Land dwellers ganging up on boaters again

[Dave_P]

Taken from Planning Resource website.  The original article is here: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1455519/judge-backs-council-let-river-boats-used-homes but you need to register for the free trial to view it.

Judge backs council that let river boats be used as homes

25 January 2018 by Court reporter , Be the First to Comment

A High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge against a west London council's decision to grant a lawful development certificate which allowed boats on a stretch of the Thames near Kew Gardens to be used as homes.

London's Royal Courts of Justice

 

A group of residents, through a company they set up to take legal action, argued that the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames had erred when, in August last year, it granted a certificate of lawful existing use or development in respect of vessels moored on a pontoon close to Kew Bridge.

The certificate legitimised the mooring of ten vessels in total, four of them for permanent residential occupation, two for residential use from time to time and four for private leisure purposes.

The moorings are within the Kew Green conservation area and in the buffer zone of the Kew Gardens UNESCO world heritage site.

The residents' challenge to the certificate, and the council's failure to take enforcement action, was supported by the Thames Regional Rowing Council, which represents about 40 rowing clubs between Putney and Twickenham, on the basis that rowers' safety was put at risk in that the moored vessels restricted access to those seeking to pass through the arch of the bridge closest to the shore.

But the residents' arguments were resisted by the council and Kew Marine Limited, which manages the moorings on a commercial basis.

In ruling on the case at London's High Court, Mrs Justice Lang noted that boats had been moored on the site, which was once home to a marine business, since at least 1916 and that Kew Marine had been granted planning consent for the installation for a new pontoon and piles in 2006.

She rejected arguments that the council had been obliged to take enforcement action on the basis that, in breach of planning control, there had been a material change of the use of the moorings arising from intensification of their residential use.

A submission that the council had identified the wrong planning unit - in considering the moorings and pontoon as a whole, rather than each boat individually - was also dismissed, as were arguments that the council had taken an erroneous approach to the issue of whether there had been a material change in the site's use in the preceding period of 10 years.

In dismissing the residents' complaints, the judge found that the council's planning committee had been adequately appraised of the factual and legal issues and had not been materially misled by a planning officer's report.

The residents' challenge to the lawfulness of the certificate was, in truth, a thinly disguised attack on the merits of the council's planning judgment, the judge said.

R on the Application of KP JR Management Company Limited v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames. Case Number: CO/1259/2017

 

 

[magpie patrick]

Thank goodness! 

There is a huge spectrum of local land based views, from astonishment that there is any issue with residential boaters and "continuous cruisers" to NIMBY and church bell syndrome. This group were clearly in the latter

I'm interested in the consent for residential use " from time to time", how does that work? 

[Dave_P]

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Thank goodness! 

There is a huge spectrum of local land based views, from astonishment that there is any issue with residential boaters and "continuous cruisers" to NIMBY and church bell syndrome. This group were clearly in the latter

I'm interested in the consent for residential use " from time to time", how does that work? 

I'd wondered that.  I'm guessing it's poor reporting.  It's possible that residential use has been granted for those moorings but with a planning condition on days/times/hours.  I've never heard of that happening and I'd doubt whether a condition like that would stand up at appeal.  In any case, I suspect the moorers are quite happy and won't be appealing anything.

[matty40s]

Residential use from time to time suggests either AirbNb or student letting accommodation

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

I'd wondered that.  I'm guessing it's poor reporting.  It's possible that residential use has been granted for those moorings but with a planning condition on days/times/hours.  I've never heard of that happening and I'd doubt whether a condition like that would stand up at appeal.  In any case, I suspect the moorers are quite happy and won't be appealing anything.

 

38 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm interested in the consent for residential use " from time to time", how does that work? 

Maybe it is 'limited time periods' similar to leisure static caravan parks, which must be vacated for a certain number of weeks.

Our caravan park planning restriction is that it must be closed from Jan 5th to Feb 4th each year and the 'leisure residents' are only allowed back onto site for maintenance purposes.

[chubby]

Or some marinas ( & i suspect its a SE / London thing ... i cant see northern folk using such poncey terms ) will describe thier moorings as " pied a terre " and one can stay up to 4 days pw , though how  thats policed i dunno . Theres a widebeam for sale currently on apolloduck at a marina on the thames with such a 4 day max stay .

" pied a terre " . Enough to you puke innit . 

[frahkn]

6 minutes ago, chubby said:

Or some marinas ( & i suspect its a SE / London thing ... i cant see northern folk using such poncey terms ) will describe thier moorings as " pied a terre " and one can stay up to 4 days pw , though how  thats policed i dunno . Theres a widebeam for sale currently on apolloduck at a marina on the thames with such a 4 day max stay .

" pied a terre " . Enough to you puke innit . 

Particularly inappropriate (puke invoking) as "pied a terre" literally means "a foot on the ground".

[mrsmelly]

7 minutes ago, chubby said:

Or some marinas ( & i suspect its a SE / London thing ... i cant see northern folk using such poncey terms ) will describe thier moorings as " pied a terre " and one can stay up to 4 days pw , though how  thats policed i dunno . Theres a widebeam for sale currently on apolloduck at a marina on the thames with such a 4 day max stay .

" pied a terre " . Enough to you puke innit . 

Yep. Heres some more. A few years back we moored for some beer at Goring and peeked in the local estate agents window. Amongst the adverts were a couple of houses described as " Attached " It took a few seconds for the penny to drop but these plonkers were advertising " Semis " as known throughout the country but suppose Attached  to them sounded better. We used to have Housing estates......we now have " Developments "  Of course if you don't want gluten free bread and are not " Vegan " then also you have it all wrong. Whats your allergy Today?

[Dave_P]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe it is 'limited time periods' similar to leisure static caravan parks, which must be vacated for a certain number of weeks.

Our caravan park planning restriction is that it must be closed from Jan 5th to Feb 4th each year and the 'leisure residents' are only allowed back onto site for maintenance purposes.

Good point.  We don't have any caravan parks where I work (apart from gypsy/traveller sites)

[chubby]

Agreed , but we are talking about boats moored on london & S E moorings . Therefore " part time " wont cut the mustard . A poncey term is needed , much like " vintage  or preloved " when infact " secondhand " will do .  

4 minutes ago, frahkn said:

Particularly inappropriate (puke invoking) as "pied a terre" literally means "a foot on the ground".

 

[furnessvale]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Yep. Heres some more. A few years back we moored for some beer at Goring and peeked in the local estate agents window. Amongst the adverts were a couple of houses described as " Attached " It took a few seconds for the penny to drop but these plonkers were advertising " Semis " as known throughout the country but suppose Attached  to them sounded better. We used to have Housing estates......we now have " Developments "  Of course if you don't want gluten free bread and are not " Vegan " then also you have it all wrong. Whats your allergy Today?

A few years ago I owned a house which used to be a "semi".  The someone built a row of houses attached to the other "semi" and converted my "semi" into an "end terraced".  All this happened many years ago before I bought that house, but I always wonder how it affected values and what the prior owner of my house thought of it.

George

Edited January 29, 2018 by furnessvale

[X Alan W]

Some years ago My mum moved into to a Park home it was one of these only able to live in 50 week of each year set ups they had a complete shut down for the middle 2 weeks of February then folk wanted to not be there at different times of the year so they brought in the residential time to time clause which meant the residents could have their 2 weeks away at any time of the year by giving a months notice The clause as I understood it was to not have to register applications every time to whoever may be this is a similar condition of residence 

[Naughty Cal]

2 hours ago, chubby said:

Or some marinas ( & i suspect its a SE / London thing ... i cant see northern folk using such poncey terms ) will describe thier moorings as " pied a terre " and one can stay up to 4 days pw , though how  thats policed i dunno . Theres a widebeam for sale currently on apolloduck at a marina on the thames with such a 4 day max stay .

" pied a terre " . Enough to you puke innit . 

The rules in our marina are that you can stay on board for 11 months of the year.

It doesn't specify which 11 so it isn't difficult to be off your mooring for 1 month each year.

[Dave_P]

37 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

The rules in our marina are that you can stay on board for 11 months of the year.

It doesn't specify which 11 so it isn't difficult to be off your mooring for 1 month each year.

But what is underpinning that rule?  Planning?  Council tax liability?  Or just the owner's whim?

[Naughty Cal]

Just now, Dave_P said:

But what is underpinning that rule?  Planning?  Council tax liability?  Or just the owner's whim?

I'm going to guess at planning. When the marina was built it was built with just one residential berth. The other 200 odd are all non residential with an 11 month of the year limit.

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

But what is underpinning that rule?  Planning?  Council tax liability?  Or just the owner's whim?

Not a Marina, but for our Caravan Park it was a planning condition, but we did get to choose the 'month' when we wanted to be closed.

Edit to Add :

I have just looked up our site-licence, issued by the Head of Regulatory Services for our District Council, following PP to open the site granted by the same District Council.

Section 1 states :

Period of Use

Caravans shall only be used for the purposes of human habitation between the 1st day of February and the 5th day of January inclusive in any one year. All the buildings and amenities provided on the site shall only be used in connection with the caravan site during this prescribed period.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

Park Farm where we are is interesting. This is from their web site

1. The Marina is not an approved residential mooring. The planning conditions for the marina state that the maximum period of stay on board a Boat within the marina shall be restricted to two consecutive weeks in any 12 month period. Owners are expected to comply with this condition.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Park Farm where we are is interesting. This is from their web site

1. The Marina is not an approved residential mooring. The planning conditions for the marina state that the maximum period of stay on board a Boat within the marina shall be restricted to two consecutive weeks in any 12 month period. Owners are expected to comply with this condition.

So if I have one week, then a day away from the mooring, then 13 days on the mooring than a day away, then 13 days on the mooring than a day away ................

I will never have had two consecutive weeks - I wonder if they got the idea from C&RT's 14 day 'rule'

[David Mack]

And "away from the mooring" can be the towpath just outside the marina entrance!

[Dave_P]

16 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Park Farm where we are is interesting. This is from their web site

1. The Marina is not an approved residential mooring. The planning conditions for the marina state that the maximum period of stay on board a Boat within the marina shall be restricted to two consecutive weeks in any 12 month period. Owners are expected to comply with this condition.

That's a very poorly worded planning condition and probably unenforceable.  It would have certainly been appeal-able but I suspect the time period has long since expired. 

[Dave_P]

15 hours ago, David Mack said:

And "away from the mooring" can be the towpath just outside the marina entrance!

Actually it's much worse than that.  The boat doesn't have to move at all.  The owner could just go out for the day.  The condition is also unclear in that it could be interpreted that the boat can only be stayed on for a total of 2 weeks in a whole year.  However, the tests for a valid planning condition include that it needs to be 'reasonable' and 'enforceable'.  The only way that this condition is enforceable would be to have round the clock surveillance of each mooring.  This would make it unreasonable.  Therefore it fails the test of a valid planning condition and am 99.9% sure it would be overturned on appeal.

Interestingly, whilst many planning refusals are appealed to the planning inspectorate, very few planning conditions are.  I suspect the applicants are so pleased to get their permission, that they overlook the restrictions placed on them.  Also, there are planning consultants who trawl the lists of refused applications and offer their services to those who have been refused, to help with an appeal. The 'approved with conditions' applications are overlooked.

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

However, the tests for a valid planning condition include that it needs to be 'reasonable' and 'enforceable'.  The only way that this condition is enforceable would be to have round the clock surveillance of each mooring.  This would make it unreasonable.  Therefore it fails the test of a valid planning condition and am 99.9% sure it would be overturned on appeal.

 

Out of interest, what would happen if 'overturned on appeal'? Would the condition be removed and unconditional PP granted?

Or would the conditional PP be cancelled and the appellant invited to make a fresh application for PP?

[Dave_P]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Out of interest, what would happen if 'overturned on appeal'? Would the condition be removed and unconditional PP granted?

Or would the conditional PP be cancelled and the appellant invited to make a fresh application for PP?

The rarity of such things means that I've never actually dealt with one.  However, what would happen is that the permission would stand but the condition would be removed and a new decision notice would be issued.  A new marina would typically have around 20-30 conditions attached so it wouldn't become unconditional unless that was the only condition.  Typical conditions may relate to: drainage, flood prevention, parking layouts, highway improvements, landscaping, materials, hours of opening, etc. etc.etc.

[dor]

1 hour ago, Dave_P said:

Interestingly, whilst many planning refusals are appealed to the planning inspectorate, very few planning conditions are.  I suspect the applicants are so pleased to get their permission, that they overlook the restrictions placed on them.  Also, there are planning consultants who trawl the lists of refused applications and offer their services to those who have been refused, to help with an appeal. The 'approved with conditions' applications are overlooked.

Probably because the site owners know that once they have been open for a while and things have settled down, many of the conditions can just be ignored without being challenged.

[Dave_P]

8 minutes ago, dor said:

Probably because the site owners know that once they have been open for a while and things have settled down, many of the conditions can just be ignored without being challenged.

Often true.  However, it only takes one pissed off neighbour...