Jump to content

Is it time to switch to the North


brandenjg

Recommended Posts

Hi John, I've not phoned yet as hoping to head up north rather than further south. But I've saved the number incase I can't find anywhere in my price range around the stalham area.

your pm definitely caught my eye price wise though so thanks for the suggestion :) Branden 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thing stinks of prejudicial influence and the pre-empting of a legal case in this way could be seen as bullying tactics and also a ploy to restrict the land-owner's income which could be a plan to jeopardise their ability to further fund the legal battle.

The whole affair has been a massive waste of public money.  

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/9/2015, 8:30:45, Strowager said:

 

That part of the letter shows that the landowner keeps repeatedly appealing after each refusal, which could go on forever Peter.

Not really a case of "prejudging", more one of pre-empting further delays to enforce a judgement that has already been ratified several times.

I'm afraid I doubt whether the BA can help you find another mooring in the same price range Branden, because the reason it was cheaper than the average was because it was illegal, with this long pending situation.

Illegal is not the correct term here, my personal feeling aside the basin had permission for 13 (it think 13 but memory fails a little 13 give or take one either way), permission was granted for more boats as the letter states but then permission has been rescinded due to the perceived breaches, this would mean that there is still permission for the original number, who is to say that Brandon's is not one of those?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my knowledge Permission was granted for 25 boats including mine on the provision that certain criteria were met and plans were submitted but unfortunately that never happened so the permission was revoked.

 My boats have always been tolled insured, BSS'd and we'll maintained in the mooring but unfortunately not all the boats are the same. 

If the BA win and the mooring basin closes there will be 25 boats that have to move somewhere else,  so we'll all have to find new moorings. How many mooring owner will take in the boats considering the condition of some?

branden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

This whole thing stinks of prejudicial influence and the pre-empting of a legal case in this way could be seen as bullying tactics and also a ploy to restrict the land-owner's income which could be a plan to jeopardise their ability to further fund the legal battle.

The whole affair has been a massive waste of public money.  

 

 

 

Over ninety thousand and rising. I suppose the BA can't be seen to back down now but then it should never have started in the first place. However I don't suppose that when this is settled it will remain an £800.00 p.a. mooring, too near the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MBA Marine said:

Illegal is not the correct term here, my personal feeling aside the basin had permission for 13 (it think 13 but memory fails a little 13 give or take one either way), permission was granted for more boats as the letter states but then permission has been rescinded due to the perceived breaches, this would mean that there is still permission for the original number, who is to say that Brandon's is not one of those?  

I think Branden's response to that is exactly right, the original limited numbers permission was revoked because the other provisos were not complied with.

41 minutes ago, brandenjg said:

From my knowledge Permission was granted for 25 boats including mine on the provision that certain criteria were met and plans were submitted but unfortunately that never happened so the permission was revoked................

 

29 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Over ninety thousand and rising. I suppose the BA can't be seen to back down now but then it should never have started in the first place. However I don't suppose that when this is settled it will remain an £800.00 p.a. mooring, too near the city.

Yes, it's an expensive process Peter, but if the BA didn't pursue it to a meaningful conclusion it would undoubtedly set a precedent for other areas around the Broads.

In the same way that local authorities have to defeat planning permission breaches, else people would know they could just ignore planning approval regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strow, please note my comment,  ' I suppose the BA can't be seen to back down now but then it should never have started in the first place.' I stand by that. 

What has happened might well have breached Authority policies but with regard to Jenner's Basin are those policies really justified, even sustainable? There is absolutely no logic to the planning policies for the Island. To my way of thinking Andy has banged exactly the right drum, something stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Strow, please note my comment,  ' I suppose the BA can't be seen to back down now but then it should never have started in the first place.' I stand by that. 

What has happened might well have breached Authority policies but with regard to Jenner's Basin are those policies really justified, even sustainable? There is absolutely no logic to the planning policies for the Island. To my way of thinking Andy has banged exactly the right drum, something stinks.

I did note your comment Peter, but the detail in the BA's letter goes on to mention residential caravans on the island, as well as boats.

I doubt whether the BA could do anything else other than start the process, it would have been a dangerous precedent to ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Strowager said:

I think Branden's response to that is exactly right, the original limited numbers permission was revoked because the other provisos were not complied with.

 

Yes, it's an expensive process Peter, but if the BA didn't pursue it to a meaningful conclusion it would undoubtedly set a precedent for other areas around the Broads.

In the same way that local authorities have to defeat planning permission breaches, else people would know they could just ignore planning approval regulations.

the permission to increase the number of boats was revoked, therefor it should revert to its previous allocation not go to zero.  I may see Roger tomorrow I have some jobs to do over there if he is about I shall ask. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole silly saga is doing absolutely nothing for the credibility of the Broads Authority and its planning department. Quite simply the BA's policies for the Island are wrong, unreasonable and unfair. The Island could be a great credit for Norwich, offering a valuable and attractive facility for the City. Clearly unrealistic, unreasonable and poor forethought by the planners.

  • Like 3
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.