Topic ID 3098
I was wondering whether I am the only one incensed by the article in the Mercury about Russell not being allowed to park his caravan to monitor the premises, what is wrong with our Council? The person who complained from Burrowfields (there was only one one complaint!) should hang their head in shame, we, as a town could loose a lovely little garden centre, which I would rather use than Van Hages![:(!]
Reply ID 44549
what was the full story?
Reply ID 44550
Agree about the garden centre, use it all the time and think it is a great place. Is he thinking about selling the place?
Reply ID 44551
If the story is correct he says it will have to go on the market. I think it would be a great shame as he does a wonderful job, we go regullarly. I can't understand how they can justfy saying it has to go when allowing one on a neighbouring property. He had so many break ins that he found this was the only security measure that worked, surley it would be better to allow it and keep what is an asset to the town, it not as if he is asking for a caravan park! Where is Burrowfields by the way?
Reply ID 44555
[quote]Originally posted by shaun
what was the full story?
Shaun, if you look in the Mercury on page 7 for full coverage or go on line to the Hertfordshire Mercury and register to view pages
Reply ID 44561
quote:I think it's just down the road from Riverside, a house in the grounds of Bayfordbury Farm
Originally posted by Marilyn
If the story is correct he says it will have to go on the market. I think it would be a great shame as he does a wonderful job, we go regullarly. I can't understand how they can justfy saying it has to go when allowing one on a neighbouring property. He had so many break ins that he found this was the only security measure that worked, surley it would be better to allow it and keep what is an asset to the town, it not as if he is asking for a caravan park! Where is Burrowfields by the way?
Reply ID 44563
quote:I don't understand the motives behind their complaints. Perhaps they want no business on the land.
Originally posted by furrybunnyquote:I think it's just down the road from Riverside, a house in the grounds of Bayfordbury Farm
Originally posted by Marilyn
If the story is correct he says it will have to go on the market. I think it would be a great shame as he does a wonderful job, we go regullarly. I can't understand how they can justfy saying it has to go when allowing one on a neighbouring property. He had so many break ins that he found this was the only security measure that worked, surley it would be better to allow it and keep what is an asset to the town, it not as if he is asking for a caravan park! Where is Burrowfields by the way?
Reply ID 44575
My sentiments exactly Ewooar, how come the Council have taken notice of just one person complaining over this???
Reply ID 44576
http://editions.pagesuite.co.uk//_PSEDitions/YIT/Hertford%20Mercury/2007-09-21/PDFPages/Page7.pdf Presumably if the caravan needs planning permission then one complaint is enough to tip the balance. Riverside is a fantastic Garden Centre
Reply ID 44577
quote:In which case, I'd suggest a "Night security office and staff rest room" installed in an existing building. [}:)]
Originally posted by jez_p
http://editions.pagesuite.co.uk//_PSEDitions/YIT/Hertford%20Mercury/2007-09-21/PDFPages/Page7.pdf Presumably if the caravan needs planning permission then one complaint is enough to tip the balance. Riverside is a fantastic Garden Centre
Reply ID 44587
When you look at some of the retrospective planning permissions that are granted around here to people who have flouted the planning rules, this enforcement seems very petty.
Reply ID 44598
Was in there last week and signed a petition they had on the go, not sure if it would help but can't hurt
Reply ID 44605
I am sure I read that an adjacent property also on green belt had been allowed a caravan so that, if true, makes it even worse that one complaint can stop it.
Reply ID 44629
ISTR that this "dispute" goes back a long long way when the previous owners had it. I believe it had something to do with the house that was built next door was originally part of the site which was then subsequently annexed. I'm sure someone will post the details....
Reply ID 44630
The house next door was originally part of it which was how they got planning permission for the house as part of the site I believe but that was 2 owners ago I think. The then owner died suddenly, that was a number of years ago and I think his widow still lives in the house but no longer has anything to do with the Garden Centre but I could be wrong. It could be that the dispute is tied into that somehow, still think there should be a way round it to save what is a popular local business that otherwise seems to be doing well, there are enough empty premises you would think they would want to encourage not discourage one that is working!
Reply ID 44632
Although I have every sympathy for the owner and think this is a petty decision by the planners (who have much bigger problems to worry about) - I don't think we need to worry too much about losing the garden centre. After all, if he was really thinking of selling, why would he appear in the local rag explaining why the business cannot succeed? Surely, that wouldn't do much for the asking price ???? One huge bluff....though I do feel sorry for him.
Reply ID 44633
I think the post suggesting a security office was spot on. Why have a caravan in the car park? Why not had a guard stationed in the office overnight?
Reply ID 44634
quote:Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? Having the proprietor in a caravan on the premises involves little extra cost. Paying for a security guard costs tens of thousands of pounds I would imagine.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
I think the post suggesting a security office was spot on. Why have a caravan in the car park? Why not had a guard stationed in the office overnight?
Reply ID 44636
quote:I don't care where the money comes from. It's not my business. And as for whether he uses himself or a security guard is also his own business. If it's a matter of money he could just as easy sit in the office with the lights on that have to buy and maintain a caravan in the car park.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? Having the proprietor in a caravan on the premises involves little extra cost. Paying for a security guard costs tens of thousands of pounds I would imagine.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
I think the post suggesting a security office was spot on. Why have a caravan in the car park? Why not had a guard stationed in the office overnight?
Reply ID 44662
quote:Good post. Why can the owner not put up CCTV cameras without a caravan?
Originally posted by newgirl
Although I have every sympathy for the owner and think this is a petty decision by the planners (who have much bigger problems to worry about) - I don't think we need to worry too much about losing the garden centre. After all, if he was really thinking of selling, why would he appear in the local rag explaining why the business cannot succeed? Surely, that wouldn't do much for the asking price ???? One huge bluff....though I do feel sorry for him.
Reply ID 44666
I'm not sure on planning laws etc. so could someone with the knowledge explain, if he is granted permission for a caravan on the land would he then in a few years time be able to apply for a resedential structure building to be built?
Reply ID 44668
quote:Same personnel, different overnight location.
Originally posted by Stevequote:Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? Having the proprietor in a caravan on the premises involves little extra cost. Paying for a security guard costs tens of thousands of pounds I would imagine.
Originally posted by Ewoowar
I think the post suggesting a security office was spot on. Why have a caravan in the car park? Why not had a guard stationed in the office overnight?
Reply ID 44716
All seems a little OTT, he should be allowed to get on with it and look after his business!
Reply ID 44723
I am reliably informed that there will be a big piece on this in the Mercury tomorrow.
Reply ID 44728
quote:Well here is hoping it is some good news [:)]
Originally posted by Aelle
I am reliably informed that there will be a big piece on this in the Mercury tomorrow.
Reply ID 44731
quote:It's a bit more complex than that. Though the garden center application is probably totally ligit, there is a history in this particular area for such scams with precisely the same MO.
Originally posted by shaun
All seems a little OTT, he should be allowed to get on with it and look after his business!
Reply ID 44739
Interesting to read that every letter on the letters page supports him and that the one objection came from someone who was allowed to build a house for exactly the reason that the caravan is needed. I do hope there is a sensible outcome to all this.
Reply ID 44743
It's nice to see that everyone has leapt to the wrong conclusion about all of this after reading the totally incorrect version of events posted in the Mercury. If you wish to hear the real reasons behind why planning permission was refused, then let me know and I will enlighten you.
Reply ID 44745
quote:As I understand it, the basic reason for refusal is because it's Green Belt land. However, the Appeal rejection also alludes to the state of the caravan and the fact that the Garden Centre have not implemented security measures recommended by The Police. [url="http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WCHDISPLAYMEDIA.showImage?theSeqNo=13252&theApnkey=92248&theModule=1"]Appeal Decision[/url] (PDF document)
Originally posted by carlos
It's nice to see that everyone has leapt to the wrong conclusion about all of this after reading the totally incorrect version of events posted in the Mercury. If you wish to hear the real reasons behind why planning permission was refused, then let me know and I will enlighten you.
Reply ID 44747
quote:Do we have to, or can you just tell us anyway? I doubt many will be unaware of why such an application might be turned down.[|)]
Originally posted by carlos
It's nice to see that everyone has leapt to the wrong conclusion about all of this after reading the totally incorrect version of events posted in the Mercury. If you wish to hear the real reasons behind why planning permission was refused, then let me know and I will enlighten you.
Reply ID 44748
Awoo! Ok here we go! The Mercury firstly incorrectly states that ‘the council refused planning permission and the appeal’ regarding the aforementioned caravan. This is not the case. All appeals are determined by the central Government agency – The Planning Inspectorate. So firstly everyone’s assumption that the Council has been the big bad wolf in all this is patently incorrect. The final decision has been taken by central Government. Also, it is worth noting that press reporting of planning issues is almost always misleading when there is a ‘story to be had’. Reporters, who are not planners, have a tendency to leave crucial details out of decisions and try and spin them to either make it look like the authorities are acting completely unreasonably. It sells newspapers. Anyone who reads the Daily Mail out there will understand what I mean. As a Reader of planning at a London University, I have had a look into this case as some of you may be surprised to know, it actually made it into the Planning Journal which is the weekly publication made available to all Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Here is the correct summary of the case as was reported to planning professionals. On-site home rejected at garden centre The retention of a caravan at a garden centre in the Hertfordshire green belt has been refused after an inspector ruled that it was tantamount to a new dwelling and an inappropriate development. The garden centre lay in open countryside and contained greenhouses, buildings and structures and a display area. The appellant maintained that the caravan, which was sited to the rear of a general storage area, was necessary to prevent theft. He claimed that the police authority had recommended an on-site presence and improved security measures. The inspector ruled that the caravan amounted to a new dwelling and could only be regarded as appropriate if it were needed for agricultural purposes. He was unconvinced that somebody needed to live at the site at night. Not all the security measures recommended by the police had been implemented and some products remained unprotected in open areas, he observed. He concluded that the caravan appeared out of place and harmed the green belt’s openness and visual amenity. DCs No 100-050-180 Inspector Chris Checkley; Written representations Firstly it would seem that most people on this site are quick to jump up and down about development within the countryside. This phenomenon is widespread, especially since changes in socio-economic structures have re-structured the countryside into essentially a place where people with money go to seek their ‘rural idyll’ and then wish to protect their property prices by opposing any development that might spoil it. In this way, the countryside is no longer an agricultural resource to be exploited (and henceforth where change must happen e.g. in terms of employment and business uses) but more of a residential area with NIMBY’s seeking to protect their investment. As a case in point, everyone supports sustainable energy these days don’t they? Everyone wants to protect the environment don’t they? Then just look at the vociferous opposition to the proposed Benington Wind Farm – everyone supports sustainable energy, just ‘not in their backyards’. Anyway, I digress. The point is that people support the Green Belt, and its general restrictions on housing development. There are numerous cases in planning where people have tried to argue the case for new dwellings in the Green Belt on security grounds. If you look at it universally, this presents the system with a number of fundamental difficulties. Firstly if security reasons were valid in all cases to argue for dwellings in the green belt, then I can assure you, the countryside would look very different then it does now. Imagine if a local shop is broken into a few times. Should this permit the owner to build a new house next door? What if an equestrian centre suffers a break in? Should a few new houses be built on the Greenfield site to overlook it? However, the planning system is built on discretion, and therefore cases can be put forward on the grounds of security to justify what is inappropriate development in the green belt in principle. However, after reading the appeal decision pertaining to the Riverside site, it is apparent that the site owner’s case was substantially weakened by his own actions. Firstly the police recommendations that the Mercury was so keen to spout about were not fully implemented on the site. The owner had not constructed the recommended fencing stated by police that would keep burglars out. Similarly, valuable products were not locked away at night, and left in out full view. If the owner had implemented the full security measures recommended by the police, and was still being burgled on a regular basis, then his case for the caravan would be substantially stronger. As it stood, how could the Inspectorate grant permission contrary to green belt policy on security grounds when the necessary steps had not been taken to secure the site without an on-site deterrent in the first place? It is also apparent that a new dwelling had been applied for on this site in 2001, where permission was refused. The owner had installed the caravan on site in breach of this ruling (a caravan constitutes a residential use in the same way as a new dwelling does). For those of you who are unaware, under section 171B of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, a residential unit which has stood in place for more than four years automatically becomes legal. Therefore, if no one had complained it would have been likely that the site owner would have obtained legal consent for a residential unit ‘by the back door’. I would imagine a planning application for a new house would have been quick to follow and with the legal consent sorted out; this would probably have been difficult for the Council to refuse. I’m sure the story would be very different in the Mercury if that happened. So there.
Reply ID 44751
Also interesting to note that the original complaint did not play any material part in the planning decision (the appeal that is).
Reply ID 44754
quote:and deep breath.....
Originally posted by carlos
Awoo! Ok here we go! The Mercury firstly incorrectly states that ‘the council refused planning permission and the appeal’ regarding the aforementioned caravan. This is not the case. All appeals are determined by the central Government agency – The Planning Inspectorate. So firstly everyone’s assumption that the Council has been the big bad wolf in all this is patently incorrect. The final decision has been taken by central Government. Also, it is worth noting that press reporting of planning issues is almost always misleading when there is a ‘story to be had’. Reporters, who are not planners, have a tendency to leave crucial details out of decisions and try and spin them to either make it look like the authorities are acting completely unreasonably. It sells newspapers. Anyone who reads the Daily Mail out there will understand what I mean. As a Reader of planning at a London University, I have had a look into this case as some of you may be surprised to know, it actually made it into the Planning Journal which is the weekly publication made available to all Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Here is the correct summary of the case as was reported to planning professionals. On-site home rejected at garden centre The retention of a caravan at a garden centre in the Hertfordshire green belt has been refused after an inspector ruled that it was tantamount to a new dwelling and an inappropriate development. The garden centre lay in open countryside and contained greenhouses, buildings and structures and a display area. The appellant maintained that the caravan, which was sited to the rear of a general storage area, was necessary to prevent theft. He claimed that the police authority had recommended an on-site presence and improved security measures. The inspector ruled that the caravan amounted to a new dwelling and could only be regarded as appropriate if it were needed for agricultural purposes. He was unconvinced that somebody needed to live at the site at night. Not all the security measures recommended by the police had been implemented and some products remained unprotected in open areas, he observed. He concluded that the caravan appeared out of place and harmed the green belt’s openness and visual amenity. DCs No 100-050-180 Inspector Chris Checkley; Written representations Firstly it would seem that most people on this site are quick to jump up and down about development within the countryside. This phenomenon is widespread, especially since changes in socio-economic structures have re-structured the countryside into essentially a place where people with money go to seek their ‘rural idyll’ and then wish to protect their property prices by opposing any development that might spoil it. In this way, the countryside is no longer an agricultural resource to be exploited (and henceforth where change must happen e.g. in terms of employment and business uses) but more of a residential area with NIMBY’s seeking to protect their investment. As a case in point, everyone supports sustainable energy these days don’t they? Everyone wants to protect the environment don’t they? Then just look at the vociferous opposition to the proposed Benington Wind Farm – everyone supports sustainable energy, just ‘not in their backyards’. Anyway, I digress. The point is that people support the Green Belt, and its general restrictions on housing development. There are numerous cases in planning where people have tried to argue the case for new dwellings in the Green Belt on security grounds. If you look at it universally, this presents the system with a number of fundamental difficulties. Firstly if security reasons were valid in all cases to argue for dwellings in the green belt, then I can assure you, the countryside would look very different then it does now. Imagine if a local shop is broken into a few times. Should this permit the owner to build a new house next door? What if an equestrian centre suffers a break in? Should a few new houses be built on the Greenfield site to overlook it? However, the planning system is built on discretion, and therefore cases can be put forward on the grounds of security to justify what is inappropriate development in the green belt in principle. However, after reading the appeal decision pertaining to the Riverside site, it is apparent that the site owner’s case was substantially weakened by his own actions. Firstly the police recommendations that the Mercury was so keen to spout about were not fully implemented on the site. The owner had not constructed the recommended fencing stated by police that would keep burglars out. Similarly, valuable products were not locked away at night, and left in out full view. If the owner had implemented the full security measures recommended by the police, and was still being burgled on a regular basis, then his case for the caravan would be substantially stronger. As it stood, how could the Inspectorate grant permission contrary to green belt policy on security grounds when the necessary steps had not been taken to secure the site without an on-site deterrent in the first place? It is also apparent that a new dwelling had been applied for on this site in 2001, where permission was refused. The owner had installed the caravan on site in breach of this ruling (a caravan constitutes a residential use in the same way as a new dwelling does). For those of you who are unaware, under section 171B of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, a residential unit which has stood in place for more than four years automatically becomes legal. Therefore, if no one had complained it would have been likely that the site owner would have obtained legal consent for a residential unit ‘by the back door’. I would imagine a planning application for a new house would have been quick to follow and with the legal consent sorted out; this would probably have been difficult for the Council to refuse. I’m sure the story would be very different in the Mercury if that happened. So there.
Reply ID 44759
Thank you Shaun. I knew there had to be more to this story. What is interesting though is that the previous owner of the site (who now lives next door and is complaining about the caravan) got permission to build her house on security grounds.
Reply ID 44762
More or less what I expected Carlos. Nora, I believe, from uncertain memory of the original application for that house, there was a covenent restricting occupation to persons engaged in agricultural/horticultural employment.
Reply ID 44765
Did anyone see that this story made its way onto the BBC London news at 6:30 tonight? I missed it (just saw the re-cap of headlines at the end!)
Reply ID 44766
quote:So when Russell bought the land he would have been made aware of all the covenants and restrictions.
Originally posted by shunt
More or less what I expected Carlos. Nora, I believe, from uncertain memory of the original application for that house, there was a covenent restricting occupation to persons engaged in agricultural/horticultural employment.
Reply ID 44768
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/news/ You can watch the report here. It's interesting to see how news is mis-reported: anyone watching this would instantly think how crazy the decision was (as most people have on reading the Mercury's article). Note how the fact that the Inspectorate had the final decision is quite nicely smoothed over, laying the 'blame' squarely on the Council. The fact that the site owner had not taken all the necessary steps recommended by the police is not even mentioned. Also the Mercury's suggestion that people should be allowed to live on sites to protect them from security raises the various issues with regard to balancing the need for security and the need for housing restrictions as mentioned in my earlier post. Now think about how much other news you consume which is spun by thick journalists looking for a story.
Reply ID 44769
"Also, it is worth noting that press reporting of planning issues is almost always misleading when there is a ‘story to be had’. Reporters, who are not planners, have a tendency to leave crucial details out of decisions and try and spin them to make it look like the authorities are acting completely unreasonably. It sells newspapers. Anyone who reads the Daily Mail out there will understand what I mean." Deja vu anyone?
Reply ID 44771
I posted this question a few days ago; Why hasn't the owner put CCTV cameras up? On stilts. With flashbulbs and PIR technology? Or a pack of lethal dogs, inside a tight-nit fenced-off area within the grounds? Can he not do that? I still have no answer.
Reply ID 44774
I'm not sure on planning laws etc. so could someone with the knowledge explain, if he is granted permission for a caravan on the land would he then in a few years time be able to apply for a residential structure building to be built? It is also apparent that a new dwelling had been applied for on this site in 2001, where permission was refused. The owner had installed the caravan on site in breach of this ruling (a caravan constitutes a residential use in the same way as a new dwelling does). For those of you who are unaware, under section 171B of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, a residential unit which has stood in place for more than four years automatically becomes legal. Therefore, if no one had complained it would have been likely that the site owner would have obtained legal consent for a residential unit ‘by the back door’. I would imagine a planning application for a new house would have been quick to follow and with the legal consent sorted out; this would probably have been difficult for the Council to refuse. I’m sure the story would be very different in the Mercury if that happened. So that is exactly how I saw it, maybe he is looking for somewhere to live due to his personal reasons? There is a lot more I could say but I won't and for obvious reasons will not let it be known on a public forum. Thank you for explaining the details to everyone, now the public will perhaps see this in a different way.
Reply ID 44775
Oh by the way on the T.V. news report he said he had 3500 -REAL- Christmas trees coming in (PAUSE) next week, surely not already well I must get down there & buy mine, NOT.
Reply ID 44782
quote:I suspect he ment next month, they are usually there by mid November................
Originally posted by Dell Boy
Oh by the way on the T.V. news report he said he had 3500 -REAL- Christmas trees coming in (PAUSE) next week, surely not already well I must get down there & buy mine, NOT.
Reply ID 44784
have we not just had Christmas?
Reply ID 44785
quote:He probably meant to say November because next month would be October.
Originally posted by Marilynquote:I suspect he ment next month, they are usually there by mid November................
Originally posted by Dell Boy
Oh by the way on the T.V. news report he said he had 3500 -REAL- Christmas trees coming in (PAUSE) next week, surely not already well I must get down there & buy mine, NOT.
Reply ID 44890
may be down there this weekend, do not expect to see the for sale signs up.