The Beauchamp Arms

[YnysMon]

I can just imagine that suggestion in the hands of a newbie to drones. Could go anywhere and everywhere.
Maybe not!

 

[Victoryv]

I like it !

[MauriceMynah]

I have to admit, I've seen a lot worse!

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:

You can tell that from the photo?

No guarantees but am pretty darn certain of it. Will check when I'm invited to the champagne opening ceremony. It's all down to the mullions and transoms.

[Turnoar]

Couple of questions, having navigated sndc and been directed to ba site, to save searching for the answer is the pub within a conservation area? That in itself may not preclude the use of plastic windows, depends on what the conservation officer decides. Second one is is it listed.... whilst it’s a broadsmark it doesn’t seem to be of “architectural merit”etc. and I wonder how such an imposing building came to be, 3ish storeys on the edge of nowhere surrounded by nothing else... The colour is not great but it highlights mistakes of the past perhaps? That said I’ve always liked it as was and hope it survives as a pub somehow, not the best of times to be testing that though.

[Hylander]

19 hours ago, Mouldy said:

Cruised past again earlier and it doesn’t look any better.  The ‘beams’ in the eaves are being painted white and it looks as if Del Boy has run out of blue paint.  Perhaps it’s being renamed as The Bluechamp Arms?

Looking at the top photo.   I dont know about a 'Listed Building' , looks more to me like it is listing.  I know it isnt just the camera's angle.

[Hylander]

Strangely,    I like it,  brightens up a dull and boring landscape.    It can be very dreich on the southern rivers.    Reeds more reeds and even more reeds.

[Guest Jayfire]

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

Strangely,    I like it,  brightens up a dull and boring landscape.    It can be very dreich on the southern rivers.    Reeds more reeds and even more reeds.

I have to say that I agree. It most certainly looks brighter and more pleasant than it did before. At least from the pictures anyway.

And it takes a lot to make me want to step inside a pub usually 

[Mouldy]

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

Looking at the top photo.   I dont know about a 'Listed Building' , looks more to me like it is listing.  I know it isnt just the camera's angle.

My fault, this isn’t due to subsidence, but I was being overtaken at the time I tried to grab the pictures and didn’t have time to ‘compose’ it as I would normally have done.

I’ve done a little digital editing and straightened it up a bit . . . . . . . . . . . still looks uninviting, though.

[Bytheriver]

The site had a mention at Planning Ctte last Friday re the outstanding enforcement re the Caravans & is due a visit soon Someone commented on the colour but from memory was told it was not an issue as not listed building - worth checking minutes when they come out on  30 October

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, Bytheriver said:

& is due a visit soon 

Time to trust the planning officers.

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 11/10/2020 at 17:17, Broads01 said:

It is the most hideous looking pub I've seen anywhere in the country. I know nothing about planning regulations so a question - would planning permission be needed to change the building colour and the windows?

In a 'National Park" yes, most definitely, even the "type" of paint used must be scrutinised.  . Did I say National Park?. 

[Bytheriver]

35 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

In a 'National Park" yes, most definitely, even the "type" of paint used must be scrutinised.  . Did I say National Park?. 

The Broads Executive Area was set up like the National Parks under its own Act of Parliament and like the other areas which are all slightly different having been done over many years  hence the  Glover Review / Landscape Review to bring them under a more standard format with additional principles ie the addition of Navigation to the Sandford principle (Who knows the amount of protection the National Parks & the Broads will be given under the "Planning for the Future" White Paper out for consultation till end of October) ( See last weeks BA Planning Ctte Documents)

[JennyMorgan]

Will there be sufficient will or time in the present session of Parliament for this review to move forward? There are far more important issues in hand at the moment.

If rights of navigation are threatened then I see this as ramping up the whole topic into the realms of being politically contentious thus the entire white paper could be threatened. A can of worms that might derail the whole shebang. 

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

In a 'National Park" yes, most definitely, even the "type" of paint used must be scrutinised. 

Allegedly planning is the Broads is the same as in real NPs. Either it is or it isn't. 

[Bytheriver]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Allegedly planning is the Broads is the same as in real NPs. Either it is or it isn't. 

Each of the 10 English NPs including the Broads (As funding comes from the NP pot) has a different Management Plan - details here.https://www.nationalparksengland.org.uk/national-park-management-plans  Between the Landscape Review & Planning for the Future there could be more evening up of how different aspects are dealt with including how they look at detail as close as paint colour which some NPs are keen on but could have evolved from their origional way of looking at things over the past 70 odd years. 

[JennyMorgan]

23 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

Between the Landscape Review & Planning for the Future there could be more evening up of how different aspects are dealt with . . . . . . . . . . 

A desire to even things up, to play on a level playing field, is both logical and, to a degree, desirable. However, local identities must be retained and not just on the Broads. A one size fits all approach is probably not the way forward and in regard to navigation this is an issue that applies way beyond Broadland and it encompasses a variety of AONBs which are presently outside the NP family. Navigation could be a real applecart upsetter and for that reason I don't foresee it being allowed to become the contentious issue that it could. Not to say that I am right though!

[Broads01]

Sorry I asked the question now. I do get frustrated when the NP debate keeps popping up at the slightest opportunity.

[YnysMon]

Me too. I’m avoidIng threads that start on this theme. It’s starting to bore me, and that’s possibly where the biggest danger lies.

I appreciate that people like Peter (JennyMorgan) have experience of BA committees, and I’m sure have sound reasons for their stance.
I don’t doubt there are concerns to be addressed, but they need to appreciate that most of us just see things carrying on as normal. I can see the difficulty of trying to keep the issue in public awareness, but in the meantime fear that the eternal repetition on so many threads risks putting off the ordinary occasional Broads punter. How to reach a compromise?

Needs a bit more nuance. Win over more people. Try not to alienate natural allies.

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, YnysMon said:

I don’t doubt there are concerns to be addressed, but they need to appreciate that most of us just see things carrying on as normal. 

Whilst there are also those who are prepared to stand up for maintaining that normal.

I am hoping to give you a serious answer to your post, as I do very much understand your feelings.  A very large element of this forum concerns the simple pleasure that we all get from our cruise blogs and our shared experiences in the place that we all love, whether as residents, or as regular visitors.  I feel, in that sense, that "stakeholder" doesn't just mean financial.  There is, however, the continuing question of the future of the Broads (which are not natural) and any threat that there may be to the area.  This is something that the forum must also address, as one of the only places left where we can address it, and where our feelings might perhaps be heard where it matters.

The Broads are only here today because they have been fought for, down the years, by those who were prepared to stand up for them.  I am privileged to have known most of those people, post War, and I know what a tremendous effort was involved.  The River Commissioners were simply a body of local businessmen and professionals who gave of their time.  The big influence and financial support of the main hire agencies is no longer there.  And I don't just mean in river tolls!  Blakes ran two Broads themselves, and several moorings, including GYYS.  Their grant aid to local charities and associations was a very large annual sum.

All that is gone now and even the "voices" of the Broads Society and the owners' associations, seem to have caught a sore throat.  So I see this forum as a very important vehicle of public discussion and concern. The Broads now, are run by an assortment of quangos and a couple of very powerful charities with their own agendas.  It is quite possible that they may need to be held to public account in future.

In my experience, I feel that I "did my bit" for the Broads during my years in business there : I think I can say I put into it as much as I took from it, which perhaps we should all try to do, in our various ways.

Whilst we all enjoy things as they are now, and hope it may continue, I am very glad to see that there are still those few who are prepared to fight for it!

 

[JennyMorgan]

With regard to this particular thread the NP issue raised its head solely due to planning, which being relevant, was quite understandably brought to the table. This has only reared its head because of the questionable colour issue. Well, that alone I find confusing because I know of several shed owners, myself included, who have been told to repaint or paint their sheds because the colour is unacceptable. In my case I totally rebuilt my existing shed and left it devoid of colour in order to weather for a year before painting it. I was advised as to which tones I should paint it which suited me just fine although my eventual choice of colours did cause some comment from above but thankfully it was left at that. On the other hand four other shed owners on Oulton Broad were given a very limited choice of acceptable colours with which to paint or repaint their sheds. Granted that colour is subjective and perhaps a sea-side bathing chalet in garish stripes style is questionable, or at least it's not my choice. Personally I like the higgardly piggilyness of Potter Heigham's 'shed city' one of its great attractions. Heaven forbid that all the chalets and riverside palaces are all painted in one of three regulation tones of brown or green! 

Beyond that complacency on our part is our friendly quango's greatest asset. Vaughan's most recent post is absolutely spot on. 

[Bytheriver]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

With regard to this particular thread the NP issue raised its head solely due to planning, which being relevant, was quite understandably brought to the table. This has only reared its head because of the questionable colour issue. Well, that alone I find confusing because I know of several shed owners, myself included, who have been told to repaint or paint their sheds because the colour is unacceptable. In my case I totally rebuilt my existing shed and left it devoid of colour in order to weather for a year before painting it. I was advised as to which tones I should paint it which suited me just fine although my eventual choice of colours did cause some comment from above but thankfully it was left at that. On the other hand four other shed owners on Oulton Broad were given a very limited choice of acceptable colours with which to paint or repaint their sheds. Granted that colour is subjective and perhaps a sea-side bathing chalet in garish stripes style is questionable, or at least it's not my choice. Personally I like the higgardly piggilyness of Potter Heigham's 'shed city' one of its great attractions. Heaven forbid that all the chalets and riverside palaces are all painted in one of three regulation tones of brown or green! 

Beyond that complacency on our part is our friendly quango's greatest asset. Vaughan's most recent post is absolutely spot on. 

To avoid any confusion Oulton Broad is a Conservation Area https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/355449/Oulton-Broad-Conservation-Area-appraisal-adopted-July-2015.pdf

[JennyMorgan]

36 minutes ago, Bytheriver said:

To avoid any confusion Oulton Broad is a Conservation Area 

 Parts of it are, that's true. Not sure that all these sheds are within that area though.

[Bytheriver]

43 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

 Parts of it are, that's true. Not sure that all these sheds are within that area though.

Not wonderful maps but as good as it gets

 https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/230346/OultonBroad.pdf