Baz Juniper wrote: > 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
Hi Baz, The WWW has finally "come home" and is now back in Development Control The EA are rather strong on building on the flood plain of the Thames, now not allowing houses on stilts (as flood debris could pond up underneath and of course every one always stores [EMAIL PROTECTED] below anyway. Shanley have just built a development (old permission) not to plan...the flood arches below had been built as garages and utility rooms...a couple of houses have been sold...now they face their garages being removed! Just north of Maidenhead a large Shanley 200ish units application that was refused, was subsequently allowed by SOS, even though is is right on the flood plain, beside the Maidenhead Ditch (the course of the Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group plan to bring narrowboats through Maidenhead....que Adrain and Ian Clarke :-) http://www.maidenheadwaterways.org/ RBWM have got a planning policy to retain waterside business...fat lot of good that it does. -- Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest - Shannon Reg 7410...not here anymore... Follow the truly independent TNC at : http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk Visit this site and help save our waterways from the DEFRA cuts http://www.saveourwaterways.org.uk/
