Jump to content

Land dwellers ganging up on boaters again


Dave_P
 Share

Featured Posts

On 31/01/2018 at 07:45, 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.

Are not all planning permissions subject to a condition relating to time for implementation? S91 or s92 imposes one in the absence of an express condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tacet said:

Are not all planning permissions subject to a condition relating to time for implementation? S91 or s92 imposes one in the absence of an express condition.

We've sort of covered that already.  Posts 40,41 etc.  Retrospective consent would be the exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2018 at 20:49, 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:

Being pedantic, a CLEUD may not impose a condition but it can record the boundaries/scope of the certificate to avoid authorising development outside the existing use.  I have had CLUED that make it clear that the lawful use is seasonal which is to much the same practical effect as a condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full details of the Kew Marine application and copies of all the comments and objections, can be found on the Council’s website -

http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PlanData2/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=16/0753/ES191

It has been interesting to read through the objections of those who ended up bringing the JR – most being residents along Kreisal Walk, where the average property values are listed as being in excess of £1.8 million.

Some very curious and erroneous legal arguments too, from obviously American residents, not as familiar with British law as they appeared to believe.

Curiously, it seems, as the OP quotation also clarifies, that there were 2 cases – one of them being over the Council’s failure to accede to the objectors demands [evident in the correspondence] that enforcement action be taken against Kew Marine, to remove the boats and only allow those who individually applied for consents to moor! Shades of BW/CaRT’s demands of Hounslow Council in my own application for the CLUED posted earlier.

In my case, by contrast with Richmond’s handling of this case, Hounslow went along with BW to the extent of refusing the application, and it took a PINS appeal to get it issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Full details of the Kew Marine application and copies of all the comments and objections, can be found on the Council’s website -

http://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PlanData2/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=16/0753/ES191

It has been interesting to read through the objections of those who ended up bringing the JR – most being residents along Kreisal Walk, where the average property values are listed as being in excess of £1.8 million.

Some very curious and erroneous legal arguments too, from obviously American residents, not as familiar with British law as they appeared to believe.

Curiously, it seems, as the OP quotation also clarifies, that there were 2 cases – one of them being over the Council’s failure to accede to the objectors demands [evident in the correspondence] that enforcement action be taken against Kew Marine, to remove the boats and only allow those who individually applied for consents to moor! Shades of BW/CaRT’s demands of Hounslow Council in my own application for the CLUED posted earlier.

In my case, by contrast with Richmond’s handling of this case, Hounslow went along with BW to the extent of refusing the application, and it took a PINS appeal to get it issued.

Some observations:

1. Looking at Google Street View (actually from the river!) it seems that most of the land based properties are screened from the river by mature trees. It is not obvious that many actually have a significant river view

2. Whilst the rowing club objected on the grounds that the pontoon prevents them from using the southern arch, there is a mooring just the other side of the bridge as well

3. I assume that there is little that objectors can do about the pontoon itself, only the (alleged) residential usage. Although there is quite a bit of paperwork on the planning site regarding objections, it does seem to come down to two properties principally.

4. The Google view from the river right alongside the bridge does show (just) the properties - they can hardly be described as architectural masterpieces!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Some observations:

1. Looking at Google Street View (actually from the river!) it seems that most of the land based properties are screened from the river by mature trees. It is not obvious that many actually have a significant river view

2. Whilst the rowing club objected on the grounds that the pontoon prevents them from using the southern arch, there is a mooring just the other side of the bridge as well

3. I assume that there is little that objectors can do about the pontoon itself, only the (alleged) residential usage. Although there is quite a bit of paperwork on the planning site regarding objections, it does seem to come down to two properties principally.

4. The Google view from the river right alongside the bridge does show (just) the properties - they can hardly be described as architectural masterpieces!

I seriously doubt that any of them can see the boats from their properties, even at high tides.

The rowing clubs - and the local canoe club especially - raised such a ruckus over the north bank pontoon visitor mooring, that the Council have recently granted consent to remove it. It was built as part of the planning conditions for the block of flats, for which I and other had fought long and hard, attempting to increase visitor moorings along the Thames. However the developers locked access; placed no suitable mooring bollards, and allowed rumours to spread to the effect that it was private mooring unavailable to the public. Not a single river user, other than myself and the Regents Network, ever stepped forward to demand public access and to fight the application to remove it. Hence a very rare victory in getting a public visitor mooring is now lost, due to the ignorance and apathy of Thames boaters.

Nobody can do anything about the Kew Marine pontoons and piles, because they were built with planning consent under a PLA riverworks licence - however, as the Hounslow side illustrates [to which the same applied], this would have been of no protection if the facility had not been used and fought for. Objections seemed not be confined to just residential use, but to any boats at all [from one objector at least].

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.