Jump to content

Land dwellers ganging up on boaters again


Dave_P
 Share

Featured Posts

10 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

A perfect illustration of when 'keeping your head down' makes all the difference!

That was illustrated to me years ago when I moored on a Shroppie farm. A couple of people had storage bins by their boats ( a lot of people lived on what were technically leisure moorings) and then everyone started building sheds, the council spotted it from a helicopter and clobbered the farmer with a fine for unauthorised construction on agricultural land.  All the sheds had to come down and there was serious worry we were all going to be turfed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That was illustrated to me years ago when I moored on a Shroppie farm. A couple of people had storage bins by their boats ( a lot of people lived on what were technically leisure moorings) and then everyone started building sheds, the council spotted it from a helicopter and clobbered the farmer with a fine for unauthorised construction on agricultural land.  All the sheds had to come down and there was serious worry we were all going to be turfed off.

The Council had a helicopter?  Jeez, the Council where I work can't afford pens!

Edited by Dave_P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave_P said:

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. 

Its whats on the marina's web site, I don't know how well it reflects the actual planning consent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That was illustrated to me years ago when I moored on a Shroppie farm. A couple of people had storage bins by their boats ( a lot of people lived on what were technically leisure moorings) and then everyone started building sheds, the council spotted it from a helicopter and clobbered the farmer with a fine for unauthorised construction on agricultural land.  All the sheds had to come down and there was serious worry we were all going to be turfed off.

My boat sitting in an old sand pit down the road while I was fitting it out was picked up from the air and several agencies were involved including the Tax man chasing the chap who had a garage opposite and sometimes stored cars on there and Ordnance Surveys looking for new buildings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dave_P said:

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. 

THat was my view - if anyone has enforcement action against them for breaching that condition then appealing against it would be pretty straightfoward

18 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Could have just used Google Earth like many do

Probably not reliable enough - things come and go. I've just been challenged over a speed limit at a site access - Google Streetview shows 30mph but it's actually 20mph. Streetview images dated late 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aprt from minimal applicatiosn, are any permissions entirely without conditions? Most that I have had contact with recently, even quite small site developments, have had a host of conditions attached, but most of which can (or must) be discharged before work starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Aprt from minimal applicatiosn, are any permissions entirely without conditions? Most that I have had contact with recently, even quite small site developments, have had a host of conditions attached, but most of which can (or must) be discharged before work starts.

Most are fairly standard one's unless it's a big development.  e.g. the council must approve a landscaping scheme etc. It's only where uses must be time restricted or where there is the potential for ambiguity  (which moored boats offer aplenty!) that bespoke conditions are used

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Robbo said:

Could have just used Google Earth like many do

Probably.  Knowing how LAs are now funded and staffed, it was likely only in response to a complaint anyway.

14 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

THat was my view - if anyone has enforcement action against them for breaching that condition then appealing against it would be pretty straightfoward

Probably not reliable enough - things come and go. I've just been challenged over a speed limit at a site access - Google Streetview shows 30mph but it's actually 20mph. Streetview images dated late 2016

What I'd guess happened is that someone reported it; a planning officer had a look at google; then went down to have a look.  I'd be amazed if any LA was routinely sweeping their borough by helicopter for planning infringements.  If we did that where I work, we'd be overwhelmed with new enforcement cases within an hour and have to employ about a thousand new officers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

Most are fairly standard one's unless it's a big development.  e.g. the council must approve a landscaping scheme etc. It's only where uses must be time restricted or where there is the potential for ambiguity  (which moored boats offer aplenty!) that bespoke conditions are used

Not in my experience.  Even including householder extensions, I'd say about 90% have some sort of condition, even if it's just a condition on the materials used.  Examples of planning applications with no conditions might be a very uncontroversial change of use or a small alteration to an industrial unit. Advertising consents are also usually a straightforward decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

Not in my experience.  Even including householder extensions, I'd say about 90% have some sort of condition, even if it's just a condition on the materials used.  Examples of planning applications with no conditions might be a very uncontroversial change of use or a small alteration to an industrial unit. Advertising consents are also usually a straightforward decision.

I think we're only separated by semantics Dave, I wouldn't regard a condition that was effectively "materials to match the existing character" as a bespoke condition. 

Given I think we are opposite sides of the fence we may have a slightly different perspective. I recently looked at appealing a condition where the occupier was not to allow visitors to arrive via the back door of the dwelling, that's bespoke and the guy was more than a little aggrieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

I think we're only separated by semantics Dave, I wouldn't regard a condition that was effectively "materials to match the existing character" as a bespoke condition. 

Given I think we are opposite sides of the fence we may have a slightly different perspective. I recently looked at appealing a condition where the occupier was not to allow visitors to arrive via the back door of the dwelling, that's bespoke and the guy was more than a little aggrieved.

But the point I was trying to make was that if you simply sift out those planning consents that have restrictions (the sift not having the ability to decide which are 'important' or not) then you pull out most of them. An earlier post was trying to suggest that restrictions were unusual - it is the detail of some constraints rather than there existence that may be unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But the point I was trying to make was that if you simply sift out those planning consents that have restrictions (the sift not having the ability to decide which are 'important' or not) then you pull out most of them. An earlier post was trying to suggest that restrictions were unusual - it is the detail of some constraints rather than there existence that may be unusual.

At the risk of going off topic and being a pedant, every planning consent I've seen had at least one condition, that the development must commence within a given period. 

I'm about to apply for retrospective consent. Will be interesting to see what happens with that one as this condition will be completely unnecessary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I think we're only separated by semantics Dave, I wouldn't regard a condition that was effectively "materials to match the existing character" as a bespoke condition. 

Given I think we are opposite sides of the fence we may have a slightly different perspective. I recently looked at appealing a condition where the occupier was not to allow visitors to arrive via the back door of the dwelling, that's bespoke and the guy was more than a little aggrieved.

I can think of some good reasons for a condition like that (parking, highway safety, crime etc).  Did you appeal it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

At the risk of going off topic and being a pedant, every planning consent I've seen had at least one condition, that the development must commence within a given period. 

I'm about to apply for retrospective consent. Will be interesting to see what happens with that one as this condition will be completely unnecessary!

That condition would not apply to retrospective applications.  However, I'm struggling to think of a time when we wouldn't apply this one:

"The development must conform with the terms of and the plans accompanying the application for permission and must remain in conformity with such terms and plans, save as may be otherwise required by (any of) the following condition(s), or approved amendment(s)."

In other words:  what you build must look the same as the plans you submitted.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave_P said:

I can think of some good reasons for a condition like that (parking, highway safety, crime etc).  Did you appeal it then?

No, because it would have opened a a can of worms which I advised was best left unopened. Oddly the conditon meant visitors more or less had to park in street rather than use the (ample, private and dedicated) parking at the rear, but to do so they had to use a shared drive and the neighbour had objected to the extension at the back of the house

2 hours ago, Dave_P said:

That condition would not apply to retrospective applications.  However, I'm struggling to think of a time when we wouldn't apply this one:

"The development must conform with the terms of and the plans accompanying the application for permission and must remain in conformity with such terms and plans, save as may be otherwise required by (any of) the following condition(s), or approved amendment(s)."

In other words:  what you build must look the same as the plans you submitted.  

 

I guessed it wouldn't be used on a retrospective

I also concur that the other condition is always present and often necessary - I really have to rein clients in at times on what they think they can get away with

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I also concur that the other condition is always present and often necessary - I really have to rein clients in at times on what they think they can get away with

When I won a Lawful Development Certificate at Appeal, the Certificate mentioned no conditions; it was simply agreed that what had been built was immune from enforcement as it had become lawful by the time of the retrospective application.

5a71c81c160b6_RidgewaysLawfulUseCertificate.jpg.aed25f3e9aa19296a44c5d27ab27fe18.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

No, because it would have opened a a can of worms which I advised was best left unopened. Oddly the conditon meant visitors more or less had to park in street rather than use the (ample, private and dedicated) parking at the rear, but to do so they had to use a shared drive and the neighbour had objected to the extension at the back of the house

I guessed it wouldn't be used on a retrospective

I also concur that the other condition is always present and often necessary - I really have to rein clients in at times on what they think they can get away with

Out of pure curiosity, if the house was subsequently sold, would a buyer have to be informed about the restriction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

When I won a Lawful Development Certificate at Appeal, the Certificate mentioned no conditions; it was simply agreed that what had been built was immune from enforcement as it had become lawful by the time of the retrospective application.

5a71c81c160b6_RidgewaysLawfulUseCertificate.jpg.aed25f3e9aa19296a44c5d27ab27fe18.jpg

They generally don't, although I've seen the odd one conditioned so as to remove grandfather rights (breach of agricultural occupancy condition). A Lawful Use Certificate is based on a point of law accepting that a development doesn't need planning consent, rather than granting planning consent. Almost, but not quite, a matter of semantics

Edited to add: I can't quite believe that CWDF is outdoing  the usual planning discussion groups on a planning discussion!:unsure::blink::judge:

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

They generally don't, although I've seen the odd one conditioned so as to remove grandfather rights (breach of agricultural occupancy condition). A Lawful Use Certificate is based on a point of law accepting that a development doesn't need planning consent, rather than granting planning consent. Almost, but not quite, a matter of semantics

Edited to add: I can't quite believe that CWDF is outdoing  the usual planning discussion groups on a planning discussion!:unsure::blink::judge:

Agreed and very well put.  A LDC is not a planning permission.  A development is either lawful (i.e. permitted development), or it isn't.  If it would require a condition to make it lawful, then the certificate would not be issued.

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
 Share

  • 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.