More on short lets in Greater London

I am grateful to Sheridan Westlake (who until the end of last week was a Special Adviser - a ‘SPAD’ - at De-CLoG, before going off to work for the Tory re-election campaign) for drawing my attention to the Deregulation Act 2015 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2015 (2015 No. 994 (C. 69)), which was made on 27 March, but has not yet been laid before parliament. This will have to await the summoning of a new parliament on 18 May.

Article 6 provides that the date appointed for the coming into force of sections 44 and 45 of the Act (dealing with the relaxation of restrictions on short-term use of London accommodation) is 26 May 2015. Some of the other provisions of the Act are due to come into force in April, but I confess that I am puzzled as to the legality of this, in the absence of this statutory instrument having been laid before parliament. At the head of the SI one usually expects to see three dates – the date the SI was made, the date it was laid before parliament and, finally, the date when the SI takes effect. Only the date on which the SI was made is shown, and so I am left in doubt as to whether this Commencement Order will in fact be effective until after the next session of parliament commences.

I confess to being very rusty indeed on my basic constitutional and administrative law, including parliamentary procedure, so I remain completely in the dark so far as the current legal status of this Commencement Order is concerned, especially during the hiatus between the dissolution of one parliament and the summoning of the next.

Just to recap on the existing legislation, section 25 of the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1973 (as amended) provides that for the purposes of section [55(1) of the 1990 Act], the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of any residential premises in Greater London involves a material change of use of the premises and of each part thereof which is so used. “ Use as temporary sleeping accommodation” in this context means use as sleeping accommodation which is occupied by the same person for less than 90 consecutive nights [originally 22 nights] and which is provided (with or without other services) for a consideration arising either by way of trade for money or moneys worth; or by reason of the employment of the occupant; whether or not the relationship of landlord and tenant is thereby created.

What section 44 will do (when it comes into effect on 26 May) is to make section 25 of the 1973 Act subject to a new section 25A. This provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of section 25(1), the use as temporary sleeping accommodation (i.e. for less than 90 days) of any residential premises in Greater London does not involve a material change of use if two conditions are met.

These are, first, that the sum of the number of nights of use as temporary sleeping accommodation, and the number of nights (if any) of each previous use of the premises as temporary sleeping accommodation in the same calendar year, does not exceed 90 and, secondly, that, in respect of each night which falls to be counted in this way, the person who provided the sleeping accommodation for the night (i.e. the owner or normal occupier) was liable to pay council tax in respect of the premises. If more than one person provided the sleeping accommodation for the night, then it’s OK if at least one of those persons was liable to pay council tax in respect of the premises. And it does not matter whether any previous use was by the same person. (I confess that I am not quite sure what difference dection 25A makes, compared with section 25 itself.)

The second new section (25B) gives either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State the power to direct that section 25A is not to apply to specified residential premises, or to residential premises situated in a particular area. A direction under this section can be given only if the local planning authority or the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to protect the amenity of the locality. The local planning authority may give a direction under this section only with the consent of the Secretary of State. A direction under this section can be revoked at any time, but only by the person (i.e. the LPA or the S of S) who gave it. A direction is not subordinate legislation, and is not therefore subject to the usual legislative formalities, but this power will not arise before 26 May.

The Secretary of State may delegate his functions under this section to an LPA, or may direct that an LPA may give directions under this section without his consent (although he can also revoke such a delegation or direction).

The Secretary of State also has power by means of a statutory instrument to make regulations providing for the procedure which must be followed in connection with the giving of a direction under this section or in connection with its revocation, and as to the information which must be provided where the LPA seeks the consent of the Secretary of State to their giving a direction under this section.

Section 45 of the Deregulation Act then goes on to give the Secretary of State the power, by means of a statutory instrument, to make regulations to disapply section 25(1) of the 1973 Act if conditions specified by those regulations are met. The regulations must include provisions corresponding to section 25B but, subject to that, they may amend the 1973 Act, and may make different provisions for different purposes, and they may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provisions. A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

It was section 45 of the 2015 Act I had in mind in pointing out that the Secretary of State would run out of time (and has now run out of time) in which to make any such regulations before the General Election. I didn’t follow the Deregulation Bill in its passage through parliament, other than to note its general progress, but I am under the impression that sections 44 and 45 as they have emerged in the Act differ somewhat from the original draft of the Bill, and that the amendments made during the passage of the Bill may well have been intended to overcome this time problem by allowing changes to the rules in advance of any statutory instrument being made.

If so, then it seems that Uncle Eric has ultimately been frustrated, and the intended relaxation of the rules on short-term lets in Greater London will have to await the pleasure of the next Secretary of State.

©MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Columbia Gorge Fishing Report November 16th

Jeff caught a nice little hen. 

Fishing Report

This last week was good for most of the area anglers that ventured out.  Our favorite summer steelhead rivers were kicking out fish and in great shape for most of the week.  While this weekend’s rains are not doing much to help the clarity, levels are going up and there could be some good fishing this week.  The weather looks unsteady and possibly torrential, but there should be some good periods of fishing this week. 

Chinook Salmon are mostly dead now.  There are a few stragglers holding on, but the rivers are full of dead salmon everywhere.  It is very much like Alaska in the Gorge right now. 

Summer Steelhead have been on the bite this past week.  While nothing was red hot, there was steady and consistent fishing for many anglers last week.  Jeff and Sam are visiting from Montana and they managed to pull a few out of the Klickitatduring their visit.  The Klick went out of shape on Saturday night, but could easily come back early in the week before the predicted big rains come in around Wednesday or Thursday. 

The Deschutes gave up a fish or two a day to most of the anglers that went out.  The lower river is definitely colored up as of Sunday from the White River pouring mud, but the river above the confluence with the White is in great shape and should likely stay in great shape as the week unfolds. 

The Hood Riverwas actually looking pretty good on Sunday morning.  We had a spike of water and the river is dropping and looks great as of Sunday. While the other local rivers were rising, the Hood was dropping.  No reports of any winter fish caught in the gorge yet, but there are a few summers hanging around. 

Trout fishing is closed on several local lakes and streams now.  Please consult the regulations before fishing. 

Areas closed for trout include: East Fork Hood, Hood River (for trout), Eagle Creek, and the Deschutes upstream of the northern boundary of the Warm Springs Reservation.  The White Salmon above the county road bridge below the powerhouse (old dam).  LaurenceLake is also closed, as well as the Metolius Riverabove Allingham Bridge. 

Areas open for trout include:  Deschutes downstream of the Warm Springs Reservation (Maupin area and downstream are open), Lost Lake, Goose Lake(WA), The White Salmon from the mouth upstream 2 or so miles to the old county bridge and Yakima River.  November trout fishing can be really good, especially big fish eating big meaty streamers.  Get out your favorite streamer patterns and go!

Travis took out his Winston Micro Spey 10’ 6” 4wt out to the Deschutes and had a good couple of hours pulling streamers for Rainbow Trout on Thursday.  He caught a couple of nice fish with minimal effort.  This is going to be a great fishery during the winter, especially during the drier periods when steelhead are hard to come by.  Instead of a down and across swing as you would do for steelhead, cast more across or slightly upstream and let your line develop a downstream belly. Then you are ready to start stripping the fly.  Anything between a little twitch and a fast pull will work, but they will generally be more receptive to one type of retrieval.  It is just up to you to find out what type of retrieve they are looking for. 

Smallmouth Bass are getting no attention right now, but with water temps dropping in the big river, the bite should be pretty good.  You just have to find some current out there, and there isn’t much to find right now.  It should be easy to find the fish once you locate some moving water.      

As always, we are happy to talk fishing any time.  Give us a call if you have any specific questions on local rivers, gear, and tactics, or if you just want some encouragement to get out of the office.  

Andrew Perrault
Gorge Fly Shop | Product Specialist
541.386.6977

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read More..

Judicial Review of office to residential changes

The High Court granted permission last Friday to four London borough councils to go ahead with applications for judicial review of the amendment of the GPDO that took effect on 30 May, allowing change of use of offices (B1) to residential use (C3). The hearing is currently scheduled for 4 December.

The fact that the High Court has granted permission for a full hearing merely indicates that there is at least an arguable point in the case, but this cannot be taken as an indication that these challenges will succeed. The ability of local planning authorities to make an Article 4 Direction if they are concerned about such changes in their area must surely be a strong argument against the legal challenge that has been mounted against this extension of permitted development rights. The timing of the application for judicial review might also be a problem for the local authority claimants if De-CLoG chooses to raise this (as I pointed out in this blog some time ago).

The number of prior approval applications received by some London Boroughs under the new rules has caused surprise and alarm in those authorities, but I am not convinced that an attempted judicial review of this subordinate legislation is the right way forward.

On the other hand, one of the grounds of challenge relates to the way that applications for exemption from the new PD rights were considered by De-CLoG. I did have misgivings about this at the time (which I mentioned in a previous blog post). This is one aspect of the matter in respect of which the government could be vulnerable.

If the hearing timed for 4 December goes ahead on that date, judgment will probably be reserved and is likely to be delivered either just before or shortly after the Christmas/New Year break. An appeal to the Court of Appeal by whichever party loses could well be on the cards, so a final answer may not be known for some months yet, maybe well into 2014. Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop applicants getting on with their prior approval applications. In fact the possibility (however remote) that these permitted development rights could be withdrawn as a result of this legal challenge may encourage an even greater number of prior approval applications to come forward in order to get these proposals through before the drawbridge can be pulled up.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Get Started in Fly Fishing Chapter Two Fly Rods

The look on your face when you get a new rod

The fun begins with your first purchase. Youre ready to buy a fly rod. Most will experience one of three possible scenarios.

1) You find yourself in a large outdoor chain store with plenty of things to buy but no help to see you through a good decision.

2) You find yourself in a upscale fly shop where the sales staff proceeds to make you feel inferior and unworthy of the sport.

3) You come across a yard sale or hand me down rod that is always the best ever according to the previous owner. Trust me. Its rare to find any worth $$$ in a yard sale. I know because I look for them.

I didnt intend to start off this article sounding cynical but I bet if many of you would comment with your stories many of them would match one of these three descriptions.

Too Many Choices

Too Many Choices

Lets start with import or USA built.We can discuss this subject from many different angles - heres the facts

USA Built 

Pros - The best fly rods are built in USA. All USA built fly rods are hand crafted. Most if not all USA built rods come with some kind of lifetime warranty. Most have good resale value.
Cons - Expensive! Cost of USA manufacturing, research and development, advanced materials technology that makes these rods the best come at a high price.
Summary - If you become passionate about fly fishing you will own USA built fly rods. What comes with these rods is a sense of pride. Hard to have that feeling for something imported from an overseas factory. I have had the pleasure of visiting many USA rod manufacturer facilities. I like knowing that the hands that built my rods also are as passionate about fishing as I am. Its a feeling you cannot put a price on.

Imported fly rods

Pros - Value per dollar. Good entry level options. Some have lifetime warranty (although you may end up with a different rod than what you started with). Also some very good quality rods for much less than USA built price.
Cons - Hard to tell good from bad. Here today and gone tomorrow.
Summary - There is some really good import rods on the market and they catch fish just like a USA built rods. But the import business tends to flood the market and makes it hard to sift through whats Great, Good, OK or just plain cheap rods. Resale value of imports is weak and often times you cant give them away. I also notice that many come with catchy names to help sell them but not a good description of what the action is, so often you find someone purchased a rod only to find out it is a poor fit for their casting ability or the fishing they are doing.

Premium Picks - 

Sage One

Winston BIIIx

G.Loomis NRX Lite Presentation

All of these rods are beautiful and powerful tools for fishing. Each has great power coupled with very intuitive feeling that will help any angler progress down the path of good casting. Excellent resale value and the industry leading warranty service also add to their value. I should note here that rods like these hold their place in history for years to come.

Mid Line Winners - 

G. Loomis Pro4x

Winston Nexus

Echo 3

Sage ACCEL

These models range in price from about $300 to $595. Winston, G. Loomis and Sage are built in USA. All have lifetime warranty. All of these rods offer excellent performance and value. They could go with you on a lifetime of fishing and you would enjoy them for years to come.

Entry Level Values - Imports

Redington Classic Trout

Echo Solo

Redington Crosswater

Classic Trout and Solo offer lifetime warranty. One year on the Crosswater. I am real fond of the Classic Trout. Its a moderate action easy to cast really good trout rod for the price. The Echo Solo is also a good choice and at $119 with lifetime warranty its hard to beat.

Outfit Options

An outfit is an easy way to get Rod, Reel and Line all in one purchase. 

Sage Approach Outfits

Redington Minnow 
Made for Kids-Loved by Adults

Redington Topo Outfit - Complete ready to fish

Echo Solo Outfit - Great Value

Two Hand (Spey) Rod Choices

No reason one has to start out with a single hand fly rod. If you live in steelhead country just go ahead and jump to a two hand. Ive seen too many beginners get a single hand 8wt only to come back in a month and say I want a two hand rod. I think two hand casting is harder to learn on your own but with a good instructor like Tom Larimer of Jeff Hickman you will soon be on your way to fishing success! Learning single hand casting first is not a prerequisite. The rods I choose are all pretty moderate action and not only do they fit beginners well they are also a great action for skagit style two hand casting.

Winston Boron III TH

G.Loomis Pro4x

Sage ACCEL Two Hand

Redington Dually

Echo Dec Hogan II

Sum it up

A popular quote around the fly shop is "if you dont want to buy a more expensive rod than dont cast a more expensive rod." Even a person just starting out with some basic casting skills can feel the difference from these different levels of rods. That doesnt mean they catch more fish, they just cast better and make you feel like a hero. I know plenty of anglers that catch plenty of fish on $89 Crosswater rods. This works on the premise that if you want to catch fish you will use what you got! Spending more on a rod doesnt guarantee you more fish. What I can almost certainly guarantee is if you embrace to sport of fly fishing you will own premium USA built fly rods. Its inevitable!

The way I weigh the options is in one of three choices - 

Buy Top Shelf- You work hard for your money and when you have time off you deserve to enjoy it. Great pride comes with the best rods and you find yourself taking great pride in your fishing. Long after your gone when your grand kids find your fly rod hidden among your treasures theyll know how much it meant to you by the way you took care of it.

Buy middle of the road knowing that youll get a great rod you can own a lifetime or maybe it will be the first and last rod you buy. I know anglers that only fish their home waters. They usually will fish a dry fly if fish are raising and if not they switch to a nymph rig. One rod can do both methods therefore they only need one rod. They only fish a few days a year and enjoy it as much as anyone. Some of todays mid line rods are a recent yesterdays premium rod.

Buy cheap now knowing that youll upgrade in the future - Its nice to have a cheapy around for yard casting or letting your buddy or kid have a swing...Hard to hand over your several hundred dollar investment and watch a novice thrash it.

Dont fret over making a wrong choice. There are no wrong choices just future choices and Gorge Fly Shop will be here to help you make that choice whether you buy one or a hundred rods. 

Greg Darling 

Gorge Fly Shop Internet Sales Manager | Product Specialist

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read More..

Short term lets in Greater London – still no change

Royal Assent to the Deregulation Bill, together with a number of other Bills, was signified yesterday at the very last minute before parliament was prorogued. It has now therefore become the Deregulation Act 2015.

Contrary to original expectations (and the original drafting of the Bill), sections 44 and 45, amending section 25 of Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 have not come into force on the passing of the Act, but must await a Commencement Order.

The Deregulation Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 (SI 2015 No. 971), which was made and laid before parliament today (and I confess that I was unaware that this could be done after parliament had been prorogued) does not bring these two sections into force.

Parliament has been prorogued until Monday 30 March, which is the day on which it is due to be dissolved in any event, so I would be rather surprised if any further statutory instruments could be made and laid before parliament on Monday – but I am rapidly learning that the Whitehall sausage machine never stops churning out subordinate legislation, so we shall have to see what (if anything) emerges on Monday.

If, however, I am right in my long-held belief that the proposed amendment to the 1973 Act, which currently restricts short-term lettings in Greater London, could not be achieved before the General Election, then we shall have to wait and see what the ministers who are in office after 7 May will do about it (if anything). If no commencement order is ever made, this would certainly not be the first legislative provision that has languished on the statute book unimplemented.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Sorting out the urethanes

I’VE DONE MY FAIR SHARE of painting boats, both wooden and fiberglass, but I was only vaguely aware of the difference between polyester urethane and acrylic urethane. However, I was looking through some notes the other day and came across a copy of an e-mail that explains things quite nicely.

I believe I originally found it on the Cape Dory bulletin board. In any case, it was posted by someone called Brandon, of Fort Lauderdale, who owned a 1985 Cape Dory 25D called Seamona. Here is what he had to say:

“The difference between the two, without getting long and boring boils down to this:

“Polyester urethane molecules are much smaller than acrylic molecules. So when they cure, the polyester urethane forms a tighter matrix, which gives a harder, more abrasion-resistant film, with better chemical resistance than acrylic.

“Acrylics are more forgiving in application, trap less dust, and are buffable. When an acrylic urethane is buffed, due to the lower cross-link density the melting point of the resin is much lower, i.e., it is softer. When buffing is carried out the resin-rich layer "melts" and reflows into the scratch. It is possible to retain an intact resin-rich layer at the surface protecting the pigments, and not losing significant thickness. The edges of touch-ups can be blended carefully in the same way. Long-term performance is not affected, as much of the resin layer remains.

“With the polyester urethane, the paint is a very hard, rigid film, and to get rid of a scratch you need to cut deeply into the paint, leading to the exposure of the pigments. This looks shiny to begin with but the long-term performance of the finish is now compromised.
“I am currently following the build of a 95 footer in Viareggio, Italy. We are using Awlcraft (Snow White), and almost finished painting her. I am happy to use the acrylic because we have found fairing issues on the hull, even with the white paint, and with the acrylic we can re-fair this 6-square-foot area, reshoot the area, and blend in. We dont have to repaint the entire 95-foot topside as we would with the polyester!

“OK . . . so maybe I got long and boring.”
Today’s Thought

Paintin’s not important. The important thing is keepin’ busy.

— Anna Mary Robertson Moses (“Grandma Moses”)

Tailpiece

Mary has a cool, cool gown,
It’s almost slit to bits.
Who gives a damn for Mary’s lamb
When we can see her calf?

Read More..

The origin of the Boat Bowl

A few months ago my wife showed me a picture of a wooden bowl from a catalog and asked me if I could create something similar. I had a concept in my mind that I thought I would try "someday", so this was the opportunity to use it. I quickly drew and fabricated a bowl to prove the technique. It came out okay, so I made some bowls slightly bigger, realizing that bigger was actually easier when laminating and sanding the inside. Then she asked for a longer, more flared design, and I made several of those, including for a friend who liked the design. Well, as one who enjoys designing and building boats, you may guess what happened next. I took the design for the next boat I plan to build and simplified and scaled it to create a "boat bowl".

Read More..

Fishing in the U P

Carpn on the Flats of Lake Michigan

Although my trip was centered around smallmouth bass on the fly, when in Rome, (Michigan) one must spend some quality time pursuing freshwater bonefish, (Carp).

Back to Bassin

If you know anything about me you know I chase Bass! Ive spent half a lifetime pursuing these freshwater pugnacious species in any body of water from farm ponds to great lakes, from creeks to rivers and every puddle in between. Its in my blood and I make no apologies for it!

In the last few years while living in trout country Ive slowly slipped away from the bronze family. Trout angling has been good for me. It has broadened my skills and allowed me to build a solid respect for the coldwater species.

On a cold winter day while sifting through the hundreds of Columbia River bass photos obtained throughout the years of guiding and fishing the big water an overwhelming need to get back to the bronze kind had finally surfaced. I felt this day coming long ago. It was just a matter of time until the right opportunity surfaced.

Good Company, Good Times

I found that opportunity in an email. Schultz Outfitters newsletter hit my inbox and while scanning the highlights there it was, the SO annual Upper Peninsula (U.P.)  Smallmouth trip and by the time I called Schultzy there was one spot remaining. You know that spot was meant for me!

Ive always wanted to fish in the U.P. I dont know why I never did. Ive fished all around it into Ontario and the great lakes but for some reason the U.P. was never a destination. I think the reason is, in that region, there is so much water that it takes a lifetime to explore.

The trip was everything you look for in a group event. Great fishing, scenery, lodging, guides, friends and food. Plenty of everything and best of all plenty of smallmouth. Early one morning I watched a black bear swim across the river right outside the lodge that overlooks the river. Plenty of wildlife and of course plenty of mosquitoes too! Bring your deet!

Like Topwater?

About 99% of the fishing is topwater divers, poppers and assorted foam bugs fished from drift boats with non stop casting to every undercut, tree root, boulder and grass line looking for that classic bass attack. Ive got to tell you there is nothing that stirs the adrenaline like watching the water move when your bug hits the surface.

No shortage of quality fish

Equipment

20" Brute

James Cook  20" Smallie

My Sage Bass II Series of rods did the bulk of the work for me. The Largemouth size handles the big hair bugs with ease and the shorter length really helps the accuracy of putting those big bugs under the trees. My Smallmouth size was pure magic with the popping bugs and foam critters. I also used a Sage Method 890-4 for some of the subsurface minnow work. This rod can really deliver the distance. Reels are not a huge deal in this game. Once hooked up you need to be concerned with pulling the fish away from entanglement and not worry about getting it on the reel. The line of choice throughout the group is the S/A Mastery Textured Titan Taper. The Titan has a powerful head for big bug delivery and also has a long rear taper to make easy work of picking up a lot of line for a the next cast. To explain better, most presentations involve hitting a target and after settling, making 1-2 moves before recasting to a new spot. The long taper of this line all but eliminates the need to strip back to a casting point common with short head lines.


The fish here are quality. Sure you could find more trophies in the big lakes but they couldnt match the experience of these river dwellers. A 20" or over here will get strong recognition. I was fortunate to catch one of the two caught this week. Too many to count 19s" came to hand and I didnt hear a single complaint about too many dinks.

About that Carp photo at the start of this article...

Release!

As if a great week of smallie fishing with a great crew of anglers and guides in a great lodge with great food and drink and yada, yada, yada wasnt enough...the next stop just a couple hours away is the flats of lake Michigan. Ive always wanted to wade in this great lake and hunt these submarine size monsters. It was everything Id ever dreamed about. The first thing I kept marveling over is the fact that I am wading in Lake Michigan with miles of flats one can walk with crystal clear water all around. Next was learning to spot the fish which is in fact the easy part. Just look for giant dark shadows that are moving. Bring out your best cast, these critters are smart. I had many refusals before I played it cool enough to have one commit. Be sure to have a good disc drag reel. My old Nautilus FW (which I can proudly say has caught more fish than most fly reels will ever see) was just fine for the bass we were hauling in but I was a bit concerned when I locked the drag down as tight as it would go and this fish was still running deep into backing until I only had maybe 20 yards to spare when I finally got it to turn. It is my advice that if you find yourself in the great lakes region dont pass up this opportunity and if you have it penciled in on your bucket list go ahead and ink it. You wont be disappointed.

A Giant THANK YOU goes out to my friends out Schultz Outfitters. These guys eat sleep and live all the great fly fishing in this area of the country. Also want to thank the guides from Tight Lines Fly Fishing Company. These guys know their water, know their fish and work hard to ensure you a great day of fishing. And a special Thanks to Schultzy for sharing a little bit of his Great Lakes carp wisdom.

This trip wont be forgotten anytime soon and I hope to have the opportunity to do it again.

Greg Darling 

Gorge Fly Shop Internet Sales Manager | Product Specialist

Review: Sage Bass II Series Rods

Read More..

Excellent taste in boats

CAMPION MARINE is a Canadian boat manufacturer that seems to be doing just fine in a difficult market. Campion has been making recreational boats for more than 40 years in Kelowna, British Columbia, and now sells its products practically all over the world, even in China.

But what interests me most about Campion (which, incidentally is Canada’s biggest fiberglass boatbuilder) is the fact that its boats are edible. At least I think they are. In a press release the company proclaimed:

Campion Marine Inc., Canadas largest fiberglass boat builder, is proud to announce that it will become the first boat builder in the world to manufacture all of its boats with Envirez®, a renewably sourced bio-derived resin from Ashland Performance Materials.
Envirez® resin is the first resin that uses a substantial amount of soybean oil and corn derived ethanol in its formulation.
So now, if you run out of food in mid-ocean, you can eat your boat. You’ll have to spit out the fiberglass strands, of course, otherwise they’ll get stuck in your teeth; and the diet of soybean and ethanol may start to pale after a week or two; but at least you won’t starve.
The only decision left to make is: Where do you start eating? Somewhere above the waterline, obviously. Not the cockpit floor, but maybe the coamings. Or perhaps the toerails if your crew wash their feet regularly.
The edible boat ushers in a new era of yachting and I look forward to the first book of recipes. Transom stew. Corn à la Cockpit. Poopdeck Purée. Pintle and Gudgeon Potage. It all sounds so delicious I can hardly wait to buy an old wreck of a Campion and invite my friends to a boat tasting.
Today’s Thought
This has got to be the most expensive food ever laminated.
— Bryan Miller, NY Times, (on Manhattan’s Casual Quilted Giraffe restaurant)
Tailpiece
“Don’t you think he looks like me, nurse?”

“Yes, sir, but don’t let it worry you.  All new-born babies look strange for a while.”

(Drop by every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for a new Mainly about Boats column.)

Read More..

Permitted development excluded in an AONB

There is so much material awaiting posting that it is difficult to know where to begin, but I thought I would start with a recent query I received about the extent to which Permitted Development is excluded in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The question arose because the AONB in question encompasses a great number of towns and villages, most of which contain undistinguished housing far removed from anything that could possibly be described as being of outstanding natural beauty.

My correspondent therefore asked me whether the LPA is correct in asserting that permitted development rights are excluded in respect of development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse (under Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the General Permitted Development Order) because this is a settlement that is ‘washed over’ by the AONB designation, and is not excluded from it. The site in question is not in a conservation area.

[What follows applies in England only, not in Wales, which has different rules.]

In most AONBs, the designation covers a wide area, and towns and villages within the area are not excluded, although the boundary may be drawn around the outside of a large town if it is on the periphery of the area. The limited contribution (if any) that even the most undistinguished part of any settlement within an AONB makes to the natural beauty of the area does not affect the position in any way.

Permitted development rights are slightly reduced (but are not wholly removed) in relation to Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the General Permitted Development Order (development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse) in certain areas (“Article 1(5) land”) which include any property anywhere within an AONB. I have confined this note to AONBs, as there is a very subtle distinction in respect of these areas, compared with other “Article 1(5) land (such as conservation areas).

Under Class A, the temporary right (until 30 May 2016) to build larger domestic extensions is excluded in an AONB. Other excluded development within Class A comprises the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles, any extension beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and any extension of more than one storey beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. But, with these exceptions, other extensions and alterations within Part A can still be built within an AONB.

The enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof (under Class B) is also excluded in an AONB, but minor alterations to the roof under Class C are not excluded. The erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of a dwellinghouse (under Class D) is not excluded either.

As regards Class E (the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas), development is not permitted in an AONB by Class E if the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures, pools and containers situated more than 20 metres from any wall of the dwelling-house would exceed 10 square metres, but devlopment closer to the house is OK. In an AONB, development under Class E is also excluded if any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.

Development under Class F (the provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface) is not affected.

In the case of Class G (the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe on a dwellinghouse) this development is not permitted within an AONB if the chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe would be installed on a wall or roof slope which fronts a highway, and forms either the principal elevation or a side elevation of the dwellinghouse.

Development under Class H (the installation, alteration or replacement of a microwave antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse) is permitted in an AONB, but not if it would consist of the installation of an antenna on a chimney, wall or roof slope which faces onto, and is visible from, a highway, or on a building which exceeds 15 metres in height.

If you look at Part 1 of the GPDO, you will see that this still leaves quite a wide variety of permitted development that can be carried out within an AONB, subject to the usual limitations and conditions set out in the Order. It is certainly not the case that permitted development rights are wholly or substantially removed within an AONB. On the other hand, local planning authorities have the power to exclude permitted development rights by means of an Article 4 Direction, and also by means of a condition attached to a planning permission, and this is perhaps more likely within an AONB (and on other “Article 1(5) land”, such as a Conservation Area) than elsewhere.

So the LPA in question was correct up to a point in the case that was put to me, but the effect of the exclusion of certain permitted development rights should not be over-stated.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Short term use of residential property in London

I have blogged on this topic several times in the past year, but I was wondering why the journos on the Evening Standard were getting excited on this subject in an article in today’s edition of the paper. The Deregulation Bill, which will enable the Secretary of State to relax the rules on short-term lettings in Greater London is still in the House of Lords, and the third day of the Report Stage is not due until Wednesday of this week, so Royal Assent is unlikely to be achieved until after both houses come back from their half term break after 23 February. By my calculation, that isn’t going to leave time for subordinate legislation to be laid before parliament so as to come into effect before the General Election (although I am open to correction on this, if any of you know better).

So what exactly prompted today’s article in the ES? I think it must have been De-CLoG’s publication today of a document entitled “ Promoting the sharing economy in London - Policy on short-term use of residential property in London”, which is yet another expression of the government’s wishful thinking, without actually telling us when we can expect the promised change to come about (if indeed it ever does, given the uncertainty over the likely result of the General Election).

The position today is, and will remain for the time being, that short-term lets (of less than 90 days) in Greater London are a material change of use (to a sui generis use) which requires planning permission. The ES seems to think that the change in the law is immediate, but it is not even imminent. That could conceivably change, but I am still not betting on its happening this side of the General Election; and what will happen after that is beyond the wit of man to foretell.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Weekly Fishing Reports April 26th

Photo credit: Andrew Perrault

Gorge Fly Shop Weekly Fishing Reports

Links of interest:

Redington Wader Rebate

Trout Spey Chronicles

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read More..

Design flaw in small boats

I HAVE TO ADMIT that in this column we don’t often talk about sex in small boats. Regrettably, the subject is also much neglected by the yachting media in general. It was obviously also neglected by yacht designers in the past. Aboard those narrow-gutted, full-keeled little cruisers there was never room to swing even half a cat, never mind roger a woman. The priority in those days was to make boats efficient at sailing, rather than reproducing the human race. Go figure.

Nevertheless, to get back to the original point, if we intend to live in a democracy that defends our constitutional right to free speech and plentiful sex, then sex on small boats needs to be discussed with openness, frankness, dignity, and as few blushes as I can manage. If the kids are offended (as they should be if you brought them up properly) just send them off in the dinghy to play on the beach somewhere until we’re through.

It is perhaps not irrelevant to this discussion to note that Lin and Larry Pardey’s long-running book, The Capable Cruiser, shows Lin topless on the dust-jacket cover. She is perched on the main boom at the mast, pointing to something on the horizon, dressed only in a long wrap-around skirt, the kind known as a Polynesian pareu.

It was all very well for the Pardeys, of course. They don’t have any kids. How do couples with kids manage on a small boat, I wonder, the kind that doesn’t have a double stateroom aft. You can’t send them off in the dinghy everytime you feel the urge. 

Traditionally, and in the absence of passion-killing ankle-biters, the V-berth was the passion pit. But most V-berths on small yachts are difficult to get into. You have to back in and fold yourself in half like a pocket knife. By the time you’ve got your limbs sorted out you’ve sprained two sacroiliac tendons, you’re exhausted, and the last thing on your mind is a bit of nookies. When people who live on small boats talk about safe sex, it’s not disease they’re thinking of, it’s broken bones, pulled muscles, and strained backs.

I suppose that if you’ve ever made love in the back of a car, you’ll probably find a V-berth roomy enough. Maybe. I’m not sure. To tell you the truth, I grew up in a country where the back seat of a car had room only for a large grocery bag, so I have never had the pleasure, if it is a pleasure. I now do have a car with a large back seat, but I’m not as flexible as I used to be and my bones are more brittle. I can’t do the athletic contortions that I’m told are necessary. So I guess I’ll never know.

When I was much younger and more flexible I fantasized about those lascivious blonde Swedish girls who (rumor had it) were always cunningly letting themselves be chased through the woods by young men waving birch branches. Coincidentally, a male friend with similar dreams bought a 17-foot dinghy in England. It had a small cabin on it. So I met him over there, and we set sail for the woods of Sweden via the English Channel and the continental canals.

But, alas, because of too much non-sexual dallying on the way, it took us three months to get from France to Holland, and the onset of winter drove us back to England, broke and very frustrated. We never did pause to wonder where we would make love if we actually did catch a couple of those lovely Swedish nymphs. There wasn’t room on our boat for the birch branches, never mind the nymphs.

On really small boats you may have to do it standing up with your head out of the hatch. In a crowded anchorage, that means you have to assume a look of calm nonchalance while you ostensibly scan the horizon for signs of storm clouds or something. In the interests of maintaining this little deception, you should not scream or roll your eyeballs too far back in your head. Other nearby sailors, the crafty devils, are very quick to notice things like that and make their own deductions.

In these modern times, while the hoi polloi are concentrating on safer sex, small-boat sailors are still searching for better sex. It’s a sad reflection on the state of yacht design. The naval architects have failed us. Maybe WE should go ashore in the dinghy, find some friendly bushes, and strand the kids on the boat while we think about the solution.

Today’s Thought

Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages.

— William J. Brennan, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 24 Jun 57

Tailpiece

“Sorry lady, bad news. I just ran over one of your roosters in the road out there. I feel real bad about it and I’d like to replace him.”

“Well sure, just as you wish, mister. You’ll find the henhouse next to the barn.”

Read More..

Use common sense in fog

IT’S NOVEMBER. The last of the spiders are drifting off on their silken threads, the air is cooling rapidly, and fog is creeping into the coves and straits overnight. Fog is dangerous for boaters who lack radar, as most of us do. Fog is especially frightening when you are caught out on a passage. What advice do I have?

Well, frankly, there isn’t much advice to give about getting caught in fog that isn’t covered by common sense. I mean, if you see a fog bank forming ahead, and you have a chance to turn back to a safe anchorage, do so. It’s the seamanlike action to take. Otherwise, you’re stuck with it.

Fog is treacherous. Go slowly and listen very carefully. If fog catches you out, try to get into shallow water and anchor there. Oftentimes that’s easier said than done, of course.

You should raise a radar reflector as high as you can, so other vessels with radar sets will see you. And you should be meticulous about making the right sound signal every two minutes or less. I have noticed that too many skippers are very lax about this. I have even traveled on a Washington State ferry that made no sound signals in thick fog, presumably relying on radar and AIS and clearance from Seattle Traffic Control, which can’t possibly tell the ferry if a small craft, invisible to radar, is in its path. There’s no warning for a small craft in the path of the ferry, either.

If you’re sailing, the correct signal is one long blast and two short blasts. That’s also the signal by a vessel not under command, or restricted by her ability to maneuver. The same signal comes from a vessel engaged in fishing, or towing or pushing another vessel.

If you’re under power, the fog signal (and the signal in any kind of restricted visibility, by the way) is one long blast every two minutes or less.

And one last tip — take along a horn that you can blow into. The fog horns that work off cans of compressed air don’t always work. I can vouch for that. I can also tell you that blowing the damn horn as loud as you can every two minutes is a pain in the you-know-what. You can’t go anywhere or do anything that lasts more than one minute, fifty-nine seconds. It puffs your cheeks out and raises your blood pressure. It makes you dizzy and produces black spots before your eyes. But it’s better than being run down at sea. So do it.

Today’s Thought

He that bringeth himself into needless dangers dieth the devil’s martyr.

— Thomas Fuller, Holy War

Tailpiece

“I’ve found out why production has slowed down since you got that second computer.”

“Good. What’s wrong?”

“The big computer’s shoving all the work on to the little computer.”

Read More..

Can conditions preclude Permitted Development

The immediate answer to this question is that of course they can, and such conditions are quite common. They are usually along the lines that “Notwithstanding [the GPDO – variously referred to] no development shall take place under Part 1, Classes A or E [etc. etc.]” (or as the case may be). Some conditions even exclude all types of PD under the whole of Parts 1 and 2. There is no doubt that if the condition is worded with sufficient precision (and most are) the type of permitted development specified by the condition cannot be carried out, and a planning permission would have to be sought instead. There must, of course, be an objective justification for such a condition, and I have come across rather too many examples of these conditions which were imposed without any such justification. The remedy in such a case is an application under section 73 (and, if necessary, an appeal against a refusal to remove the condition). I have even won costs against the LPA in such appeals.

However, I have recently been asked by a correspondent about the effect of a rather differently worded condition in relation to the recently introduced right to convert an office (Use Class B1(a)) to residential use. In this case, a duly implemented planning permission which had authorised a change of use of premises to office use contained a condition that read: “The premises shall be used as an office (Use Class B1a) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class B of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any amendment thereof).” Does this preclude a change of use to Use Class C3 under the new GPDO provisions (subject to the qualifying criteria and compliance with the prior approval procedure)?

At first sight, it appeared to me that this condition does have that effect – if you simply take the words : “The premises shall be used as an office (Use Class B1a) and for no other purpose. But second thoughts suggested otherwise. It seems to me that this condition does not (and cannot) preclude an application for planning permission for a further change of use. It was designed solely to prevent the use being changed within Use Class B1 in reliance on the terms of section 55(2)(f) of the 1990 Act (whereby such a change of use within the same use class would not constitute development within the meaning of the Act). Any other change of use, to a use outside the scope of Class B1, would have been development in any event, and would have required planning permission. Thus, if planning permission were to be granted for such a further change of use, it would supersede the previous permission (and its conditions). What Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO does is exactly the same; it grants planning permission (subject to certain requirements being met) for a further change of use. The condition in question cannot therefore have the effect of precluding this.

There are several reasons for reaching this conclusion. First, the condition referred specifically to the Use Classes Order and contained no reference at all to the GPDO. I do not consider that the quoted wording could be stretched to include the GPDO or to be construed so as to do so. Furthermore, if permitted development was intended to be precluded by this condition, this should have been stated in clear terms. It is well settled law that conditions must be clear in their intention and effect; their purpose cannot be implied. Permitted Development cannot be precluded by implication. If an LPA wishes to preclude PD, it must word the condition in such a way as expressly to remove specific PD rights.

I mentioned above that if planning permission were to be granted for a further change of use, it would supersede the previous permission (and its conditions). As I have pointed out, what the GPDO does is to grant planning permission for a further change of use. This is the primary reason for my taking the view that this condition in the previous permission does not preclude the further change of use now authorised by Part 3. For the same reason, I do not consider that the condition would prevent the other change of use permitted by Part 3 (subject to a floorspace limitation) from B1 to B8.

I recall that there used to be some doubt as to whether development carried out as permitted development would be free of conditions under an existing planning permission. The conclusion (although I can’t recall offhand the relevant authority for this) was that the conditions continued to apply to the property as a whole. However, I don’t see that rule as being applicable in this context, where planning permission is given by the GPDO for an entirely different use of the property, at least so far as concerns conditions that were specifically addressed to the actual use of the property. Where the GPDO authorises a change of use under Part 3, it seems to me that any such conditions attached to the earlier permission would no longer apply. The position as regards other conditions (for example as regards car parking) may, however, be more doubtful.

No doubt there are those who would take a different view, and I cannot pretend that the answer I have given above to the question that was posed to me is the last word on this subject. But for what it’s worth, and subject to any contrary statutory or judicial authority that might be brought to my attention, I don’t believe that a condition like the one quoted above would preclude a change of use under the GPDO.

UPDATE: In case anyone didn’t see Steve Jupp’s helpful contribution to this discussion among the comments posted below this item, I thought it might be useful to follow him in drawing attention to paragraph 86 of Circular 11/95 (recently cancelled, I know, but in my view the statements it contained are still relevant and should continue to be applied). This paragraph stated in clear terms that “a general condition which restricts the use of land does not remove permitted development rights for that use unless the condition specifically removes those rights as well.” Q.E.D.

NOTE: This topic is more fully discussed in the author’s new book - ”A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PERMITTED CHANGES OF USE” published by Bath Publishing in October 2015. You can order your copy by clicking on the link on the left-hand sidebar of this page.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..