Permitted development for office conversions to be permanent

The long-awaited announcement of the proposed extension or removal of the May 2016 deadline for the completion of the residential conversion of offices finally came yesterday in a press release issued jointly by 10, Downing Street and De-CLoG. The measures that were announced are far more wide-ranging than this, and include a new Housing and Planning Bill and a whole raft of other planning changes, which we shall have to get to grips with in the coming months.

With preparations for the publication of my new book at an advanced stage, I have inevitably been focused on this topic for the past few weeks, and this is likely to continue until we finally go to press. We had hoped to do this no later than the end of this week, but must first try to establish the likely timetable for the necessary GPDO amendment order. The bare bones of the government press release gave no hint of this, nor of the detailed provisions that it will contain.

The most reliable indication of ministers’ intentions was set out in their “Technical consultation on planning” of July 2014. This canvassed the proposal either to extend or to make permanent all the permitted development rights which were due to expire in May 2016. The proposal in the case of Part 3, Class O was to extend the completion deadline by three years to 30 May 2019, but there were later hints that the deadline might be removed altogether, and this is what has now been announced.

The Government’s original proposal was to amend Class O with effect from May 2016, and it was emphasised in the 2014 consultation paper that these amendments would not come into force until the existing permitted development right ends in May 2016. The amended permitted development under Class O would replace the existing right.

It was the government’s intention that the exemption of certain areas (‘Article 2(5) land’) which applies to the current permitted development right would not be extended to apply to the new permitted development right under Class O, but there are rumours that the government has been persuaded to keep these exemptions in place.

It was also proposed that in addition to prior approval of the impact of the proposed development in relation to highways and transport, flooding and contamination, prior approval would also now be required in respect of the potential impact of the significant loss of the most strategically important office accommodation. However, in order to avoid this being used as an easy excuse by LPAs to refuse these prior approval applications, this would be tightly defined. The existing general exclusions would continue to apply (i.e. listed buildings and land within their curtilage, scheduled monuments and land within their curtilage, safety hazard areas and military explosive storage areas).

So far as the potential impact of the significant loss of the most strategically important office accommodation is concerned, the relevant provision would no doubt take a similar form to the existing provisions in Class M and Class P (if this intention is now carried forward into the GPDO amendment order). The list of matters requiring prior approval might therefore include an extra item along these lines :

“(d) where the authority considers the building to which the development relates is located in an area that is strategically important for providing office accommodation within Class B1(a) (offices) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, whether it is undesirable for the building to change to a residential use because of the impact of the change of use on adequate provision of facilities of the sort that may be provided by a building falling within Use Class B1(a) (offices), but only where there is a reasonable prospect of the building being used to provide such facilities.”

However, whether a provision of this sort will find its way into the amendment order, and the precise form it may take, remains (at the time of writing) a matter of speculation.

The government’s original intention had been to make an amending order in sufficient time to ensure that local planning authorities would be given more than a year to prepare for the introduction of the new permitted development right and, although it was not spelt out explicitly, to make Article 4 Directions where they consider it necessary to do so; but an amending order made within the remaining time before the end of May 2016 removing the exempted areas with effect from that date would leave LPAs with significantly less than a year in which to make Article 4 Directions to replace these exemptions.

Whilst Article 4 Directions could still be put in place before the end of May 2016 if LPAs were to embark on the process more or less immediately, the essential point is that they would not be able to give 12 months’ notice of those directions, so as to avoid what could potentially be very large compensation claims if planning permission is subsequently refused for the residential conversion of offices that could have been carried out as permitted development in the absence of the Article 4 Direction. The equally unattractive alternative from the point of view of the affected LPAs would be to postpone the coming into effect of any such Article 4 Direction so as to avoid the risk of compensation becoming payable, but at the risk of laying their areas open to a rush of prior approval applications for the residential conversion of offices in the formerly exempted areas in the meantime.

This difficulty could be avoided if the government were either to retain the existing exempted areas under Article 2(5) and Part 3 of Schedule 1 (as it has been suggested they now intend to do) or, alternatively, to postpone their removal from the GPDO for up to (say) 18 months, in order to give LPAs the opportunity to put Article 4 Directions in place at least a year before the protected areas lose their exemption.

The amendment order could be made and laid before parliament this week, or we may have to wait several weeks or even months before it comes forward. However, developers will wish to end the current uncertainty as soon as possible, in order to unlock the funding for these office conversion schemes that had all but dried up in advance of the original May 2016 completion deadline. If the government is sympathetic to the commercial needs of the developers, they won’t delay any longer before introducing the necessary amendments to the GPDO.

UPDATE (2.30 p.m. 13/10/15): In a press release issued this morning Brandon Lewis (the Minister for Housing and Planning) said that offices that have already received prior approval for residential conversion will now have three years to complete the conversion. No doubt all office conversions under Class O will be subject to a three-year completion condition in future (which already applies under a number of other Classes in Part 3).

Lewis has also confirmed that (as previously rumoured) the new permitted development right under Class O will allow office buildings to be demolished and replaced with new buildings for residential use, and that permitted development will also be extended to include the change of use of light industrial buildings within Class B1 and launderettes (still a sui generis use).

As I suggested above, the exemption of certain areas under Article 2(5) will not immediately be removed. I suggested 18 months’ grace, but the government has agreed to allow a three-year period until May 2019 before these exemptions disappear.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Conditions that fail to prevent Permitted Development

In a blog post published here on Friday, 18 October 2013 (“Can conditions preclude Permitted Development?”) I drew attention to a type of condition attached to planning permissions along these lines : - “ 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)” (or words to that effect). The question is whether a condition framed in these terms can prevent the operation of the permitted development right granted by Part 3, Class J of the GPDO, as amended in May 2013.

In my original piece, I expressed the view (for the reasons set out there) that this wording does not have the effect of precluding permitted development under Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO. But I was unable at that time to put my finger on any specific authority to back this up. Since then, our planning law team at Keystone Law has had to get to grips with this question ‘for real’, and I am grateful to my colleague Ben Garbett for having dug out the judicial authority that backs up the view I expressed last October.

In the meantime (as noted in an update to my original post), Steve Jupp had kindly drawn my attention to paragraph 86 of Circular 11/95 which, after making it clear that conditions of this type are officially discouraged, added that a condition restricting changes of use will not restrict ancillary or incidental activities unless it so specifies, and the paragraph ended with this sentence: “Similarly, a general condition which restricts the use of land does not remove permitted development rights for that use unless the condition also specifically removes those rights as well.” Circular 11/95 has now been cancelled, but this sentence was not a statement of ministerial policy; it was a general statement of the law, which continues to be applicable.

The author of Circular 11/95 no doubt had in mind judicial rulings to that effect. The first of these was delivered by Sir Douglas Franks QC in Carpet Decor (Guildford) Ltd v. SSE [1981] JPL 806, where he said:

“This case turns on the proper construction of the planning permission. As a general principle, where a local planning authority intends to exclude the operation of the Use Classes Order or the General Development Order, they should say so by the imposition of a condition in unequivocal terms, for in the absence of such a condition it must be assumed that those orders will have effect by operation of law.

The Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in Dunoon Developments Ltd -v- SSE [1992] JPL 936 (although the judgment in Carpet Decor does not appear to have been drawn to the attention of the court in that case). Article 3(4) of the GPDO had been called in aid by the LPA, but Farquharson LJ held that :

“The purpose of the General Development Order is to give a general planning consent unless such consent is specifically excluded by the words of the condition. The Schedule [now the Second Schedule to the GPDO] identifies the activities included in this general consent..........Therefore it is apt to include the provisions of this particular planning permission unless the condition was wide enough to exclude it.”

He concluded that he recognised that it is necessary to examine the condition with care, bearing in mind the appellants’ submission that that if the LPA were correct in their interpretation, it would deprive the appellants of a development right granted by statute. “It is clear that that the condition makes no express exclusion of the effect of the General Development Order. The question, therefore, is whether it is to be implied from the words themselves, in the context in which they are used, to so exclude them. As already indicated, the condition does not have that wide effect.”

In agreeing with this judgment, the Vice-Chancellor, Sir David Nicholls, added :

“Of its nature, and by definition, a grant of planning permission for a stated purpose is a grant only for that use. But that cannot per se be sufficient to exclude the operation of a General Development Order. A grant of permission for a particular use cannot per se constitute a condition inconsistent with consequential development permitted by a General Development Order. If it did, the operation of General Development Orders would be curtailed in a way which could not have been intended. Thus to exclude the application of a General Development Order, there has to be something more. In the present case there is nothing more. Condition 1 delimits or circumscribes the ambit of the permitted use. The condition is not apt to achieve more. It is not apt to achieve more because it is not fairly apparent from the language of the condition, or the document [the planning permission] read as a whole, that Condition 1 is intended to do more than this. If the condition is fairly read, its purpose is, but is only, to define the ambit of the permission granted. There is not explicit or implicit an intention to negative development pursuant to any existing or future Use Classes Order or General Development Order.”

I am aware of an earlier decision in City of London Corporation v. SSE (1971) 23 P&CR 169 that appears to have gone the other way but, in light of the more recent judgments in both Carpet Decor and Dunoon Developments, I do not believe that any reliance can now be placed on that earlier decision.

The best that might be said for this type of condition is that it may (if appropriately worded) exclude the operation of section 55(2)(f), i.e. other uses within the same use class (as the condition quoted earlier would appear to do), although the judgments in Carpet Decor and Dunoon Developments make it clear that even the operation of section 55(2)(f) by reference to the Use Classes Order cannot be taken to have been excluded in the absence of clear words specifically referring to the UCO.

However that may be, it is abundantly clear from these judgments that (as was confirmed by paragraph 86 of Circular 11/95) a generally worded condition of the type under discussion here cannot prevent the operation of the General Permitted Development Order, and in particular Part 3, Class J in the Second Schedule. Local Planning Authorities who try to resist permitted development on the basis of such a condition are going to be on a hiding to nothing. Where time and effort had to be expended, we have found, is in persuading them that they are wrong in thinking otherwise and, if they still don’t accept the position, in taking the necessary legal and procedural steps to confirm our clients’ right to carry out the development. We are already working on several such cases, and no doubt more will follow.

NOTE: This topic is discussed more fully 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..

Financial incentives to be offered for injunctions

Enforcement action against breaches of planning control has always been the Cinderella of the planning service in most planning authorities, and the squeeze on council budgets has only served to further weaken local councils’ exercise of their enforcement powers. It can be a very expensive exercise, especially if the enforcement action is simply ignored by a recalcitrant developer, so that the council has to resort to applying for an injunction.

Now, however, albeit rather late in the day, De-CloG has announced a new fund to give LPAs some financial help in dealing with proceedings for injunctions in planning cases. Of course, if local authority funding had not been cut in the first place, this extra financial support might not have become necessary, but no doubt it will be welcomed by any hard-pressed authority having to go for an injunction against a persistent breach of planning control, or at least it may be until they read the small print.

The fund provided by De-CloG is £1 million, of which £200K will be available between now and 31 March this year, and the remaining £800K will be available until 31 March 2016. However, this funding is not as generous as it sounds. The maximum grant for any one case is limited to not more than half the council’s estimated costs, but is limited to a maximum payment of £10K.

So the maximum amount of grant that an LPA can apply for is £10,000 (or 50% of their estimated legal costs, whichever is the lesser) towards the cost of securing a Court Injunction in the High Court or County Court. The authority is required to provide a costs estimate setting out details of anticipated legal costs likely to be incurred in preparing and issuing legal proceedings and attending court, but this estimate is not to include non-legal specialist officer time. The LPA must take responsibility for any legal costs incurred in excess of £10K or in excess of any lesser sum that may be granted.

The fund is solely for use by LPAs in England, towards the cost of securing a Court injunction (High or County Court), under Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, against actual or apprehended breaches of planning control to be restrained. Funding is only available where other enforcement options have been, or would be, ineffective, or where there have been persistent breaches of planning control over a long period.

Funding will not be available for court proceedings which have already been started, or where an appellant lodges an appeal under section 174 against an enforcement notice that the LPA has issued. The criteria refer to an appeal made “within 28 days of receiving the notice”, but as the notice will usually come into effect within a fairly short time after the minimum 28-day period, it seems a little odd that an LPA could be deprived of funding for injunction proceedings where an enforcement notice is timed to come into effect (say) 35 days after service, and the developer appeals after 28 days but within the 35-day period.

LPAs will have to jump through hoops to get the funding they are seeking. Before a grant is made, they will have to demonstrate why the action is in the general interest, explain the degree and flagrancy of the breach of planning control, set out the enforcement history for the site (e.g. what other measures have failed over a long period of time), explain any urgency needed to remedy the breach, set out the planning history of the site, provide details of previous planning decisions in relation to the site, set out consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) and Human Rights Act 1998, and demonstrate that an injunction is a proportionate remedy in the circumstances of the individual case, in addition to stating the amount of funding requested, including a breakdown of estimated legal spend on legal costs in 2014-15 and 2015-16. And all of this must be written in no more than 1,000 words, writing on one side of the paper only in the Head of Planning’s best joined-up handwriting. Deductions from funding will be made for untidy handwriting, poor grammar and spelling errors. (OK – I made the last bit up, apart from the thousand-word limit, but you get the general drift.)

And that’s not all. To qualify for consideration, the authority is required to confirm that it has adopted the enforcement best practice recommended in paragraph 207 of the National Planning Policy Framework and published its plan to manage enforcement of breaches proactively. The authority’s enforcement plan must have been published at least three months prior to applying for grant and the authority is required to confirm adherence to the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the way in which the authority monitors the implementation of planning permissions, investigates alleged breaches of planning control; and takes enforcement action whenever it is expedient to do so.

Finally, to support the application for funding, the authority will be required to provide an active web link for their published local enforcement plan together with written confirmation that they are adhering to the objectives of the plan in a positive, pro-active and proportionate way and have been doing so for at least the previous three months.

Contractors engaged by De-CLoG (Ivy Legal) will assess applications for funding against the eligibility criteria in January, April, July and October, and applications for grant must be received no later than the last working day of the relevant application month.

You might think that someone in De-CLoG is trying to make it difficult, if not practically impossible, for local authorities actually to get their hands on this money! I wonder what level of take-up there is going to be when the amount of work involved in applying for funding, and the sum that is likely to be doled out, are taken into account. Getting funding might prove to be more difficult than getting the injunction itself, and many LPAs may conclude that it’s not worth the hassle.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

We’re all going to be film stars!

Not to be outdone by the forthcoming second series of ‘The Planners’ on the telly (which, by the way, is going to be re-titled “Not in My Back Yard!”), Uncle Eric has decided that the cameras should be allowed into planning committee meetings and planning hearings and inquiries.

New guidance is to be issued by De-CLoG, which "will make clear the rights for members of the press and public, including local bloggers and hyper-local [?] journalists, to report, film and tweet planning appeal hearings." In a press release, De-CLoG ministers express the hope that “this will open up a previously mysterious and rarely seen side of the planning process”.

The new freedom to record and film proceedings, including the use of digital and social media can be exercised in future in appeal hearings and inquiries, provided that it does not disrupt proceedings. According to the blurb, "Inspectors will advise people present at the start of the event that the proceedings may be recorded and/or filmed, and that anyone using social media during or after the end of the proceedings should do so responsibly."

Pickles is particularly annoyed, because previous guidance he published in June, which was intended to open up planning committee meetings in the same way, has been deliberately ignored by some councils. Unfortunately, he omitted to write this into recent changes to subordinate legislation on the conduct of council meetings, and so he can do no more for the time being other than to huff and puff about it (something Uncle Eric is rather good at doing).

The press release ‘names and shames’ several of the offending councils:

• Wirral Council banned a blogger from filming its planning committee on health and safety grounds, asserting the ban was necessary as they cannot ‘police’ people filming.

• Tower Hamlets stopped a 71 year old resident and OAP campaigner filming a council meeting in June 2013. Council officers asserted that allowing filming could lead to “reputational damage to the authority”

• Keighley Town Council stopped a council meeting when a group of pensioners started to film the meeting and called in the police who escorted the 11 residents from the town hall. Officials argued allowing filming would be a “breach of Standing Orders”

• Blogger Richard Taylor, producing a guide for citizens on how to film meetings, has warned that some councils have demanded identity papers, such as a passport, before allowing filming, and warned “be prepared for the police to be called and the possibility of arrest, especially if you intend to film, photograph, tweet or take notes on a laptop” (Apparently, he was threatened with arrest when he tried to film Huntingdon District Council.)

• Bexley Council has asserted it intends to continue to prohibit audio and visual filming due to its “agreed protocol”

• Stamford Town Council meeting has reaffirmed its ban on a newspaper reporter tweeting from a council meeting, due to “concerns about 140 character snippets of information not accurately portraying a debate”

I have no more sympathy than Pickles with these weak excuses. If meetings are open to the public (as most planning committee meetings must be by law), there can be no reasonable objection to the proceedings being filmed, photographed and recorded, or reported ‘live’ on social media.

On the other hand, if you have attended as many different planning committee meetings as I have, you may well understand the reluctance of elected members to have their ‘deliberations’ broadcast to the great unwashed. The sad fact is that the standard of debate in many planning committees is absolutely dire, and the poor calibre of elected members, their profound ignorance of planning principles and procedures, and general lack of common sense is appallingly obvious. When officers in one authority claimed that allowing filming could lead to “reputational damage to the authority”, their fears may well have been justified!

As for opening up planning inquiries and hearings to the cameras, camera phones and recorders, I rather suspect that interest in recording the proceedings in this way will rapidly wane. It is rare even to see a local print journalist at an appeal hearing or inquiry, and those members of the public who bother to attend mostly drift away by lunchtime on the first day. The plain fact is that for those not directly involved in the process, it is arcane and incomprehensible, and opening it up to the cameras is not going to change that.

Major public inquiries into controversial development proposals might attract the TV cameras, but they will have the same problem as print journalists who have tried to cover these proceedings in the past. The bigger the development scheme, the longer the inquiry, and for journalists and TV crews it is likely to prove as exciting as watching paint dry.

Still, it makes a good silly season story, and Uncle Eric can feel satisfied that he has taken yet another decisive step to improve the planning system. Never mind, that we are still not building more than a tiny proportion of the new homes that are so urgently needed. Never mind that local planning authorities are starved of funds and can hardly cope with their work as a result. And never mind that all Uncle Eric’s previous brave words and stirring deeds have done virtually nothing to make any really significant change to the planning system.
______________

UPDATE (30 August 2013): I am told that Merton Council has begun webcasting various meetings within the past few months, including its Planning Applications Committee (although I am told that after two meetings no further webcasts have been made due to "technical difficulties"). A correspondent has suggested that readers should watch the first three applications presented on 18 April.

The webcasts can be accessed on:

http://www.merton.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcasts

This is not a link, but if you copy and paste this URL into the address line on your browser, the page should open. Don’t panic when you get no sound at the beginning. The camera was switched on before the meeting began, and the sound only starts when the Chairman opens the meeting, 7½ minutes into the recording. (You can move the cursor along to get to this point without having to watch usual the pre-meeting comings and goings in total silence. Alternatively, the menu on the right of the page enables you to go straight to the start of each item. The first application is reached about 10¾ minutes ibnto the recording.)

The 18 April meeting seems fairly typical to me. One thing you’ll notice is that the proceedings might reasonably be described as ‘unhurried’. It takes over 20 minutes, including the planning officer’s introduction, and public statements, before the members of the committee start to discuss the first application around 33½ minutes into the recording.

Anyway, see what you make of it.


© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

How to ‘fix’ the planning system

Earlier this month there was a flurry of announcements intended to make it look as if the government is at last prepared to do something about the continuing failure (primarily on the part of the development industry, but they of course are excused from any blame by the government) to deliver sufficient new housing to meet ever-growing demand. This process started with a joint newspaper article by Cameron and Osborne in The Times on 4 July, foreshadowing the budget statement and various press releases and other documents issued to coincide with the budget on 8 July, and then on 10 July a policy document described as the government’s “Productivity Plan” and entitled Fixing the Foundations.

I have commented before on the Treasury’s habit of taking ownership of such announcements, rather than De-CLoG, leaving that subservient department to obey the commandments of the Chancellor handed down on tablets of stone from the Mount Sinai of Downing Street. This is nothing new; the tendency of the Treasury to take charge was equally evident under the last Labour government. But Gorgeous George has always found this approach particularly to his taste, and he has been in a notably gung-ho (not to say hubristic) mood since the election.

The government’s proposals for further changes to the planning system are set out in Chapter 9. With regard to housebuilding, the document acknowledges the longstanding failure to build enough homes to keep up with growing demand, and notes that housing starts fell by nearly two-thirds between 2007 and 2009, with the number of first time buyers falling by more than 50% between 2006 and 2008 (carefully selected figures to coincide with the last period of Labour government).

The document blames “an excessively strict planning system”, which prevents land and other resources from being used efficiently, thereby impeding productivity by increasing the cost and uncertainty of investment, hindering competition, constraining the agglomeration [?] of firms and the mobility of labour, and encouraging land speculation, rather than productive development. Ministers assert that the resulting under-supply of housing, especially in high-growth areas of the country, has pushed up house prices.

The document recognises that the glacial pace of the plan-making system has been a major constraint in achieving the release of housing land, although they refuse to acknowledge one of the primary factors in this – the abolition under Eric Pickles’ superintendency of the Regional Spatial Strategies, which were designed to ensure that all authorities should contribute their share to meeting housing land need. The weak and wishy-washy ‘duty to co-operate’ that was incorporated in the Localism Act failed (as nearly everyone predicted) to provide an effective alternative, and even the NPPF has only had a limited effect in securing the release of housing land.

The plain fact is that local planning authorities, with all the local political pressures to which they are subject, cannot be trusted to deliver the housing that is needed in their areas in order to meet demand not only locally but generated in neighbouring areas as well. The government forswears ‘top-down planning’, but is nevertheless obliged to cast about for some mechanism that would force the hands of LPAs.

In pursuit of this objective, the government has announced its intention to take further action to ensure that local authorities put local plans in place by a set deadline. That deadline has been announced today in a written ministerial statement. It will be “early 2017” (five years after the publication of the NPPF), although it is not entirely clear whether ‘producing’ a local plan means actually adopting it, or merely publishing the first consultation draft. Furthermore, a local plan is not complete until all the DPDs are in place (a lengthy process). I suspect that what is referred to here is simply the Core Strategy.

The government proposes to publish league tables, setting out local authorities’ progress on their Local Plan. The league tables will be fairly meaningless in themselves, but where it becomes clear that LPAs are not making effective progress towards the adoption of a Local Plan, De-CLoG will intervene in those authorities and will do the job themselves. Whether this will in practice lead to faster plan-making is perhaps open to doubt.

This will be accompanied by proposals to streamline the plan-making process significantly, helping to speed up the process of implementing or amending a plan. The government also intends to strengthen the duty of cooperation between local authorities (a clear admission that this provision in the 2011 Act has been ineffective). This means that LPAs will have to be prepared to find housing land to meet the housing needs of adjoining local authority areas where they cannot be met within those areas themselves. However, you can be sure that this will produce a good deal of screaming and kicking on the part of some local councillors, who can see no reason why Midsomer Fartworthy District Council should be forced to allow houses to be built on its nice green fields just to meet the housing needs of their despised neighbours in the Borough of Clagthorpe.

There is a suggestion that further use will be made of development corporations to deliver higher-density development in designated areas. The government says it will consider how policy can support higher density housing around key commuter hubs. There is also a welcome intention to devise policy guidance to secure the release of commercial and industrial land for housing. Local planning authorities are all too prone to resist the ‘loss’ of employment land on which future commercial or industrial development is very unlikely ever to take place, and for which there is no demand in practice.

There is a more radical proposal for ‘brownfield’ sites (previously developed land), where the government is promising “an urban planning revolution”, including funding to provide infrastructure, strong local leadership to shape development and assemble sites, and the removal of unnecessary planning obstacles. The real problem, as anyone who has been involved with such sites is well aware, is the cost of remediation of site contamination where there has been an interesting and varied history of industrial uses. Developers have been known to bankrupt themselves in the process of trying to clean up sites of this sort.

Ministers contend that the planning system can create the sort of “slow, expensive and uncertain process” that reduces the appetite to build, where development proposals require individual planning permission and are subject to detailed and discretionary scrutiny. The government says it is clear on the need to promote the use of brownfield land, and that it will remove all unnecessary obstacles to its re-development, including these sorts of planning obstacles. To this end, as well as legislating for statutory registers of brownfield land suitable for housing, the government proposes to legislate to grant automatic permission in principle on brownfield sites identified on those registers, subject to the approval of a limited number of technical details. On brownfield sites, this will give England a ‘zonal’ system, like those seen in many other countries, reducing unnecessary delay and uncertainty for brownfield development. (Hands up those of you who are old enough to remember ‘zoning’ in this country, and its abolition under ‘new-style’ development plans in the 1980s.) There is also a suggestion that compulsory purchase powers may be used to assemble housing sites on brownfield land.

The assertion is repeated that delays in processing planning applications may be a significant factor preventing housing supply from responding to upturns in the market. So the government proposes to legislate to allow major infrastructure projects with an element of housing to apply through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Regime (i.e. taking the project out of the normal planning system and shoving it through the fast-track procedure for Development Consent).

There is a threat to further tighten the thumb-screws of the planning performance regime, so that local authorities making 50% or fewer of decisions on time are at risk of designation. The performance regime will also be extended to minor applications, so that local authorities processing those applications too slowly will be at risk of designation.

An unspecified fast-track certificate process is also proposed for establishing the principle of development for minor development proposals, coupled with an intention to significantly tighten the ‘planning guarantee’ for minor applications (whatever that means).

Section 106 agreements have also been identified as a delaying factor, and so the government proposes to introduce “a dispute resolution mechanism” [sic] for section 106 agreements, to speed up negotiations and allow housing starts to proceed more quickly. There isn’t supposed to be a ‘dispute’ about a draft section 106 agreement; it is intended to be negotiated, but where an LPA is proving difficult, I suppose some means of shifting the log-jam may be helpful (although an appeal against non-determination may still be the most practical way forward).

Finally, in order to bring forward more ‘starter’ homes, the government intends to extend the current exception site policy, and to strengthen the presumption in favour of Starter Home developments, starting with unviable or underused brownfield land for retail, leisure and institutional uses. These starter developments will be exempted from the Community Infrastructure Levy, and from the requirement to provide or contribute towards affordable housing. Tariff-style general infrastructure funds will not be sought from them.

How this will all be brought about will become clear over the next year or so. We will presumably see yet another Planning Bill later in this parliamentary session, and some re-writing of ministerial policy to give effect to the government’s stated intentions. How effective all this will prove to be is open to doubt, and I have already heard some very sceptical views expressed as to the actual delivery of all those new houses.

The government has still not addressed some of the real bugbears of the planning system, such as the nonsenses over the ‘validation’ of planning applications. Nor have they addressed the chronic under-funding of planning departments in local authorities and the consequent lack of sufficient experienced planning officers to handle planning applications quickly and effectively. If local authorities are squeezed even harder by the Treasury (as seems likely) things will only get worse. It is not enough for ministers to will the end; they must also will the means.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

‘White van man’ with the flags could be prosecuted

Strood’s ‘white van man’, who achieved overnight fame as a result of a tweet by Labour’s (now ex-) Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, might possibly be liable to prosecution under section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This sub-section provides that if any person displays an advertisement in contravention of the Control of Advertisements Regulations, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of such amount as shall be prescribed, not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale and, in the case of a continuing offence (i.e. if the advertisement goes on being displayed), one-tenth of Level 4 on the standard scale for each day during which the offence continues after conviction.

No doubt some readers already have in mind two possible objections to this proposition. First, is the display of a flag an ‘advertisement’ for these purposes? Secondly, is the display of flags not either exempted or granted deemed consent by the Control of Advertisements Regulations? Let’s look at each of those points in turn.

Without going into chapter and verse, it is well-settled law that if a flag or other display is likely to draw attention to the premises where the flag is displayed (even domestic premises), this counts as an ‘advertisement’. The Control of Advertisements Regulations themselves recognise this by exempting certain flags from control, and by giving deemed consent for the display of various other flags. But here’s the snag; the regulations are quite prescriptive as to what is actually permitted, and if the display does not comply with the conditions prescribed by the regulations, then it is unlawful. Even after Uncle Eric’s much-trumpeted (but in fact very limited) ‘liberalisation’ of the rules in 2012, there are still some quite strict rules as to what, and how, flags may be displayed.

Class H of Schedule 1 (adverts that are exempt from control altogether) allows the display of any country’s national flag, civil ensign or civil air ensign, but neither the flag nor the flagstaff may display any subject matter additional to the design of the flag, other than a black mourning ribbon. Now I know that the permanent addition of a black mourning ribbon to England’s national football flag might well be justified, but if you look at the lowest of the three flags displayed on the house in Strood, it had the England FA’s shield on it. So it doesn’t qualify as the country’s national flag, and it does display subject matter additional to the design of the cross of St George. So this one would not appear to be exempt under Sch 1, Class H.

In any event, it would appear to be implicit in the Control of Advertisements Regulations that a flag is expected to be flown from a flagpole, not draped across the wall of a building like a banner. This is not explicitly stated in Schedule 1, but the deemed consent granted for certain other flags by Schedule 3 (see below) certainly does refer specifically to flags flown from variously located flagpoles. It would also appear to be implicit in Schedule 1 (again, by analogy with Schedule 3) that the exemption granted by Class H applies only to a single flag, not to two or more.

In addition, Standard Condition 3 in the Second Schedule provides that any advertisement displayed shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site. This is, of course, a matter of judgment, and I make no comment on the effect that festooning the house with flags in this case may have had on the visual amenity of the site in this case.

Turning now to Class 7 in Schedule 3 (adverts which have deemed consent), this class (together with several sub-classes) permits an advertisement in the form of a flag, but in each case attached to a single flagstaff, mounted at various angles. Bearing in mind that national flags are covered by Sch 1, Class H, none of the types of flag authorised by Sch 3, Class 7 includes any national flags (although it does include a flag bearing the device of any sports club, so flying the English FA flag from a flagpole would be OK). In any event, this deemed consent certainly doesn’t extend to flags draped over the wall of a house. Furthermore, on sites comprising less than 10 houses, only one flag is permitted.

As readers will have gathered from previous posts in this blog on the subject of flags, I think the whole business of regulating the display of flags under the Control of Advertisements Regulations is a complete nonsense, but if an eager and ambitious enforcement officer in the local planning authority for the Strood area wants to make a name for themselves, then the opportunity to do so is presented by a possible prosecution under section 224(3) of the 1990 Act in this case. The evidence is there in the form of Ms Thornberry’s photograph, and it would merely be necessary to call her to prove the photo. (If she proved to be a reluctant witness, her attendance could be compelled by a witness summons.) This case would be bound to attract huge attention from the media, and so this would be a real feather in the cap for the enforcement officer, and a valuable addition to their CV.

Taking my tongue out of my cheek for a moment - if the display of flags (particularly the flag of St George) were to be thought to be provocative or racist in some areas (and I am not for one moment suggesting that this applies to the example in Strood), then prosecution under section 224(3) of the 1990 Act might be an effective way of nipping it in the bud.

One final thought, particularly bearing in mind the approaching festive season – what about Christmas lights? These, and particularly the more extravagant displays, could also be the target for prosecutions under section 224(3), if they were thought to be objectionable in terms of their effect on the amenity of the area. (November 5th is behind us now, but this is the point at which I should perhaps observe the warning on the fireworks to “Light blue touch paper, and retire to a safe distance”!)

© MARTIN H GOODALL

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..

Forced to become a Warmwater Fisherman

"Freshwater Bones"

With this heat, low water and generally poor fishing conditions, an angler has to get creative. I traditionally fish for summer steelhead starting in July and go all the way through November, but 70+ degree water temps in the Deschutes have eliminated that river as an option. The Klickitat is hovering between 3 and 4 inches of visibility due to the glacial melt and the Hood is barely trickling. The few places that one could go swing for steelhead in the Northwest have become incredibly crowded and I do not wish to add to that crowd, at least as often as I actually want to swing for steel…

So I am forced to become a warmwater fisherman. It’s all fairly new to me. I caught largemouth bass, pike and carp a few times in Nevada, but it was more of a novelty, with little effort put into figuring anything out there. The trout fishing in Nevada is fabulous by the way, but more on that another day.

Booyah!

I have been smallmouth bass fishing a few times in my life. All of them have been this year. I have learned how to fish crankbaits and spinnebaits on a casting rod. It has been an interesting experience. I never really gave bass a passing thought before, but here we are. I have caught a few of them on flies recently, but casting big flies in a stiff breeze on a six weight is often more of a burden than it is worth for me. If they are really on the bite, then I don’t mind casting a fly rod, and occasionally the wind dies down on the Columbia enough for a couple hours of pleasantly calm fly-fishing conditions. I have an old Sage RPL+ 690 matched up with a Galvan Torque T-5 and a Rio Camolux WF6I intermediate line that I prefer for most of my bass fishing. I also fish a spare spool lined up with a Rio Smallmouth Bass Line WF6F for poppers and the magical “Float ‘n Fly” technique that is deadly effective at times when nothing else works.

I love my old Sage RPL+. It is a 2-piece rod, which shows how old it is… It was the first decent rod I ever bought and I have caught thousands of trout on it, but it is ancient technology and I have been looking to update my 6wt situation for a couple of years now. I am heavily leaning towards a Sage ONE 690-4, but the G. Loomis NRX would be equally great first choice.

Having one rod with a floating line and one with a sinking line would be ideal. If I were to get serious about bass fishing, I would most likely have both a 6wt and a 7wt so that I could throw some seriously heavy flies in the wind. Maybe I can get both the ONE and the NRX if Santa thinks that I have been nice enough this year.

I have also been carp fishing a few times now this summer. Talk about a finicky fish. When you are bass fishing, the carp are everywhere. When you decide to go carpin’, they are nowhere to be found. I have yet to land one this summer, but I have had some serious shots, a few hookups and a lot of refusals. Figuring them out is the fun part. They are smart, big and strong, and can often see you long before you see them. I feel confident when I trout fish that I can catch them, but not with carp. This last Sunday, we searched several big flats that should have had carp stacked up thick only to come out scratching our heads wondering where they were. We did not see a single one; not one. Often, there are hundreds of them working the flats in that spot.

Carp seem to like fairly drab colored, simple, weighted flies. Tans, browns and grey shrimp patterns, crayfish, and even beadhead nymphs work fine. It is all about the presentation with very little to do with the fly choice. The key is to get the fly down in front of them and hope they come across it. One little twitch as they are near usually invokes either a strike or a refusal. You fish for them like they are a permit while using a bonefish fly, and they fight like a redfish. You don’t often get two shots at a fish, and making more than one cast in their general direction is usually not going to happen without a fish bolting, which causes other carp in the area to do the same. Calm, feeding carp just became spooky with just one cast.

For my carp set-up, I have been using my Sage XP 8100-4, Lamson Litespeed 3.5 and a Rio Indicator II WF8F line. My old Sage XP was a great rod for steelhead nymphing, but for carp it is heavy and too long. A 10’0” rod is great for small water for steelhead, which is why I got it. Well, I don’t nymph for steelhead any more, so my rod is a little outdated. With a carp rod, a soft tip is crucial to getting a good presentation. A 9’0” 8wt is ideal for carpin’. I would look at the Winston BIII-X and the Sage Accel as both of them are soft enough for a perfect presentation, yet have the backbone to turn a big carp.

The Rio Indicator II WF8F line is also not the most ideal line for carp fishing; it is just what I have on my reel at the moment. A Rio Gold or Rio Perception both provide better presentations for spooky fish than the Indicator line, but we work with what we have sometimes. Matching the line to the rod and the situation is very important, and we will save that for another post.
So I have also been up to Mayfield Lake chasing Tiger Muskie this summer. Now a Tiger Muskie is unlike any fish that I have caught in years. They are truly and apex predator. They don’t care about you or your boat because they are in charge and that becomes apparent very quickly when you see how they operate.

Fishboy Gabe with Pike Minnow

It took a full day of fishing before I really figured out what I need to do next time, which is all anyone can expect to do the first time exploring a new fishery. Early on, I was just blindly casting a really big “perchy” baitfish pattern. Their primary food source consists of Northern Pike Minnows, which are a perchy yellow color. Casting an 8 inch weighted baitfish pattern gets really tiring really quickly. I only got one follow from three or four hours of blind casting. While it came out of nowhere and followed to the boat, it quickly swam back into the weedbed where it had appeared from and I realized I would need to change my approach or I would need shoulder surgery before the end of the summer.

So once the sun was up and we started spotting fish consistently, I changed my tactics. These Muskie sit in fairly shallow water and are pretty easy to spot if you are looking for them. First, I changed my fly to a smaller, white, unweighted deceiver. It sinks slowly and is easier to cast accurately and quickly. We slowly cruised around with the trolling motor, and when we spotted one, I made a cast and put my fly right in front of it; much easier on the shoulder….

I let the fly sink and gave it a little twitch when it was suspended in front of a fish. I had one fish let the fly fall onto its beak after every twitch. I could see how agitated he was, and when he finally opened his mouth to eat it, I set the hook prematurely, yanking my fly right out of its closing jaws. That was the best shot I had all day, although one other fish was very upset at us when we put a fly in his territory. That fish never ate it, but seemed to chase the fly to the boat every time we put a cast near the downed tree that it was sitting under. Over and over again, it chased my fly, slowly cruising the perimeter of our boat, it seemed like it was going to attack on nearly every cast. We left it there with plans to return later, but drunken party boaters (there are many of them on that lake) really put a damper on our efforts when we went back to that cove. I wanted to hide in the depths of that lake too when I heard the blaring country music and screeching drunk women that only got louder until we finally gave up and found another area to fish.

For my Muskie setup, I got out the old Redington CPX 1090-4, Lamson Litespeed 4 and a Scientific Angler’s Titan Taper WF10F. I really liked the line quite a bit early in the day. I like that I can pick it up and cast it with a varying amount of line out of the rod tip. The long back taper is great for that, and the short, blunt front taper turns over those gigantic flies with ease. My only problem was that it was so hot by mid-afternoon that the line was getting limp as freshwater lines do in 80+ degree water and 100 degree air temps. I have a Rio Tropical Outbound Short that I am going to use next time I go if it is anywhere near as hot as it was last time. I never imagined that I would need to use a tropical line in Washington State in June, but again, here we are.

A stout, stiff saltwater-worthy 10wt or 11wt is the perfect rod for this scenario. Sage makes a Pike Rod (10 wt) and a Muskie Rod (11 wt), both are 9’0”. Either of them would make a great new Muskie Chaser. Another intriguing rod is the G. Loomis Pro 4X ShortStix 10/11 wt. It is 7’6” and very stout. It should make throwing huge, weighted flies easier, although you will lose quite a bit of distance casting it vs. a 9’0” rod. I am also thinking that the prospect of hitting myself in the head with a 2 lb. fly on a windy day increases proportionally with the decrease in the length of the rod. I will stick with a stout 9’0” rod for now, and work on my figure-8 and hope for just one strike.
This is a relatively unknown fishery in Washington, but the potential for the eager fly fisherman is high, and as a steelheader, I am content with knowing that covering the water well is a sign of success. Catching a Muskie, or even hooking one had not really even crossed my mind as I have heard countless tales of fishermen going whole seasons without a strike (sounds like most of my steelheading experiences). I know that I have much to learn and many more hours of fishing before I will get another good shot at one of these beasts.

"Hey Andrew...Just threw this in here so you would know what a 20" smallie looks like...lol" #bassprogreg

Well, so far this summer, I haven’t caught a carp; I’ve only got a couple of Muskie follows, and I have not caught that elusive 20” smallmouth, but I’d say that my forced transition to warmwater fishing is going smoothly and with little resistance. I cannot bring myself to harass trout, steelhead or salmon with water far warmer and lower than is healthy in our local waters. Even if we come out of this heat wave, the rivers are still going to be low enough that fish will struggle to migrate; but the carp and bass are loving life right now and I am going to learn to love them even if it is not my first choice.

 



Andrew Perrault
Gorge Fly Shop | Product Specialist
541.386.6977
#andrewperrault

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read More..

And now back to the trailer

Remember the trailer? This one, the one that almost killed us?

We left the shantyboat hull pretty complete. Now that the boat is ready to be flipped, we turn our attention back to the trailer.

It is really a rusty, janky old thing. Ive owned it for fifteen years or so, or sorta owned it since I bought it with Sean for our Burning Man theme camp, the Costco Soulmate Trading Outlet. Its been stolen and recovered, broken and repaired on the road. We used to haul that thing back and forth loaded to the gills over the Sierra Nevada Mountains, taking our lives into our own hands. Then we realized that if we stored it in the desert, we could save wear and tear on our mortality. So there it stayed for about ten years.

When the camp realized it could buy a shipping container and have it dropped off at their campsite every year without the hassle of dealing with That Trailer, the poor thing got abandoned for a few years out in the Nevada wilds. You remember that I drove out to the desert with Alex to rescue our friend the trailer, a trip with nearly fatal results.

So here it is, a 20 foot flatbed, maybe suited to my shantyboat, maybe not, needing suspension work, a coat of paint, deck repair, and maybe some repair welds.

The first thing I did was fire up my cutting torch and cut off the weird distinctive triangle things, and ground down the cuts. I always assumed they were there as a token gesture to structural reinforcement.

I replaced all the deck bolts that had rusted through, grinding off and replacing any that had loosened. The deck needed about 50 new bolts. This alone made the deck much more stable.

I gave all the metal on the entire trailer, top and bottom, a new coat of Rust-Oleum. I had to get suited up to prevent myself from being painted too thoroughly, climbing under the trailer and applying paint overhead.

It looked pretty good when I was done. Though crawling around under the trailer, I saw several places where the metal was cracked, principally around the lateral beam that joined the two pairs of leaf springs on either side.

For a while, Id been sweating how to make the skids that would hold up the boat. I considered using recycled railroad ties since I could get them for free at the local trainyard, but their height and condition were too inconsistent. Eventually I got a ridiculous deal from a friend at the local lumberyard who found me some 6x6 treated lumber seconds that had a barely perceptible twist or were split a bit at one end.

I positioned the skids so one set would lie just inside of the skegs, and the other set so they lay at the outside edge of the trailer, as far out as could be secured. I figured this would support the boat along the stringers as well as give it side-to-side stability, something I thought would be extra important as we were trucking down the highway.

I drilled bolt holes through the skids and into the support brackets under the trailer.

I put big long 8 inch carriage bolts through the skids. For extra measure, I painted the bottom and tops of the carriage bolts. Lawrence joined me for a bit and serenaded me with excellent banjo tunes.

To prevent the skids from damaging the surface of the hull, I chamfered the sharp edges of the skids with my skill saw.

I cut the ends of each skid at an angle to guide the skegs while the boat was being trailered. Though honestly, I dont think the skegs at the back of the boat will be anywhere near the skids, since that end of the trailer will be deep under water and the back of the boat high above it during a boat launch or trailering. But it seemed like a good idea.

Then I covered the skids with indoor/outdoor low-pile carpet, stapling and using roofing nails at the edges.

The result was surprisingly legit looking.

Then Jen and I sat on the trailer and had a beer.  Something about this trailer makes you want to sit on it and have a drink.  Whats that about?

Next, the superhero of heavy duty welding flies the trailer high into the sky and melts it with his heat ray vision!

Read More..

Change of use of shops to residential use

NOTE: There have been significant changes to the law since this blog post was published, and so the material printed below does not accurately reflect the current position. For completely up-to-date and fully comprehensive coverage of this topic, we would strongly recommend readers to obtain a copy of the author’s new book on the subject - ”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.

As predicted in my post on 18 July (“And now – A1 to C3?”), De-CLoG has now published a consultation paper suggesting this and other changes to the GPDO which (among other things) would allow change of use of some shops to residential use. This consultation paper is only a week late, having been promised for “the end of July”.

These changes were foreshadowed in the 2013 Budget Statement. De-CLoG is proposing to create a permitted development right for change of use (together with the associated physical works – in contrast with the recent provisions for change of use from office to residential) from a small shop (Class A1) or from professional/financial services (Class A2) to residential use (Class C3). It also proposes to allow a change of use from retail (A1) to use as a bank or a building society branch (within Class A2) (but not to other uses within this use class) and from agricultural use to residential use. I will deal with these latter proposals in a separate post.

The department’s stated intention is to find new uses for shops that no longer have a future. The consultation paper gives a perfunctory nod towards the “town centre first” policy set out in the NPPF, but does not propose to restrict the new permitted development right to a particular type of retail unit or site (e.g. secondary retail frontage). The proposed amendment will allow for necessary works for the residential conversion, including a new frontage, windows and doors.

The developer will be required to apply to the LPA for prior approval in respect of design, the potential impact of the loss of the retail unit on the economic health of the town centre, the need to maintain an adequate provision of essential local services such as post offices, and the potential impact of the change of use on the character of the local area. This will allow the local authority to have regard to their local plan policies for the area. So LPAs will still have quite a wide discretion over the determination of these change of use applications. In practice, it looks as though this alone could largely negative the liberalisation that the government claims to be seeking. This point is impliedly recognised in the consultation paper, which points out that the refusal of prior approval will be subject to appeal if local authorities are found to be using it unreasonably to prevent these changes of use.

The proposed permitted development right will be limited to A1 and A2 premises of not more than 150 square metres floor area, and will allow conversion to a single dwelling house or a maximum of four flats (but not a small HMO). Premises in conservation areas, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads and World Heritage sites (“Article 1(5) land”) will be excluded.

The consultation paper recognises that local planning authorities can issue Article 4 Directions to prevent or restrict such changes of use, although it does include a reminder that compensation may become payable.

Subject to the consultation exercise (which is due to end in October), the intention is that these further amendments to the GPDO should take effect in April 2014.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read More..

Flooding crisis – the blame game and the EA

My recent piece on the flooding crisis elicited the following contribution from David P of Sussex. I don’t necessarily agree with all he says, but I thought that it deserved an airing.

David P writes: -“Your blog post on this topic is most interesting. But have you considered that it is not so much the lack of money or people that is the problem, but more likely the allocation of them? Too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Good and capable people in the wrong jobs? I would suggest as an old farmer who has made his living from the land, that everyone in the EA employ wants an office job - nice and warm, better wages and higher status, so they try to climb up the ladder. Now I would suggest that for every person in an office job there should be 100 manual workers, four of whom should be supervisors or gang masters if you prefer. That’s where it goes wrong in every organisation and it brings them to the point that if it is a business it becomes top heavy and unviable, or if it is a public authority we all have to pay too much for the implementation of the service it provides and the service deteriorates to below an acceptable standard. We need hands on the ground, not in the air when it comes to flooding.

“By the way it’s not only the United Kingdom that has this problem; it’s worldwide in the west, particularly Europe. So I dare to say that, for the benefit of the community running properly, too much education can be a bad thing and a bit more manual graft and guts might just get things in proportion. Only the very best brains should have access to the ladder. A mini ‘cultural revolution’? A few less Lord Smiths and a few more Mr Smiths with old fashioned wheelbarrows and shovels? Perhaps the invention of paper has had some questionable benefits - by allowing more people than is necessary to spend their lives in centrally heated offices and achieving very little.”

_____________________

My thanks to David P for this contribution.

I have some sympathy with the view that we need more people in the field and fewer in the office. I have long felt that many organisations in the public sector (especially in local government, where I worked for some years in the earlier part of my career) are ‘over-managed’ and under-staffed.

There may be a need to re-balance the EA, and I wonder whether it might be advisable to revive the National Rivers Authority as a separate organisation, putting under it the sewerage and drainage functions currently carried out by the privatised water companies, so that the whole problem of land drainage is put under a single roof, in an organisation that can concentrate exclusively on tackling this issue in all its aspects. I also wonder whether this authority ought to be given powers to direct refusal where development is proposed on flood plains.

This is perhaps the answer to those critics who questioned the relevance to town and country planning of my piece on the flooding crisis. The answer, I suggest, is that it has a great deal to do with planning, and the need to ensure that new properties are not vulnerable to flooding is clearly going to be of increasing importance in the future.

© MARTIN H GOODALL (with acknowledgements to David P)

Read More..

Where are the anchor rollers

WHEN I WALK AROUND our local marina I can hardly believe how many boats lack anchor rollers. What were the manufacturers thinking? Thirty footers and bigger, without any proper means of retrieving the anchor and its rode. Did they imagine their boats would never anchor, from choice or necessity?

In my humble opinion, no boat over 20 feet in length should be allowed to leave the factory without a proper anchor roller at the bow.

Anyone who has ever tried to weigh anchor by hand in a boat without a bow roller knows how awkward and difficult it is. Consequently, you’ll notice that all sorts of after-market rollers get bolted on by boat owners seeking to ease the pain of retrieving the anchor. Some of them look far too flimsy for the job. Some stick out from behind the forestay at an odd angle. Others have to be bolted on top of a bed of teak to bring them to the correct level.

And they’re not cheap, either. A reasonably sized one that will house the anchor costs in the region of $100 to $200 with shipping. And then you have all the fun of fitting it yourself.

I can only imagine that unscrupulous boat manufacturers deliberately omit a bow roller in an effort to keep the selling price down a few bucks. It’s a wicked practice, like selling a new car without a horn, or without a spare tire. If I was in charge of the boat-manufacturing industry I would make it a federal crime to sell a boat without an anchor roller. But since they’re never likely to elect me to that position, the situation is unlikely to change unless we all start complaining to our representatives in Congress.

Never mind health care for the moment. Never mind ISIS and Afghanistan. Forget all that for now. Surprise your elected U.S. representative. Ask him or her to sponsor legislation about bow rollers. You never know. It might be such a refreshing change from the same-old, same-old, that Washington DC could catch fire with enthusiasm for compulsory bow rollers. And if that means some boat manufacturers will end up behind bars, so be it. They deserve it.

Today’s Thought

The law is the last result of human wisdom acting upon human experience for the benefit of the public.

—Samuel Johnson, Miscellanies

Tailpiece

“Did you realize that old Joe survived mustard gas and pepper spray?”

“No. How’s he doing?”

“Oh he’s now a seasoned veteran.”

 

Read More..

Many thanks to many boats

 

BOATS I HAVE OWNED have taught me a lot in my lifetime. I guess I ought to be giving thanks to them right now. So, OK, thanks to:

My International sliding seat canoewhose name I have happily forgotten. She taught me how ancient Roman army catapults worked. Every time a gust came along I was catapulted off the sliding seat and over the boom into the drink.

Shane, a 14-foot Sprog one-design. My thanks to her for teaching me that having a fast boat doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll win races. It needs cunning and deviousness as well.

M’aidez, an 11-foot International Mirror Class dinghy, for alerting me to the fact that you should never name your boat M’aidez if you ever want to call anybody on VHF radio.

Mother’s Ruin, another Mirror, taught me how to wage  psychological warfare against racing competitors. Old Band-Aids stuck on a brand new mainsail seemed to distract them greatly as I sailed past.

Messy, another Mirror, taught me the valuable lesson that there are various forms of polyester resin, at least one of which will not cure if you don’t exclude air from its surface.  Her taped seams never got hard, never accepted paint, so I deliberately gave her a splodgy paint job and painted her name on her sides with a whitewash brush.

Trapper, a C&C 27, deserves my thanks for raising my social status at the yacht club.  Everybody admired her looks, if not my racing results.  A sweet boat.

Freelance, a Performance 31, by Lavranos, carried me and my family to a new life in America and taught me how to lie ahull in 50-knot winds off the Cape of Storms.

Square One, yet another Mirror, was a wreck I found in Los Angeles. She taught me how to restore a wooden boat in a garage in an apartment block without alerting the tenants directly above.  I learned their habits, and did my banging and sawing while they were showering or listening to loud TV. Nobody reported me to the fierce landlady.

Square One II. Yep, a Mirror again. Another wreck, this time in Seattle. I learned that I could

use an epoxy paste to replace a whole ply of marine plywood that fell off the starboard topsides. I was very proud of that repair job.

Tagati was a Santana 22 that showed us the glories of Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands and the Canadian Gulf Islands. Fast, simple and easily handled. I spent 13 months restoring her and should never have sold her.

Jabula, a Cape Dory 25D, took us around Vancouver Island on a six-week trip and allowed us to to meet an Oregonian cruising couple who gave us their recipe for gravlox salmon, which became our most-requested dish ever.

Sangoma, a Cape Dory 27,  took us around Vancouver Island again and taught me that you can  tow a heavy-displacement full-keel sailboat for two miles behind a small dinghy in a calm if you know how to scull with one oar over the transom. Yes, our engine broke down, but I got her into a small port from which a friendly Canadian boat towed us 10 miles to the area’s only mechanic.

Eclipse, a Cal 20, one of Gary Mull’s finest, taught me that I don’t like outboard engines that work in small wells let into the cockpit. She was a champion sailor, but I couldn’t stand the idea of her propeller protruding beneath the hull and causing drag all the time.

And finally, I have to mention Tokoloshe, a 10-foot, narrow-gutted, fiberglass fishing skiff that served as tender for the last four boats I owned. She was an unfinished mongrel of a boat, but without peer for seaworthiness. We towed her for thousands of miles, including hundreds in the open Pacific, and she never gave us a moment’s worry. Perhaps it was because I warned her that if she ever gave us trouble in a heavy following sea, I wouldn’t hesitate to cast her loose. I give thanks that It was a threat I never had to carry out.

Today’s Thought

So once in every year we throng

Upon a day apart,

To praise the Lord with feast and song

In thankfulness of heart.

— Arthur Guiterman, The First Thanksgiving

 Tailpiece

"Why did that sailor buy drinks for all those girls?"

"He likes to have a port in every sweetheart."

 

 

                                            

Read More..

Morrison Files Great Christmas Island trip

"We caught lots of doubles"

A Great Christmas Island trip

Hi Travis,

We came home last Tuesday but turned around and one day later we were camping, whew. It about wears a guy out.

OK, on to the cool stuff, the fishing was actually really good this time. The best day Jeanette and I had was the last, I caught 31 she caught 21. She just happened to catch the biggest fish out of four of us for the trip, they figured it was 9 lbs, I caught one just minutes later that was 8 lbs. When they get that big they really are fun, huge long runs, almost get them in and they take off again. One of the pictures is Jeanette with her big fish just as it decides to leave and go straight in the air, the guide got the picture.

One of the things I learned this time was never look at weather.com before you go on a trip. I was looking for weeks leading up to the trip and all I saw was thunder storms, wind and pretty much terrible weather. When we got there it was heavy overcast and we figured the forecast was pretty much spot on, even the first day of fishing I don’t think we saw much sun but from that point on it was beautiful. Tom one of my really close friends keeps a tally of everything we catch and at the end of six days of fishing we caught 350 plus bone fish between four of us. We didn’t keep track of the small trevally, goat fish, yellow snapper, blue trevally, small grouper, trigger fish, puffer fish and whatever else might take a small fly. We had one guide between us and if he was with Jeanette I would just blind cast to anywhere it looked like there might be a fish, she did better than that one day she caught 17 and spotted every one, the guides got a kick of it.

Michael - Our Guide

Michael, the guide we had on the last day, a really good guy. Jeanette was getting tired of casting into the wind and handed him her rod, on the second cast he got a really nice bonefish, 8wt Sage Method, Nautilus reel, with the Bonefish Quick shooter line, great combo. That’s it for now. Thanks again for getting me the line on short notice.

Morrison

Read More..