"yurt-gate" Revisited.

[Vaughan]

An article on todays EDP website (sorry I can't link it) describes how a couple who bought an area of fen marsh known as Blackwater Fen about 5 years ago, have decided to sell up and abandon the nature reserve that they had successfully created, because the Blessed BA planning dept don't like the yurt tent they have put up in the middle, as a shelter for research work into plant and wildlife.

The BAs reasoning is that it might be in danger of flooding.  A Yurt??  In the middle of a marsh??  It seems to be on the other side of the river from Surlingham Ferry.  Has anyone seen this "blott on the landscape"?  Can it be seen from the river?

What astounding double standards, from an authority which can get away with erecting an enormous canvas aircraft hanger (visible from space) on the river bank at Griffin Lane and pass it off for years as "just temporary".

I thought they wanted to promote projects for wildlife preservation and conservation, not kill them off after yet another of their protracted legal arguments.

 

[Lulu]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24357749.blackwater-carr-sold-broads-authority-yurt-row/

[Hylander]

I think it is about time the BA paid more attention to the eyesores on The River Ant.     I wonder who at the BA objected to this Yurt?      

[NeilB]

29 minutes ago, Hylander said:

I think it is about time the BA paid more attention to the eyesores on The River Ant.     I wonder who at the BA objected to this Yurt?      

One of the characters appears to have disappeared along with their 4 boats, seems to have left some rubbish on the bank near Jonny Crowes though….

[marshman]

Yet again though, people buy bits of land and think they can do what they like with it!  In only their wildest dreams are they "enhancing" nature and if you allow one, then everyone would want to buy their bit of carr, put up a shed and before you know where you are, you have areas dotted with dwellers. Nature usually copes well enough on its own without human interference

Those with long enough memories will remember of the couple who bought woodland adjacent to the Yare and thought they would "tidy" it up and erect a shed for their tools.

I cannot build a yurt in the woodland - thats why we have planning rules! I doubt that you can do it anywhere else in the country either!

I agree about the boats, but they are a bit more complicated to deal with I think - establishing ownership can be a problem - I am not sure the BA can treat them like councils can deal with abandoned cars

[Roy]

This seems very petty of the BA I wonder  how much money was spent to this decision ? 
reading the article the BA has allowed far more building work that doesn’t necessarily fit in with the broads and yet one yurt is refused this makes me think of the saying money talks !!! 
 

[floydraser]

Ah, a traditional Norfolk Yurt. I remember the old Yurtmen of Norfolk....

An alternative view may be that they mention overnight stays therefore if one yurt is allowed, how long before two yurts, then you have a campsite. Nature will look after itself in a place like that without a helping hand from us apes so I don't accept their excuse that the area needs them to be doing what they are doing. The yurt is white, how does that fit in with nature, shouldn't it be camouflage? 

They're not being "forced to sell" at all, it's their choice but a good one. Sell up and don't take on the BA. The price is less than a good boat but I suspect that apart from an overwhelming desire to improve the environment for the little creatures of the World, they were hoping to increase the value of the land.

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

they mention overnight stays therefore if one yurt is allowed, how long before two yurts, then you have a campsite.

Here is a classic example of quoting out of context.

The overnight stays were in the event of needing to monitor the nocturnal activity of bats and other species.  It is all there in the article, if we care to read it more closely. 

This land is very close to the Wheatfen reserve which feeds off Surlingham Broad.  I wonder - very seriously - what the Broads would have done without the research and campaigning of Dr Ted Ellis, who owned Wheatfen.

If these people were trying to follow in his footsteps, I applaud them.

[marshman]

The answer then, is to take the yurt down, donate the land to the Wheatfen reserve - who in turn can look after the habitat and animals/plants etc etc and the BA will not have an issue! The only issue then is that someone was mug enough to pay £59000 for a piece of marshland / carr and then tried to turn it into something it never was, without talking to the planning authorities.

Come on Vaughan, it stretches the imagination to believe the guff about improving the habitat and having longer term ambitions for the site, yet not having the foresight to talk to the BA in advance? Everyone else manages to monitor bats without living on site - put up a small tent overnight if you cannot stay awake. This happens time and time again everywhere where people buy land, not just in Broadland to take on some "development" and then seem surprised planning issues then arise.

They could have had just as much fun by volunteering for the Wheatfen Trust full time - and it would have been far cheaper!! In the meantime some landowner must be rubbing their hands in glee about having sold it in the first place!!

 

[gancanny]

i remember years ago  plots of land for sale at crabbitts marsh, horning.

  a very similar situation where people bought plots without going into the planning side of things,

[marshman]

When I lived in Whitstable many many years ago, pre- gentrification times, the local town council did not crack down as quickly as it should on people buying plots of land on an old marsh between the sea and the town - over the next five years on these plots magically appeared all manner of sheds and inevitably became homes for some. When they eventually tried to crackdown, it cost them hundreds of thousands in legal fees because, surprise surprise many were " legally" in multiple ownership - a common trend in such developments!

It took years to return the marshes to their original state and all council planning departments are on the look out for just this type of illegal development. Of course one doesn't really matter too much but it never stays as "just one" - they quickly spawn other "just ones" until you have more and more. I expect that's what was said about Crabbett's Marsh initially.

Although I don't know that they didn't talk to Planning, leaving it white was rather silly - it sticks out like sore thumb on aerial shots!

[Hylander]

4 hours ago, marshman said:

 

I agree about the boats, but they are a bit more complicated to deal with I think - establishing ownership can be a problem - I am not sure the BA can treat them like councils can deal with abandoned cars

More's the pity.

[Hylander]

"When I lived in Whitstable many many years ago, pre- gentrification times".   Crumbs Marshman I am nearly 80 and dont remember all this at Whitstable.   Be calling you Methuselah from now on.    He did at 969 apparently.

[floydraser]

5 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Here is a classic example of quoting out of context.

The overnight stays were in the event of needing to monitor the nocturnal activity of bats and other species.  It is all there in the article, if we care to read it more closely. 

And everyone is called Jeremy or Jemima and the sun always shines in June...

Overnight would be scary on your own so it's reasonable to have someone with you, or two. Perfectly reasonable for those people to have food and drink then, some of it alcoholic. And as it's all about nature and wildlife, perfectly acceptable for one of the party to wear a sash with "stag" or "Hen" on it. 

"What's all this noise then?" 

"Just observing the bats officer!".

My point is, if I have failed once again to get it accross, that us apes will take a mile if we are given an inch. 

 

[marshman]

Thats the trouble of having a short memory Hylander!!  Whilst I agree it was not actually Whitstable, it was really at Seasalter, but had I typed the latter no one would have had a clue where I was talking about!!! I am quite surprised you cannot remember all the shacks on the Seasalter Levels but it is all an RSPB eserve now.

In the early 80's I lived in Whitstable for sometime and kept a boat moored in the Bay - we laid our own sinker attached to a length of chunky chain. At the same time my mate and I were fitting out a shell of a Westerly 31 ketch in his garden in the town - we had persuaded Westerly Marine to sell this part completed shell to us just before one of the several times they went bust. We often had a choice of going sailing or working on the inside of the boat - guess which won more often than not? Westerly never sold kit boats but they did give us a colour brochure and said we should follow that for the inside detail!!!!

[Turnoar]

11 hours ago, Vaughan said:

…

What astounding double standards, from an authority which can get away with erecting an enormous canvas aircraft hanger (visible from space) on the river bank at Griffin Lane and pass it off for years as "just temporary"...

 

I wholeheartedly agree, feels like the pot calling the kettle black or do as I say not as I do.

Is Griffin Lane tent a conflict of interest scenario? Should any decision or challenge on that now be delegated elsewhere?

The yurt perhaps may be proved temporary if taken down, even if just for a day, especially and potentially arguably if the timeframe has not exceeded the precedent seemingly set by the Griffin’ erection.

Planning function should revert to the district council authority with relevant consultees to include BA, water, EA, pipelines’ etc. Just my opinion. 

[dom]

21 hours ago, gancanny said:

i remember years ago  plots of land for sale at crabbitts marsh, horning.

  a very similar situation where people bought plots without going into the planning side of things,

Still an ongoing issue to this day.

[marshman]

Just shows you how hard they are to cope with and why they crack down so hard on even one - without that happening they would undoubtedly start to proliferate everywhere. At least they get some things right IMHO

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, marshman said:

Just shows you how hard they are to cope with and why they crack down so hard on even one - without that happening they would undoubtedly start to proliferate everywhere. At least they get some things right IMHO

It's a pity they're not so proactive with dealing with the planning breach at How Hill, then, but that is a mess of their own making!

[Vaughan]

43 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It's a pity they're not so proactive with dealing with the planning breach at How Hill, then, but that is a mess of their own making!

So is Griffin Lane.

[dom]

Is the reporting in this case omitting info, or a bit misleading? You don't usually need planning permission for a yurt, as it's a temporary structure. You can't however site one on some classes of land.

Is the application in this case a change of use on the land, from agricultural or forestry to residential or tourism? I can understand the BA's opposition if so.

[MargeandParge]

I thought a Yurt was a tent and could be erected and occupied  for so many days a year, as a shepherds hut when on wheels can be. Perhaps we will have to catch up with The Blessed Authority as they seem to have extinguished fire works again. They nevertheless moved a private mooring located at How Hill at our expense from one end to the other amid protest not against the mooring owner but The Blessed Authorities arrogance.

I hope that they will have contributing people, to upset in the future or they may find themselves without an income. 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

 

[MargeandParge]

Sorry Paladin I honestly never read your post it's just what we thought. As you have stated the same I do apologise to you.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

[Paladin]

39 minutes ago, MargeandParge said:

They nevertheless moved a private mooring located at How Hill at our expense from one end to the other amid protest not against the mooring owner but The Blessed Authorities arrogance.

 

Marge and Parge, before this myth becomes a fact, they did not move a private mooring.

The original mooring, which was where the boatshed now stands, was subject of a covenant between the then-owner of How Hill and a neighbour. It was not intended to carry over to subsequent owners of the neighbouring house, and covenant became void when the house was sold many years ago.

However, the latest owner of the house claimed otherwise and the BA, as current owners of How Hill,   capitulated without testing the claim. Without consultation with Planning, the claimant was given the free use of the end mooring of the 24hr moorings, where his boat still sits.

The BA tried to finagle a planning application for change of use from public to private mooring past the Planning Committee, but got caught in the act and their application was withdrawn. But the boat remains on the public mooring, in breach of the bye laws and without planning consent. As one senior BA officer told me 'in adverse possession'.

The full details are still on-line  on the BA's website here in the objections from Messrs Morris and Bishop. The application was withdraw in May 2022, but the boat is still there, blocking the 24 hr mooring from use by others.

[TheQ]

On 02/06/2024 at 15:46, dom said:

Is the reporting in this case omitting info, or a bit misleading? You don't usually need planning permission for a yurt, as it's a temporary structure. You can't however site one on some classes of land.

Is the application in this case a change of use on the land, from agricultural or forestry to residential or tourism? I can understand the BA's opposition if so.

A temporary structure can only be in place for 28 days. So BA's tent for the breydon boat was also illegal.

But if the floor area is less than 30 square metres that doesn't apply