The Norfolk BroadsThe Norfolk Broads
Username Password
Norfolk Broads Weather

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 7:20 am BST- Light Rain
5 Day Forecast

Wind 2.0 mph @ 40°
48.0°F/8.89°C Humidity 93% Pressure 29.65 (S)

Welcome to The Norfolk Broads Forum
This is THE Worlds Largest Forum devoted to the Norfolk Broads, here you can discuss issues about the Norfolk Broads. Or just somewhere to chat with others interested in the Norfolk Broads area. In 2015 forum members spent 2,048 days afloat on the Broads

Please Help Support The Norfolk Broads Forum
OR

The Norfolk Broads Forum / Broads Authority Issues / BA Wins Planning Appeal
login
join
Graphics Off
Search
Forum Members - Book your Hoseasons holiday today, Just call 0345 498 6296

This is a moderated forum Reply to this DiscussionReply to Discussion | Start new discussionNew Discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Discussion Topic: BA Wins Planning Appeal

Similar Threads That Might Help :
Fund raising - win - win situation | BA are going to plan| Planning Application BA/2012/0258/FUL| Great Yarmouth Hurricane Appeal.| Bone Marrow Appeal| Hathor Appeal|

-- Page: 1 2 3

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

Karen&Mike
Jan-22-2018 @ 12:45 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Miss Clipboard
Posts: 5683
Joined: Mar 2005
Karen&Mike
          

Yes I have to agree with the comments that rules are rules!  And there must be consequences even costly ones for those who disregard the rules.  

We have lived for 23 years in a conservation area in a small village in Yorkshire.  Our house is 280 years old and when buying it we read,  understood and embraced the rules of the conservation area  and have spent over 23 years respecting that.  You would be surprised however just how many people during that time have also come to live in the conservation part of the village but  want to pull out trees,  replace grass with Astroturf ( lazy!), remove old historical and protected dry stone walls to get a few more inches to park their car and replace the wall with painted breezeblocks ( this particular lovely job at the house of probably the wealthiest couple in the conservation area!)

It costs the taxpayer a fair amount of cash for the local authority to pursue these cases and put right such wrongs,  so in my view be selfish or arrogant at your peril.  Ignorance of the law is no defence.

And doesn't  it really add insult to injury when people pull the "we wanted to make it safe for our children" card! And their justification for a wide path around 3 perimeter of the field being a relative in a wheelchair.  Yes that is understandable but the point is that the field should not have been a garden in the first place so are they throwing in these emotive comments to gain public sympathy ? Sorry, but there is none from me.

Karen



"Wind up the elastic band Karen - we're setting off!!"

This message was edited by Karen&Mike on Jan-22-18 @ 12:52 PM

Harlequin
Jan-22-2018 @ 1:05 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 313
Joined: Apr 2017
          

Add To Ignore List
Conservation area protection is not as stringent as many assume. So it is not always difficult to do the damage that K&M describe.
For instance, I was surprised to find out that removal of stone walls is allowed in many cases without permission. Off the top of my head,  I think that it is allowed up to two metres high on walls away from the highway, and a metre high if it abuts the highway.
Not ideal in my opinion. But others take the view that times move on and we should not live in the past.

Karen&Mike
Jan-22-2018 @ 2:12 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Miss Clipboard
Posts: 5683
Joined: Mar 2005
Karen&Mike
          

In the case of the dry stone wall, because of the height and that it was indeed up to the highway, and this is where they have destroyed it,  plus the fact that the "drive" and access did not have permission, the local authority is pursuing the case.  The wall formed part of the original 2/300 year-old boundary wall of a farm and outbuilding. It is around 250 feet long in total.

The same owners spent a fortune smashing up and removing original internal walls and a large and beautiful original chimney breast/Inglenook fireplace.  There are plenty of  modern, faceless,  characterless  properties all over the country so why buy a piece of well maintained history and then choose to smash it up?!  It had been carefully restored 25 years ago. Sadly, the properties are not listed , so internally they broke no rules but  I cannot respect people who will not respect places of historical interest and clearly have no scruples.

Rant over!

Karen

"Wind up the elastic band Karen - we're setting off!!"

dannyboy
Jan-23-2018 @ 6:51 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mardles sometimes
Posts: 3165
Joined: Nov 2005
dannyboy
          

Add To Ignore List
Doing what you like and then trying to get retrospective permission is careless at best and plain daft at worst. I don't think the BA are out of order and the inspectors have clearly upheld their view. Unfortunately, the article pulls out all of the usual trigger words, to try to prove the opposite - wheelchair, schoolchildren etc. etc.

Before anyone jumps on me for that, I am not unsympathetic to any of the admirable intentions, but you need to know you can legitimately do those things in that location. If not, find somewhere else to fulfill your ambitions.

I am responsible for a significant Grade 2* listed property - there are many things I might like to do here, but I simply can't. I even need planning permission for sheds in the curtilage!

What people forget is that if every landowner chose to just do what they like, the whole area is soon ruined. Admittedly there have been some planning consents granted which many of us would have preferred to see turned down, but at least they went through due process...

Danny


TerryTibbs
Jan-23-2018 @ 7:55 PM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Harnser Trainer
Posts: 6834
Joined: Jul 2007
TerryTibbs
          

Add To Ignore List
These conservation rules can be good but sometimes they are very much at odds with current policy and environmemtal aims.
I own a Pub in Belper in the Peak District, the upstairs windows in the tennants living quarters are single glazed metal framed georgian style windows. To improve the thermal efficiency of the building (which I have to do) I intended to change them for wooden framed georgian double glazed units, so that’s georgian wooden farmes with individual double glazed units not full panes with false georgian frames glued on. The cost would be horendous but I was prepared to pay it. The Council tell me that I can only fit single glazed units like for like, so not even wooden frames.

Dave

if it is to be it is up to me.

Harlequin
Jan-24-2018 @ 1:15 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 313
Joined: Apr 2017
          

Add To Ignore List
As TT describes, there are numerous examples where two strands of government enforcement completely contradict each other.
Each department or level of government (District, County, Central) see their part in the jigsaw as the most important part that should trump the others.
In reality a good deal of the whole process is nonsense.

Helmsman1946
Jan-24-2018 @ 10:06 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Forum Regular
Posts: 952
Joined: Oct 2006
Helmsman1946
          

Add To Ignore List
There should be no problem as the National Planning Framework 2012 is what it says on the front which with the Broads Plan should cover it all
Tried to attach a pdf of the  NPF but it would not attach

Peter

This message was edited by Helmsman1946  on Jan-24-18 @ 9:08 AM

steve
Mar-03-2018 @ 10:18 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Moderator
Posts: 10480
Joined: Jan 2005
steve
          

Further update on this story today
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/norfolk-family-given-reprieve-over-concerns-at-wildlife-1-5418657

steve and vicky
( apparently a moaner)

Marshman
Mar-03-2018 @ 10:46 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mardles sometimes
Posts: 3597
Joined: Oct 2006
Marshman
          

Add To Ignore List
Lets hope the BA continue with this - fully justified in my view. A field is a field and not a posh garden soon to be a building plot!

BuffaloBill
Mar-03-2018 @ 11:52 AM                           Permalink
reply
edit
profile
send p.m.
Mardles sometimes
Posts: 2976
Joined: Dec 2008
BuffaloBill
          

Add To Ignore List
To turn a field into a 'wildlife garden' Wink  was to make
the property worth considerably more than it cost to
do the conversion. Seems the BA smelt a rat too.

The older I get...
The better I was....!!

PAGE: 1 2 3

Home Photo Gallery Days Afloat Contact Us
Chat Room Downloads Norfolk Broads @ Amazon Make My Logo
Shops & Businesses Members Gear Norfolk Broads @ EBay Holiday Calendar
Pub Guide Tide Tables SOS List Popular Threads
2017 Calendar Contest Make A Donation Links Hireboat Info
Norfolk Broads @ CafePress FAQ Broads Quiz Forum Events
Advertise With Us Forum Shop Boating Bits Stickys and FAQs Boating Bits Hirecraft List

 

 

 



Copyright © 2005 Y2KInternet, All Rights Reserved.