Womack Bakery

[BrundallNavy]

10 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

The second question I raised was, I admit, a bit vexatious.  I noticed on my ordnance survey  map (leisure 40) that the Broads Authority  area includes a significant amount of the North Walsham & Dilham canal. Would that be considered a navigation?

That’s privately owned I believe. 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, jeffbroadslover said:

I wonder, if the BA wanted to create an information centre (or converted telephone box) would the planning application be approved with or without any objections?

Or would the change be made and planning be approved afterwards ( if it ever went to the point that approval was needed)?

Jeff

 

Just like the mooring at How  Hill

Fred

[CambridgeCabby]

Whilst I certainly enjoy the bakeries offerings , I also am of the belief that local businesses need protecting , I didn’t realise that the bakery was operating without the correct permissions and would not have used them if I had known .

Hopefully the business will operate out of another (legal) site and continue to flourish .

[Andrewcook]

What I want to know is How did Ludham Village get New Houses Built without B A' planning permission Yet the Councils normally do all this as B A seems to control a vast area of the Broads  such as Ranworth that is a Public Staith.  

[marshman]

Andrew - most of Ludham is outside the BA's area - it only extends up Horsefen Road to the main road junction - indeed it ceases just before you get to the triangle at the end of the road.

And as far as the NW&D Canal is concerned, yes it is privately owned and indeed my OS map shows the limit of navigation to be at the corner where you branch off towards Dilham - and that is my understanding of the situation as well. Just because a waterway or Broad is within the Executive Boundary, does not mean it has navigable rights - Hoveton Great Broad and all that area a classic example!!!

[Meantime]

I believe the BA executive area goes all the way up to Bungay, but again the limit of navigation is Geldeston Lock. The BA's remit is to maintain the navigation as it was when The Broads Authority was formed.

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

I didn’t realise that the bakery was operating without the correct permissions and would not have used them if I had known .

Oh, pur-leese.

 

[marshman]

I have used them, but it's siting is not really suitable for a commercial operation  for 12 hours a day.

Perhaps before anyone else comments, they should take time and read the link to the reasons for refusal - hardly surprising that its been refused. What started, I guess as a bit of a hobby thing , now wants to turn itself into a commercial enterprise - not quite the same thing and it is quite interesting to read the comments in particular, from the Highway Authority.

[YnysMon]

I have loved everything I’ve bought from the Ludham bakery but, having read the attachment I sympathise with their neighbours. Great business potentially, but not in the right place. 

[jeffbroadslover]

If Horsefen Road is such a problem for access why don't the BA ask themselves for permission to "borrow" a few quid from the petty cash to go and buy a couple of tins of yellow paint and a couple of paint brushes.

They could then ask one or two "volunteer rangers" to paint some pretty lines down the side of the road. (no labour charge)

Access problem and possibly pedestrian's safety solved !!!

Jeff

 

Ouch.!     Just bit my tongue and inner cheek together         lol 

Jeff

[batrabill]

Classic Broads internet

Ill-informed allegation against BA

Widespread outrage. Why-oh-why?

Facts emerge.

 

Climbdown.

 

Repeat ad nauseam

[Gracie]

Isn't that what debate is all about. Starting at a point and after going completely off topic end up back at the beginning

Just watch Question Time in the House of Commons, this Forum and it's members are far more informed and make much more sense than that ruddy lot  

Good, healthy debate is fine as long as we don't get nasty x

[Meantime]

As a final update to this thread it is perhaps worth noting that the applicant took the BA's decision to refuse planning permission to the Planning Inspectorate.

They performed a site visit on the 25th May 2023 and reached a final decision in favour of the BA on the 20th July 2023, upholding the refusal of planning permission.

Whatever people may think of the BA and its planning department, it would appear that the Governments Planning Inspectorate agreed with the BA on this occasion.

Full details of the Planning Inspectorates decision can be found here

[SallyAnn]

On 21/08/2023 at 09:02, marshman said:

As always we may not know the full story. It is after all the job of the BA as planning authority to deal with planning breaches. It won't be the first time planning authorities have closed down a small business as it breaches planning controls - where do you draw the line? Perhaps someone has complained and they then have little choice but to act?

Its perhaps the regulation that is wrong, not the BA necessarily.

Yes but dealing with a planning breach should not close someone's entire livlihood, any response by planning should be reasonable and proportionate, and work with local successful cottage industries, rather than close them and shut the door and run off without any offer of support for the devastation they could potentially cause

[marshman]

Possibly - although from what I have read, there have been issues for sometime which have been outstanding.

Sadly we have to have rules, planning or otherwise,  which we have to abide by and perhaps a much earlier consultation with those at the Planning Authority, the Parish Council, and the Highways Authority, all of whom objected to the proposal, would have clarified issues which brought about this action.