South Walsham villager wins his battle of the broad

[ranworthbreeze]

Mr Pooley has been granted retrospective planning permission with minor conditions.

For the full story please read:-

http://www.angliaafloat.co.uk/news/south_walsham_villager_wins_his_battle_of_the_broad_1_3209488

Regards

Alan

[Paladin]

Typical Press ‘spin’. I don’t regard this as a victory for Mr Pooley. He has now had to comply with planning law, and has had conditions and controls imposed upon him (and his successors), in line with the BA’s stated position, which can be found here. “Minor” conditions? I don’t think so.

[marshman]

And quite correctly so - why should someone who believes he is "important" think he can go ahead and ride roughshod over planning laws which ordinary persons abide by? I believe that it was a deliberate attempt to profit by his proximity to Fairhaven and had nothing at all to do with his own personal enjoyment of his land. You can "enjoy" your land without building huge boardwalks and i applaud the oft derided Planning Dept at the BA for their stance and result.

[Guest]

And quite correctly so - why should someone who believes he is "important" think he can go ahead and ride roughshod over planning laws which ordinary persons abide by? I believe that it was a deliberate attempt to profit by his proximity to Fairhaven and had nothing at all to do with his own personal enjoyment of his land. You can "enjoy" your land without building huge boardwalks and i applaud the oft derided Planning Dept at the BA for their stance and result.

 

 

and the aerial view shows it even more clearly.....

 

 

[Hylander]

Well quite frankly that is a bit rich of the BA,   what happened at Fleet Dyke? - they dug it up and then went for retrospective consent.  Bit of the pot calling the kettle me thinks.      I personally shall never forgive whoever for digging up Fleet Dyke.    It was one of the best spots up North to get some peace and quite, coupled with the fact that you could go for a lovely stroll in the evenings.      Good for this chap, ok he probably has a few bob but at least he has put his money to good use.   

[marshman]

You see Hylander - you may fallen into the same old trap many others do - with respect.

 

The work in Fleet Dyke was nothing to do with the BA - it was done by BESL as part of the flood prevention works and the BA as Planning Authority merely granted planning permission, as they did everywhere else in Broadland where flood defence work has been carried out. Being old my memory fails me but if i recall the retrospective planning consent there applied to the removal of the piling and I guess it is to that which you refer.

 

Like you, I deplore the loss of many of the old "wild" mooring spots but as is often the case in open Forums you are pointing the finger at the wrong culprit - unless you wanted the BA to actually buy the moorings and look after them in perpetuity, then point your finger at the landowner. 

 

I am slightly at a loss how any of that is comparable to the situation at Sotshole Broad but you will no doubt enlighten the misguided!!

[Hylander]

If my memory serves me well it was to the Broads Authority that I wrote objecting to the 'digging up' of Fleet Dyke.  Yes it was BESL and its gang of chaps that carried out the deed at the time but it was the BA that applied for retrospective consent.      My memory too has seen better days and may be I am getting muddled but I do recall that the BA was involved.       I still to this day feel 'mift' about the loss of those lovely moorings.

 

[Soundings]

If my memory serves me well it was to the Broads Authority that I wrote objecting to the 'digging up' of Fleet Dyke.  Yes it was BESL and its gang of chaps that carried out the deed at the time but it was the BA that applied for retrospective consent.      My memory too has seen better days and may be I am getting muddled but I do recall that the BA was involved.       I still to this day feel 'mift' about the loss of those lovely moorings.

 

A little OT but Hylander are not some of the boating fraternity slowly reinstating the "wild" moorings up at Fleet Dyke. Like you I think they are a great loss but maybe we can "trample" them back

[Paladin]

Hylander, you wrote to the BA because they are the Planning Authority, however, the applicant for the retrospective permission was the Environment Agency. They had previously applied for, and had been granted, permission for the works to be carried out, but for some reason (human error?) three sections of old piling had been left off the original application. The further application was to enable the work, already agreed, to be completed.

 

Yes, the wild moorings in Fleet Dyke were disrupted for a season or two, but, now the reed has grown back, boaters and anglers have done their 'trampling'. I've 'wild moored' in several locations along the dyke over the past couple of years. It is also possible to go for walks again. The path is regularly (if not too frequently) mown.

[Paladin]

Edited to correct my inaccurate assumption.

 

Having now read the minutes of the Planning Committee, it was originally intended to leave the three sections of piling in position, but when it came to doing the work, it was found they had deteriorated substantially, and the section in Fleet Dyke had been reported, by the BA, to the EA to be a navigational hazard.