On 10 May 2007, at 18:58, Neil Arlidge wrote: > Adrian Stott wrote: >> "Neil Arlidge" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Talk of planners the WWW's planning dept at RB Windsor and >>> Maidenhead has had the most bizarre descions by the Secretary Of >>> State recently, flying totally against all government planning >>> policies.
But if the SoS makes the decisions, then surely she's setting the policy :-) >> A few years ago, the RB refused approval of a residential mooring >> (after one of its wandering staff had just happened to come across >> it) >> that had been in use for about 50 years (but with unprovable >> continuity), because it didn't allow dwellings in the flood plain. >> Good thing Noah didn't come from there, eh? Fortunately, the >> government changed the national law at the crucial time, and the >> mooring became legal automatically through ten year's use. The Environment Agency used to object to planning applications for houses where I used to work in Somerset not only if the house was below the 'indicative flood plain' on their [then somewhat notional] maps but also if the access route would be likely to flood. In this case maybe they thought the people on the boat would starve before the flood subsided. >> Also, the RB had (has?) rules saying: >> >> (a) Only one boat may be moored to a riverfront property. <snip> >> But it was a fun phone call. Yes, I bet they thought so, too :-) As all those rules were a bit footling, presumably they didn't form part of the statutory development plan. And I bet if it was supplementary planning guidance it hadn't been consulted on. So not much chance of them being backed up on appeal. Most of this sort of stuff seems to be disappearing from planning authorities' armouries these days. Baz
