Jump to content
  • Announcements

    Welcome! New around here? Take a look at the New Members' Guide for some pointers.

    You can Sign up or log in with your Facebook account and you can soon be chatting away with friends old and new..

    Check out our Handy Information section if you're after something quickly!

  • calender payment

    Calendar Paymene

    Delivery Options
    Your NBN Forum Username:

  • If you would like to support the forum, please consider visiting the forum shop, where you can purchase such items as NBN Burgees, Window Stickers, or even a custom Limited Edition Wooden Throttle Control Knob

    Forum Shop

JennyMorgan

BA In Planning Dispute

Recommended Posts

surely the advantage of a fireproof cladding over a fire hazard cladding should be recognised by the planning department as a reaction following the grenfell tower disaster, if I were the applicant that would be the argument I would follow with the appeal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, grendel said:

surely the advantage of a fireproof cladding over a fire hazard cladding should be recognised by the planning department as a reaction following the grenfell tower disaster, if I were the applicant that would be the argument I would follow with the appeal.

Not if you use reverse logic  :default_eusa_naughty: and have a whole load of cash to waste

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Dickson, a member of the committee, however, is quoted as saying that allowing the cladding to remain would compromise “the integrity of the planning system”. Well, Mr Dickson, what integrity the planning system ever had in regard to the Authority walked out of the door over the farce of Jenner's Basin & Thorpe island, not to forget those wandering yurts at Burgh St Peter. In regard to this present hoo-har The Authority has allowed a change of materials in regard to the windows so why not to the cladding? Consistency & logic please, Mr Dickson.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the issue is what the original planning consent specified. If it required real wood cladding then that is what should have been used. If it didn't then the applicant should appeal against the notice. 

The EDP report suggests "the authority expected real wood to be used". Did it specify that? If not then hard luck.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really surprised that wood was not specified - if it wasn't!!

Even up north in Co Durham, my son is having to clad a proposed garage in wood, and although he is a bit remote up in the hills, he is not even in a conservation area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:
Bill Dickson, a member of the committee, however, is quoted as saying that allowing the cladding to remain would compromise “the integrity of the planning system”. Well, Mr Dickson, what integrity the planning system ever had in regard to the Authority walked out of the door over the farce of Jenner's Basin & Thorpe island, not to forget those wandering yurts at Burgh St Peter. In regard to this present hoo-har The Authority has allowed a change of materials in regard to the windows so why not to the cladding? Consistency & logic please, Mr Dickson.

Getting it wrong in the past is no reason for not trying to get it right in the present or the future. I'm not sure whether you are writing in support or in opposition to  what the builder has done.

My own view is that having passed this building on a number of occasions, I do not find the appearance offensive and would not have known what materials had been used. To be offended by it now that I know, would be illogical and inconsistent.

The thing I find odd is " In 2014, this application was approved, when it was decided the benefits from the ice house’s restoration outweighed the fact the house was located in a spot the BA would ordinarily disapprove of."

If people cannot tell the difference (Bill Dickson excepted) then does this not still hold true?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BA bends over backward to allow man to make lots of money from building a holiday home in a very valuable spot. Man ignores planning restrictions. BA enforce one restriction while letting another go. Man runs to press. Usual ‘damned if they do ‘ response.

Good side - story gets in Angry People In Local Newspapers on Facebook  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Dickson, however, said: “As a boat owner I regularly travel through the area and can tell the difference.”

:default_wacko: Really??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I did wonder how on earth it got planning permission in the first place but as usual whats the point of getting permission in the first place if you can then ignore it!

And yes I CAN easily spot the difference from the river!! Why do some people think they can ignore planning conditions!

P.S. Does anyone think the public will ever get to SEE the Ice House? At least people can see the mill at Hunsett!! (Oooops - opened another can of worms there!! )

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, batrabill said:

Yet he has used the real stuff for his roof-line, barge-boards and fascia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, marshman said:

I must admit I did wonder how on earth it got planning permission in the first place but as usual whats the point of getting permission in the first place if you can then ignore it!

And yes I CAN easily spot the difference from the river!! Why do some people think they can ignore planning conditions!

P.S. Does anyone think the public will ever get to SEE the Ice House? At least people can see the mill at Hunsett!! (Oooops - opened another can of worms there!! )

Amasingly good eyesight Marshy - for a 'giffer' :default_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, marshman said:

yes I CAN easily spot the difference from the river!!

But did you spot it before all of this came to light? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sympathy here as has been said regarding the planning. It will have been stated that all materials used will have to be submitted and approved. This must not have happened otherwise he wouldn't be in this pickle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems rather pathetic, to my layman's eye.

It has obviously been built to have the appearance of traditional materials and I am sure this was reflected in the design which was granted permission. 

They have allowed uPVC windows which give the "effect" of wooden ones but yet they now do not allow "wood effect" for part of the exterior cladding? Surely these materials are longer lasting, need less maintenance and give better results for insulation and heating economy? "Carbon footprint" and all that.

It seems to me like trying to say that Broads River Cruisers, or Yare and Bure One-designs, newly built on traditional lines, should not have "wood effect" Fibreglass hulls!

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may well be right about the appearance Vaughan and the lack of joined up thinking re the planning, but you can't go applying your own materials of choice without first having them approved.

Incidentally for my own planning I was refused PVC windows and had to fit wooden ones! Somebody else had this same constraint and ignored it...that went the same way as this has done for Mr Lodge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Getting it wrong in the past is no reason for not trying to get it right in the present or the future. I'm not sure whether you are writing in support or in opposition to  what the builder has done.

My own view is that having passed this building on a number of occasions, I do not find the appearance offensive and would not have known what materials had been used. To be offended by it now that I know, would be illogical and inconsistent.

The thing I find odd is " In 2014, this application was approved, when it was decided the benefits from the ice house’s restoration outweighed the fact the house was located in a spot the BA would ordinarily disapprove of."

If people cannot tell the difference (Bill Dickson excepted) then does this not still hold true?

Having passed the area many times this year, I have to agree with MM. Originally I understand the windows were expected to have wooden frames but the property was built with wooden looking UPVC window frames, this was approved retrospectively on application but the cladding condition remained. Why agree one aspect and not the other? I believe planning rules should be adhered to but if retrospective amendments to applications are granted, why not be consistent? I know the cladding is much more obvious than the window frames but I think most people passing by boat for the first time would be admiring the Ice House itself now, not straining to see the property 75m behind it. (Having said that, there is now a board at the water’s edge advertising the holiday cottage as being available to let from Easter next year.) Of course, now this has all been broadcast by the EDP, I guess everybody will become expert at identifying ‘non-conforming’ materials! :default_gbxhmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I come across every week in my job  regarding use of materials in conservation areas in east anglia. The use of upvc / aluminium gets frowned upon quite a lot but generally  if you spend a bit of time and show the planners the benefits profiles etc they in the main are fairly flexible.

Its when you do things with out consulting them they dig their heels in and quite rightly so.

John

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a better material is made to look as good as the product its in place of then it shouldnt be anyones business other than the person who is paying for it. 

Although I do think it might have been wise to inform planning of the change of material beforehand but ultimately the end result should mean its allowed. 

Its private property, if he wanted to clad it with wood effect immitation made from gold bullion aslong as it looks the same with the naked eye who actually cares!!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not as simple as cost & looks dnks34 (I do agree with your viewpoint though) but it is simple to inform planning (and its the rules!) of the material to be used and as said earlier may have been possible to have had the cladding agreed at the time. My personal viewpoint is why run the risk? just get everything approved or not beforehand then you know where you are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the cladding is replaced with wood in line with the BA's instructions will they cover the cost of replacing it when it rots in years to come?

I suggest that the planning committee ( or 5 of them at least ) pay a visit to Specsavers.

Might help them see sense.

Jeff

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering , 

a private individual uses a wood look a like in place of wood , his alternative product is greener , less flammable and lower maintenance there by less carbon footprint in the future , yet the BA deem this to be totally unacceptable .

what would happen if for instance a large business had let’s say, for example , totally ignored their granted permission and for sake of arguement built a structure exceeding the granted dimensions and even encroached onto a waterway potentially restricting passage or at the least causing an obstruction at times due to mooring on one of the busiest stretches of the Broads ?

im sure the BA wouldn’t allow any such blatant breach of granted planning and would insist on the work being carried out as outlined in their granted permissions 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jeffbroadslover said:

If the cladding is replaced with wood in line with the BA's instructions will they cover the cost of replacing it when it rots in years to come?

I suggest that the planning committee ( or 5 of them at least ) pay a visit to Specsavers.

Might help them see sense.

Jeff

 

Why should it? If Mr Lodge wanted to use concrete fibre board rather than wood then he should have put it into the original application. Too many people use retrospective planning to abuse the planning process. The original application can be found here, including the section where it plainly states "timber boarding to gables" No one forced Mr Lodge to put that into the application. He could just as easily have put timber effect concrete board, but then again the application might have been turned down. He has played the game, taken the gamble and in this instance it hasn't paid off.

https://planning.broads-authority.gov.uk/PublicAccessDocs/planningDocs.aspx?doc=/sites/planning/2013/Documents/Development Control/BA20130208FUL/0000c34b-31556bab-55f2-48a9-9b5e-4dd1336abe8d.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Just wondering , 

a private individual uses a wood look a like in place of wood , his alternative product is greener , less flammable and lower maintenance there by less carbon footprint in the future , yet the BA deem this to be totally unacceptable .

what would happen if for instance a large business had let’s say, for example , totally ignored their granted permission and for sake of arguement built a structure exceeding the granted dimensions and even encroached onto a waterway potentially restricting passage or at the least causing an obstruction at times due to mooring on one of the busiest stretches of the Broads ?

im sure the BA wouldn’t allow any such blatant breach of granted planning and would insist on the work being carried out as outlined in their granted permissions 

Just how is any concrete derived product which produces lots of carbon and greenhouse gases in it's manufacture greener than something grown from the soil that absorbs carbon? Wood is a very green product.

I believe what the BA deem as unacceptable is the abuse of the planning process by use of retrospective planning applications.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • NBN Mobile App

    Want to use NBN when you're out and about?

    Get our mobile app for Android and iOS!

    Get it on Google Play

×

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.