Here We Go Again! / An Apple a day

[Labrador]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/edp-property/broads-family-s-heartbreak-at-having-to-get-rid-of-dream-garden-1-5362870

[Wussername]

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/broads-family-s-heartbreak-at-having-to-get-rid-of-dream-garden-1-5362870

[grendel]

I go find it inconsistent that they dont consider 350 apple trees can be agricultural use.

 it does strike me that the landowner may have upset someone, and to be told to remove disabled access must surely go against some planning policy for disability,

but on the flip side, we are probably not hearing the full side of the argument from either party, each will be putting forward the best light for their side.

[grendel]

Topics merged

[ChrisB]

I think that the point of law is in the title of the article "Dream Garden" they have created a garden with a gazebo, what looks like a hard edged pond and paths.

To do so would require change of usage, which must be sorted out prior to works. There are many, many cases like this the length of the country.

[Vaughan]

I am mindful of what happened at the WRC, when James Knight had some people living on boats in his basin. He was approached by the BA who gave the impression that it would be all right if he applied for planning permission. When he applied, they turned it down! I am wondering if the same tactic was applied here but the EDP article is confusing as to at what point the BA entered negotiation and "advice" with the owner.

I am also very mindful that the Authorities can cheerfully lay waste to many thousands of acres of prime Norfolk farmland to build a road, followed by thousands of houses around it and yet some poor bloke in Ormesby is not supposed to grow apple trees in the little field at the back of his house because it "used to be farmland".

So what is he meant to do with it? Grow sugar beet? Or graze cattle? Perhaps a small herd of Llama would be appropriate. That'll please the neighbours!

[C.Ricko]

if its agricultural then it can't be built on,  if the path had been for disabled access was this for the public use? as it would be required to be to regulation.  

if the advice waste stop then why carry on? 

you never get the whole story so its difficult to comment on. 

some might apply for infill on a garden that big, in that area. 

[rightsaidfred]

While you never get the true or full facts from an EDP article if it is halfway accurate then no way is it a garden or even an orchard more like a development, if we expect the authority to enforce planning regulations when a business or individual steps outside what`s been granted to our detriment  then we must equally expect them to act when no permission has been applied for or granted regardless of the aesthetics or moral indignity of the case, no one is or should be above the law which although we might not always agree with is there for a reason.

Fred

[Aboattime]

Itll be interesting to see if the BA take the same action against Barns in Wroxham, regarding the new moorings ??

[High6]

It's incredibly difficult to get change of use away from agricultural to amenity land - unless it suits the Council's own interests of course. If it were me I might look into turning it into common or community land.

[Guest]

Just now, High6 said:

It's incredibly difficult to get change of use away from agricultural to amenity land - unless it suits the Council's own interests of course. If it were me I might look into turning it into common or community land.

 

13 minutes ago, Aboattime said:

Itll be interesting to see if the BA take the same action against Barns in Wroxham, regarding the new moorings ??

Seems that £1M is above the threshold to ignore planning conditions, create some "more" moorings as well, that guarantees complete immunity  

[rightsaidfred]

3 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

 

Seems that £1M is above the threshold to ignore planning conditions, create some "more" moorings as well, that guarantees complete immunity  

While we are still awaiting the full report it would seem from what`s been said that the BA are making Barnes reduced the finger of land to its original length and attempting  negotiation to restrain the moorings within the PP the best solution before resorting to enforcement,  as for more moorings all they have done is increase their boatyard moorings nothing of benefit to the public.

Fred

[Meantime]

Looking at the picture shown in the EDP, this looks nothing like an agricultural field. The land as agricultural land would have had a cheaper price due to the planning constraints on what it could be used for. How much has that parcel of land now added to the price of the house with it's extensive landscaped orchard and gardens?

But I think the real point is that if someone gets away with extending their garden by purchasing the adjoining field, then how long before the assumed use of that land is as a domestic garden? Then ten years later there is a similar uproar because someone wants to sell part of their large garden to a builder who wants to build houses on it. After all we are short of houses and people all over the country are selling off part of their plot to squeeze in another house or two.

It is this creep that the planning system needs to  regulate more thoroughly. Personally I think if they rip up the hard border, grass and gazebo and just leave the orchard I think that would be fine, as it is still agricultural. Leaving it as it is, is just extending the domestic garden on a grand and more formal scale. 

[Vaughan]

41 minutes ago, High6 said:

If it were me I might look into turning it into common or community land.

I got the impression from the EDP, that he was offering it to the council for exactly that purpose? Complete with disabled access.

So does someone now need permission, to put up a gazebo on the back lawn?

[Meantime]

Wasn't there a similar case between Ranworth and South Walsham where someone had laid a boardwalk without planning permission? They also said they were planning on allowing public access to it at given times. What happened with that case?

[riverman]

Personally I think the madness of the situation isn't that BA have jumped up and down about a lack of planning, it has changed use, there has been hard landscaping, they should of had planning permission. I think most authorities would have done the same.

The issue is that when they've gone for retrospective, BA refused it. BA, Norfolk wildlife trust, RSPB and Natural England have over the last few years destroyed hundreds of acres of productive agricultural marsh land, turning them into wetlands for birds that from what I have seen, don't land on them. Do birds have more rights than people now?

As for building on the land in the future, if that's such a major concern, do what the church do. Put a clause that if the land is developed or sold on, half the money from the sale gets paid to the church (or relevant party/charity in this case) and this applies to all future sales on the plot of land. 

[High6]

The Council would not want the additional costs of maintaining the land. If it can be made common land there are a whole different range of historical laws and protections which would apply. Many communities do this to prevent unwanted housing and wind farm developments.

[marshman]

Two very quick points. This was on appeal so it was the Inspector who laid down this ruling not specifically the BA.  Search the internet and it is easy to find that p/p is required to get a change of use from agricultural land to garden - plenty of case law to support this and as someone said it is not easy! Planting fruit trees to, I suspect, try and get round the law proves you need to be a little brighter!!

Planning rules are generally for everyone's benefit - you do something which requires planning without it, at your risk! If in doubt talk to the planners and you will then not get a nasty surprise! I have always found planning officers pretty helpful!

The boardwalk around Sotshole is to all intents and purposes now abandoned - I happened upon it on a walk recently!  Enforcement was never imposed as if I recall, retrospective permission was granted and indeed the plan was to open it occasionally so you could walk across from Fairhaven. Initially this happened but to me it looks abandinned - to be fair to the BA it is something of a monstrosity being about 9 ' wide and cutting a broad swathe through the woods. Now looking unkempt and a considerable waste of money!!

 

[riverman]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Planning rules are generally for everyone's benefit - you do something which requires planning without it, at your risk! If in doubt talk to the planners and you will then not get a nasty surprise! I have always found planning officers pretty helpful!

Evidently not BA's planning officers. From my experience 'helpful' would not be an appropriate word. 

I entirely agree they should of had planning, wether or not you should really require planning consent to landscape your own piece of land is an entirely different conversation.

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I got the impression from the EDP, that he was offering it to the council for exactly that purpose? Complete with disabled access.

So does someone now need permission, to put up a gazebo on the back lawn?

Periodically check BA's planning page, you'll be amazed what you need permission for.

[JennyMorgan]

Do people remember this one: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/10073479/Destroying-my-work-in-the-Norfolk-Broads-will-do-untold-damage.html

The man in question has since, if I remember correctly, come out as the winner. In my view the BA's case was an entirely illogical and vindictive action that did no great favours for the the BA's reputation. Following on from that case I can understand the orchard owner having a go. I don't expect people to agree with me but I really do think that both cases highlight an inconsistency and lack of logical, linked up thinking within Yare House. The orchard site is nothing other than redundant farm land, unsuited to modern farming techniques or equipment,  surely an orchard provides a very acceptable alternative use and one that benefits the natural environment. 

[JennyMorgan]

The Sotshole Broad owner did win!

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/south-walsham-villager-wins-his-battle-of-the-broad-1-3209488

[JennyMorgan]

On 1/20/2018 at 17:12, riverman said:

Evidently not BA's planning officers. From my experience 'helpful' would not be an appropriate word. 

I entirely agree they should of had planning, wether or not you should really require planning consent to landscape your own piece of land is an entirely different conversation.

Periodically check BA's planning page, you'll be amazed what you need permission for.

Large white workshop tents on the bank of the River Yare by any chance? 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Large white workshop tents on the bank of the River Yare by any chance? 

Isn't that a temporary structure though?

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Philosophical said:

Isn't that a temporary structure though?

Allegedly,  been there a long time though, longer than a yurt at the WRC!

 

On 1/20/2018 at 11:02, Aboattime said:

Itll be interesting to see if the BA take the same action against Barns in Wroxham, regarding the new moorings ??

I understand that the BA is seeking a compromise such as limiting the length of boats moored stern-on to the floating jetty. I haven't heard the outcome, presumably that will surface in the officer's report at the next planning committee meeting.

[marshman]

Indeed the Sotshole owner did "win" but the boardwalk is not used regularly - indeed it is roped off with Private signs all over it. Seems a lot of money spent just to use it at bluebell time!