) holding up his world, just a pity he can't spell the Broads correctly.

Regards

Alan

[Vaughan]

Broadsnationalpike is worth a read this morning.

I notice in the EDP article that Whitlingham Gravel Pits (sorry- "Great Broad") is now re-branded by the  good Doctor as a Country Park. This, I suppose, is also for marketing purposes only?

[smellyloo]

1 minute ago, Vaughan said:

I notice in the EDP article that Whitlingham Gravel Pits (sorry- "Great Broad") is now re-branded by the  good Doctor as a Country Park. This, I suppose, is also for marketing purposes only?

I'm not sure if you like/dislike Whitlingham country park but I think it is a great asset for Norwich and I have spent many happy hours walking around it.

[vanessan]

I think Whitlingham has been known as a country park for a number of years now, it is a great place to stop off and walk around. It has a lot going for it. 

[TheQ]

I must admit that those remarks on why the broads is not / should not be, a national Park are some of the best explanations I've seen in the EDP...

[Vaughan]

Just now, smellyloo said:

I'm not sure if you like/dislike Whitlingham country park but I think it is a great asset for Norwich and I have spent many happy hours walking around it.

I am very glad for you, but I remember that it was a blatant exploitation of what was already a conservation area within the BAs area of authority, for the commercial extraction of gravel by open cast mining. To make this look right and proper it was then "gifted" to the BA to use as a place of natural beauty. I have read that one of the co-signitaries to the family trust that carried out that extraction was the then chairman of the Broads Authority and the other was the landowner, the Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk, who also owned Eastern Counties Newspapers at the time.

That's why I am rather cynical about it.

One of these deep pits, by the way, is where two young children drowned not long ago.

[JennyMorgan]

I really do not understand the necessity of a link up between the Authority & the Whitlingham Gravel Pits. Were they actually connected to The Broads and navigable,  then that might be acceptable but their relevance to the Broads is entirely questionable. I wonder, is the Authority's involvement profitable? The Authority has more than enough on its plate without the added burden of the gravel pits.

[JennyMorgan]

18 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I think Whitlingham has been known as a country park for a number of years now, it is a great place to stop off and walk around. It has a lot going for it. 

I agree and enjoy my visits there. However there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Authority to be involved. I have absolutely no knowledge of the financial implications but I doubt that it's profitable, in other words I suspect that it's a burden to us as tax payers and or as toll payers.  

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Vaughan, for explaining the Authority's involvement. I can't help but think that the gravel pits were foisted onto the Authority rather than be a burden to the previous owners. They had made their money, no more to be made, time to dump it onto someone else.

[Vaughan]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Thank you, Vaughan, for explaining the Authority's involvement. I can't help but think that the gravel pits were foisted onto the Authority rather than be a burden to the previous owners. They had made their money, no more to be made, time to dump it onto someone else.

So who gave planning permission for the mining, in a recognised conservation area? The BA were not the planning authority at the time but it was in their area, so any objection from them would have been normal. It was only after the exploitation of the gravel, by the trust mentioned above, that it was handed over to the BA.

I well remember the Crown Point Meadows (as they were) and the Whitlingham Marshes. A more beautiful part of Broadland than they are now, in my view, and still had access from Whitlingham lane on both side of the river, for the public.

Who remembers the riverside green and dance pavilion on Whitlingham bend? I went past there the other day and there is absolutely nothing left. You can't even get to the river bank any more.

[marshman]

All the Whitlingham pits permissions must predate the BA surely?

And PW - surely navigation / river access is not the only consideration is it? I regard it as part of the BA's remit to help bring the City closer to the whole area given that even some people in the City have no idea what Broadland is all about and as such that area is a resource which should be available and as well used as it is.

At least its perhaps better than spending resources on those areas which have no public access!

[ranworthbreeze]

25 minutes ago, marshman said:

All the Whitlingham pits permissions must predate the BA surely?

And PW - surely navigation / river access is not the only consideration is it? I regard it as part of the BA's remit to help bring the City closer to the whole area given that even some people in the City have no idea what Broadland is all about and as such that area is a resource which should be available and as well used as it is.

At least its perhaps better than spending resources on those areas which have no public access!

Whitlingham strikes me as an under used resource, yes there are some water activities on there and it would seem a good place to walk dogs.

If it was connected to the river I am sure a marina complex with real visitor moorings might encourage more crews to visit the area and provide the city and the Southern Rivers with a new profitable resource.

Regards

Alan

[quo vadis]

41 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

Whitlingham strikes me as an under used resource, yes there are some water activities on there and it would seem a good place to walk dogs.

If it was connected to the river I am sure a marina complex with real visitor moorings might encourage more crews to visit the area and provide the city and the Southern Rivers with a new profitable resource.

Regards

Alan

Are you having a vision Alan? 

[ranworthbreeze]

I blame it on the cheese sandwich I had for lunch

Regards

Alan 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

All the Whitlingham pits permissions must predate the BA surely?

And PW - surely navigation / river access is not the only consideration is it? I regard it as part of the BA's remit to help bring the City closer to the whole area given that even some people in the City have no idea what Broadland is all about and as such that area is a resource which should be available and as well used as it is.

At least its perhaps better than spending resources on those areas which have no public access!

Put that way I can only agree with you, again! However, as Vaughan has pointed out, access from the City has always been available, for those that want it. What have the Pits provided that wasn't previously available, apart from expensive car parking and  a souvenir shop selling BNP flags?

[Vaughan]

This is worth reading carefully, if you wonder at my cynicism.

This doesn't come from the EDP (for obvious reasons) and was sent to me 3 years ago by a dear-departed friend of ours.

I have posted it before on the forum but this is a good time to do it again, in case we develop short memories about such underhand activities.

 

 

[smellyloo]

Putting aside the politics I still feel that whitlingham country park provides an attractive environment, on Norwicj's doorstep, for people who want to experience that "Broadland" experience complete with safe, spacious watersport facilities.

I suspect that many more people enjoy this space now than under it's previous guise as grazing marshes.

I very much doubt that anybody would create such a facility without some kind of monetery return.