Jump to content

Man finded for 'illegal development' on the River Thames.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

Man fined £18,000 for illegal River Thames development - BBC News

 

Courtney-Worthy, of Long Wittenham, was issued with a first notice in January 2019 but he failed to comply with its deadline of September that year.

He also failed to comply with notices between September 2019 and February 2021, the second of which told him to stop using the land for mooring a boat for residential purposes and to remove the boat.

He admitted two counts of failing to comply with an enforcement notice at Oxford Magistrates' Court on 28 July.

Courtney-Worthy was fined £13,000 for failing to comply with the enforcement notices. He was also told to pay the council's costs of £5,511 and a victim surcharge of £180 - a total of £18,691.

 

 

The illegal development with the river pictured

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC reported this case and there is another image, slightly blurred, which shows the decking and shed Simon built. Placed alongside the Thames south of Oxford, I did wonder how much was actually visible from the river and who might actually see it to complain. There are also similar structures dotted around on privately owned land, I seem to recall.

 

This is in stark contrast to certain areas of Birmingham, where certain individuals can seemingly do what they want and those that object are ignored. May be this is also the case elsewhere?

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Heartland said:

This is in stark contrast to certain areas of Birmingham, where certain individuals can seemingly do what they want and those that object are ignored. May be this is also the case elsewhere?

 

You might need to add a bit more detail and some specifics to get a sensible reply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Man fined £18,000 for illegal River Thames development - BBC News

 

Courtney-Worthy, of Long Wittenham, was issued with a first notice in January 2019 but he failed to comply with its deadline of September that year.

He also failed to comply with notices between September 2019 and February 2021, the second of which told him to stop using the land for mooring a boat for residential purposes and to remove the boat.

He admitted two counts of failing to comply with an enforcement notice at Oxford Magistrates' Court on 28 July.

Courtney-Worthy was fined £13,000 for failing to comply with the enforcement notices. He was also told to pay the council's costs of £5,511 and a victim surcharge of £180 - a total of £18,691.

 

 

The illegal development with the river pictured

 

This is a lesson for anyone who mistakenly assumes that riperian rights automatically confers development rights. 

 

Even basic developments like a pole against the river bank can be challenged by the council or the EA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might need to add a bit more detail and some specifics to get a sensible reply. 

 
Riperian rights might be mistakenly be linked to development rights and Oxfordshire Council has quite rightly picked up on the transgression. Unfortunately in other parts of the country some do flagrantly abuse planning rights. Sadly it is against forum rules to single out specific examples! So it is not possible to add details in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be accurate, he was not fined for illegal development but for ignoring an enforcement notice to remove a structure that did not have the necessary permissions.

 

(A bit like the difference between CaRT removing a boat for not moving enough and for not having a licence which as denied as a result of not moving enough)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

You might need to add a bit more detail and some specifics to get a sensible reply. 

I think it's being implied that areas of Birmingham are similar to the right hand bank of the GU on the way down to Brentford from Bulls Bridge.

What appear to look like garages* are in fact often dwellings.

 

 

* No car access, roller shutter lifted to reveal door and window underneath etc,etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

To be accurate, he was not fined for illegal development but for ignoring an enforcement notice to remove a structure that did not have the necessary permissions.

 

(A bit like the difference between CaRT removing a boat for not moving enough and for not having a licence which as denied as a result of not moving enough)

But by no means unknown in planning law: -

  • Rule 1 - you built that without planning permission, please apply for permission (even though you and I both know you ain't going to get it)
  • Rule 2 - 28 days - Planning permission refused
  • Rule 3 - Appeal against the permission you were refused (and you and I both know the appeal won't succeed)
  • Rule 4 - 3 months - Appeal is either refused or lost
  • Rule 5 - now please tear down that four story monstrosity (to a two bed semi) or we'll get the Law in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 1st ade said:

But by no means unknown in planning law: -

  • Rule 1 - you built that without planning permission, please apply for permission (even though you and I both know you ain't going to get it)
  • Rule 2 - 28 days - Planning permission refused
  • Rule 3 - Appeal against the permission you were refused (and you and I both know the appeal won't succeed)
  • Rule 4 - 3 months - Appeal is either refused or lost
  • Rule 5 - now please tear down that four story monstrosity (to a two bed semi) or we'll get the Law in

I thought that was what I was getting at!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 1st ade said:

Indeed - and I had no intention of suggesting otherwise (just my verbose "planning officers hat" getting in the way!)

!

 

I do think that it is important to keep getting across the (subtle?) distinction only because the misunderstanding encourage people to make futile objections and impact the reputation of either the LA or CaRT, but also because it undermines the ability of those supporting eg liveaboards boaters, to fight their case effectively. Shelling the wrong enemy is never much use!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Doesn't the original post single out a specific example? I don't think it's against forum rules. 

In that case we can't discuss when the EA prosecute a boater for no licence or CRT Section 8 a boat. Don't mention hire company boats speeding or a private boat. think back to the Eastern European lady and the boat she was selling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.