Jump to content

BA enforcement over Sotshole Broad reinstatement


Oddfellow

Recommended Posts

The BBC news report certainly did give the impression that this was red tape overkill, and the EDP24 article also makes the fault look very one-sided.

 

There's a lot more to it than meets the eye though, as being discussed elsewhere on the Internet.

 

The objections appear to be centred on the hard structures, like the key heading, not the very laudible dredging of the Broad itself. The potential for possible future commercial access from the directly neighbouring Fairhaven Gardens is also a consideration, I believe.

 

The owner could be being very poorly treated, but it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THere is always two sides to a story like this,

THe EDP being the EDP as usual. Trying to be a National Paper and reporting like one.

Gone are the good old days when the paper was factual and realistic to the local people.

 

Last week there was a bit about something im involved with .. A Live Music event on the PArk at Rackheath.

THey interviewed my colleague,  they took her words and completely muddled them up to make the statement say something completely different.

Its to a point where the Parish Council do not comment to the EDP at all, 

AS what they do say, isn't what is written in the EDP !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve tried to read as much as is available from both the press and the BA so that I can get as clear a picture as possible,   I have always tried to be fair to the BA and supported them in many online discussions,  even on this occasion I concede they are following the letter of the law, however:-

 

Over the last few centuries over one hundred broads have been lost completely and will probably never return (there was even a programme about this only a week or two ago) this broad looked to be going the same way.

 

The BA in their own statement have said,

Improvements to footpaths and associated bridges

“Removal of the quay heading, decking, footpaths, boardwalks and bridges where appropriate and the restoration of the site to its condition”

“It is considered that the development is inappropriate and contrary to development plan policy and is unlikely to gain retrospective planning permission”

 

So having recognised the work on footpaths and bridges to be an improvement, they still want it removed?

 

Whilst expecting Mr Pooley to apply for retrospective planning consent, they seem to have already decided he won’t get it?

 

 

Link to BA document. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sotshole%20broad&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.broads-authority.gov.uk%2Fbroads%2Flive%2Fauthority%2Fmeetings%2Fplanning-committee%2F2013%2F04-26%2F%5Breport%5D%2520Enforcement%2520Item%2520for%2520Consideration%2520Sotshole%2520Broad%2520Norton%2520Hill%2520Ranworth.pdf&ei=jTSaUaaDJ4q80QWI-oDQDA&usg=AFQjCNF-49BRFoqL2AfKu8CzMKJUTBDpXg&bvm=bv.46751780,d.d2k

 

Whilst the BA can take the moral high ground and quote the regulations they should also consider, is this development any better or worse than cockshoot broad, another broad that was in danger of being lost until work was done to install quay heading, footpaths and boardwalks.

One of the BA objectives... Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public..

Yet without footpaths, boardwalks , bridges, how is access to these areas to be achieved and therefor enjoyed by the public.

 

 

Sorry, as most people will know I usually stick to one or two lines, I’ve caught the rambling on decease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi MArtin,

I have visited Cockshoot broads on many occasions.  THe boardwalk to the bird hive is great.

Its a real great walk in the countryside, seeing so much wildlife in such a lovely place.

Without the boardwalk at Cockshoot, there simply would not be anyway of walking around the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

probably 

One of the BA objectives... Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Broads by the public..

Yet without footpaths, boardwalks , bridges, how is access to these areas to be achieved and therefor enjoyed by the public.

 

There are no public rights of way or concessionary footpaths giving access to the Broad, so the only way that the Public could enjoy the access is via some sort of commercial venture, like Fairhaven gardens.

 

The scale of the quay headings and walkways look somewhat substantial for private usage on private land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the report given was true and that a joint venture was considered in 2008 and the B.A. pulled out because of the cost, to me this seems to to a case of sour grapes on the side of the B.A.

 

To take action against the land owner for improving access for visitors on just open days seem a lot of over kill.

 

Regards

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no public rights of way or concessionary footpaths giving access to the Broad, so the only way that the Public could enjoy the access is via some sort of commercial venture, like Fairhaven gardens.

 

 

 

I believe the public already enjoy access via open days, more importantly this could be used as the way forward for other such ventures.

 

 

Rather than have conflict, rather than have people taking sides, why not show how working together might benefit all interested parties. 

 

Mr Pooley applies for retrospective planning,  the BA agree with certain covenants attached.

The broad is maintained in it's current state (agreed by both parties to be a improvement)

The broad is not used for commercial ventures.

The granting of public access on one day per month throughout the year.

 

The BA get a restored broad for zero cost.

The public enjoy conservation at work for 12 days every year.

Nature enjoys the broad uninterrupted for 353 days of the year.

 

It only needs people working together for a single cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To improve:
to make (land) more useful, profitable, or valuable by enclosure, cultivation, etc.
to increase the value of (real property) by betterments, as the construction of buildings and sewers.

The use of the word “improvement” by the BA is not a recognition of a benefit to the environment of the broad, but an accurate assessment of the betterment of the property which benefits the owner, in much the same way as a house extension would add value to the house, notwithstanding it was constructed without the requisite consent.

If there has been development that obviously falls outside the existing policies, as seems to be the case, is it any wonder that retrospective consent is unlikely to be given.

I agree with littlesprite, let the owner comply with the planning legislation and submit a retrospective application for consent.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Pooley applies for retrospective planning,  the BA agree with certain covenants attached.

The broad is maintained in it's current state (agreed by both parties to be a improvement)

The broad is not used for commercial ventures.

The granting of public access on one day per month throughout the year.

 

The BA get a restored broad for zero cost.

The public enjoy conservation at work for 12 days every year.

Nature enjoys the broad uninterrupted for 353 days of the year.

 

It only needs people working together for a single cause.

 

That would be a fantastic conclusion to this MArtin !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were to be the result, it would signal to all and sundry that the BA is not interested in enforcing the regulations which are intended to protect the conservation area from this type of uncontrolled development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 12 of this document, it is apparent that there was consideration, by the BA, of a project for the removal sediment from the broad, to
reduce nutrient and/or restore depth. No mention of 'hard' development. In the absence of funding grants, it appears the project was dropped by the BA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Sponsors

    Norfolk Broads Network is run by volunteers - You can help us run it by making a donation

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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