Field to Farm
Sign In
Create Account
Follow this link
http://www.planningp...9may11/190511_3
what do you all think
regards Derek
Welcome to Field to Farm Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
New Planning Rules inc 2 interesting links
Started By
barrymoore
, 20 May 2011 10:42
Back to top
#2
Posted 20 May 2011 - 14:17
Cornish Gems
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,597 posts
Lord and Lady of the Manor
- LocationCornwall (formerly Devon)
Hi - we found it interesting and hopefully it should help us all. But we do wonder at the varying attitudes of different LPA's. Our land already has the benefit of a successful prior notification for a polytunnel and this was from over 3 years ago.
#3
Posted 22 May 2011 - 00:44
surreydodger
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,208 posts
Agricultural Planning Advisory Service
- LocationWest Sussex
This is the full report
Full report
Chapter 4 being the relevant portion.
Having read up on the nine people involved in putting together this report and finding only three were farmers, it doesn't bode well. The planning rule changes are really to benefit large farming practices and have ltttle if any bearing on small famrs and holdings such as we here generally operate. The only recomendation of benefit to us is the one to have buildings upto 465mtrs given permitted development rights and those between that size and 1500sq mtrs, the benefit of prior notification.
One thing they do touch on is the Localism Bill. I've said it previously, no good will come from this cranky idea and the report itself does realise my fears that NIMBYism will go mad if such rules are changed to allow ones neighbours make decisions on planning applications.
As the rport alludes to, can you imaginewhat your neighbours would do if you want to put up a polytunnel?? That said, I suspect the Localism Bill is nothing more than a popularity spin and the end result will be a very watered down affair to what is being currently touted.
One statement that seems to give the flavour of the whole direction of the report is the 'sustainable intensification' of farming.
Kinda reminds me of the line from The Outlaw Josey Wales.. we must endeavour to perservere
Full report
Chapter 4 being the relevant portion.
Having read up on the nine people involved in putting together this report and finding only three were farmers, it doesn't bode well. The planning rule changes are really to benefit large farming practices and have ltttle if any bearing on small famrs and holdings such as we here generally operate. The only recomendation of benefit to us is the one to have buildings upto 465mtrs given permitted development rights and those between that size and 1500sq mtrs, the benefit of prior notification.
One thing they do touch on is the Localism Bill. I've said it previously, no good will come from this cranky idea and the report itself does realise my fears that NIMBYism will go mad if such rules are changed to allow ones neighbours make decisions on planning applications.
As the rport alludes to, can you imaginewhat your neighbours would do if you want to put up a polytunnel?? That said, I suspect the Localism Bill is nothing more than a popularity spin and the end result will be a very watered down affair to what is being currently touted.
One statement that seems to give the flavour of the whole direction of the report is the 'sustainable intensification' of farming.
Kinda reminds me of the line from The Outlaw Josey Wales.. we must endeavour to perservere
#4
Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:55
hobbitmeadow
-
- Book Owners
-
- 76 posts
Turkey
- LocationNorfolk
This is interesting, nice of them to say they may relax the permitted development on polly tunnels.
Not one to question authority, but I am sure they got a high court kick in the spuds not so long ago, stating polly tunnels where not a permanent structures, this from memory was won on appeal for very large tunnels 100' plus.
But it looks like they may relax the planning on them so I doubt the high court kicking was true.
I think more the case a planning officer woke up with his wife serving him bacon and eggs all bought from a local small holder. and as he enjoyed it so much he though he would fight the corner of the little guy.
MMMMMMMMMM what would you believe
Not one to question authority, but I am sure they got a high court kick in the spuds not so long ago, stating polly tunnels where not a permanent structures, this from memory was won on appeal for very large tunnels 100' plus.
But it looks like they may relax the planning on them so I doubt the high court kicking was true.
I think more the case a planning officer woke up with his wife serving him bacon and eggs all bought from a local small holder. and as he enjoyed it so much he though he would fight the corner of the little guy.
MMMMMMMMMM what would you believe
#5
Posted 02 June 2011 - 08:50
surreydodger
-
- Book Owners
-
- 1,208 posts
Agricultural Planning Advisory Service
- LocationWest Sussex
Unfortunately Hobbit, the opaque plastic used in the polytunnels themselves, is clearer than the current planning stauts regarding polytunnels.
The Hunter Hall Farm case of a few years ago which started the whole debacle off (it was a very large development) and the subsequent circular saying not all polytunnels needed full planning means there is no clear definition of which poly's need planning and which come under permitted development.
Kinda reminds one of planning rules in general doesn't it
The Hunter Hall Farm case of a few years ago which started the whole debacle off (it was a very large development) and the subsequent circular saying not all polytunnels needed full planning means there is no clear definition of which poly's need planning and which come under permitted development.
Kinda reminds one of planning rules in general doesn't it
#6
Posted 02 June 2011 - 09:21
hobbitmeadow
-
- Book Owners
-
- 76 posts
Turkey
- LocationNorfolk
There has been a more recent case in the last few weeks, I will have to dig it out.
The planners got a real good kick on the appeal and the high court claimed it was an acceptable functional build for the farming process.
And poly tunnels where essential for growing crops all year round for the smaller farmer.
I will post all the info once i have found all the details
The planners got a real good kick on the appeal and the high court claimed it was an acceptable functional build for the farming process.
And poly tunnels where essential for growing crops all year round for the smaller farmer.
I will post all the info once i have found all the details
