Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh! For Heaven's Sake.....

Collapse

X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oh! For Heaven's Sake.....

    The poor woman.

    This is just ridiculous.....green belt or not.

    What does she do about the protected newts in her garden?
    Jules

    Coffee. Garden. Coffee. Does a good morning need anything else?

    ♥ Nutter in a Million & Royal Nutter by Appointment to HRH VC ♥

    Althoughts - The New Blog (updated with bridges)

  • #2
    I'm not going to comment on the rights & wrongs but it is a terrible shame.
    sigpic“Gorillas are very intelligent, but they don't have to be as delicate as chimps -- they can just smash open the termite nest,”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Official Member Of The Nutters Club - Rwanda Branch.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sent from my ZX Spectrum with no predictive text..........
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    KOYS - King Of Yellow Stickers..............

    Comment


    • #3
      Oohhh! Surely they cannot just bulldoze all the animals...frogs and newts are protected aren't they, so perhaps that would put the council in the wrong...maybe...hopefuly...
      The best things in life are not things.

      Comment


      • #4
        Get it classified as an SSSI pdq
        Le Sarramea https://jgsgardening.blogspot.com/

        Comment


        • #5
          Once again there is something missing in that Mail story. If the new pond is totally within her own garden land she can garden it as she likes without planning consent as that land would not form part of the green belt. From the aerial photo it looks as if the back boundary has been pushed out into the field and she has extended her garden into it. Does she own that field?
          Also they are talking about a 10' strip of land - that pond is a lot bigger than 10'. But at worst, she would have to return the back 10' of "garden" to agricultural land.
          When I bought some land at the back of my house, because it was an old orchard it was not considered to be agricultural land and could be used as garden. If I'd also bought the field behind, that would have been agricultural and could not have been turned into garden without "Change of use" planning approval.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, with all those fish in the pond it's not likely to be an ideal site for amphibians breeding, is it?

            Why should she be able to do what she likes on greenbelt land? Where do you draw the line?

            Just playing Devil's Advocate.
            Our England is a garden, and such gardens are not made
            By singing-'Oh how beautiful!" and sitting in the shade,
            While better men than we go out and start their working lives
            At grubbing weeds from gravel paths with broken dinner-knives. ~ Rudyard Kipling

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by veggiechicken View Post
              Once again there is something missing in that Mail story. If the new pond is totally within her own garden land she can garden it as she likes without planning consent as that land would not form part of the green belt. From the aerial photo it looks as if the back boundary has been pushed out into the field and she has extended her garden into it. Does she own that field?
              Also they are talking about a 10' strip of land - that pond is a lot bigger than 10'. But at worst, she would have to return the back 10' of "garden" to agricultural land.
              When I bought some land at the back of my house, because it was an old orchard it was not considered to be agricultural land and could be used as garden. If I'd also bought the field behind, that would have been agricultural and could not have been turned into garden without "Change of use" planning approval.
              The DM have missed something? Actually, it'd be more of a surprise if they's reported the facts as they stand.

              I understand about the greenbelt and change of use restrictions - of course I do. But her garden looks no different from the others you can see bits of in the aerial shot.

              I wonder who reported her?
              Jules

              Coffee. Garden. Coffee. Does a good morning need anything else?

              ♥ Nutter in a Million & Royal Nutter by Appointment to HRH VC ♥

              Althoughts - The New Blog (updated with bridges)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mrbadexample View Post
                Just playing Devil's Advocate.

                And me even more so,from the pictures in that article I would say that the original "domestic use" boundary would have been between the end of the stone wall on the left & the tall box structure on the right,which would put the pond in what should be "agricultural use" land,that said I guess that the adjoining property will soon be receiving a similar notice (unless they already have "change of use") as from the aerial picture there looks to be a line of continuance through the lawn at the same distance from the building.

                However I will temper the above by saying it truly is a shame to see all that thought & effort go to waste.
                He who smiles in the face of adversity,has already decided who to blame

                Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

                Comment


                • #9
                  Can she not say it's a fish farm?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From the ariel picture, it appears that they're talking about the bit of her garden that extends beyond her neighbours. That doesn't even include the pond! Sad as it is for her, if you let one person use greenbelt it creates a precedent, then everyone'll be at it, including developers who can site other occasions when it's been allowed.

                    I did have to smile at the 'before' picture though. The DM are well known for their campaign against foxes and what should be in the photo...
                    I was feeling part of the scenery
                    I walked right out of the machinery
                    My heart going boom boom boom
                    "Hey" he said "Grab your things
                    I've come to take you home."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If she screws her loaf this is actually not such a biggy,leave the pond & a single row of boulders around it,put a low picket fence in along the original boundary,move the shrubs to positions alongside the fence within the garden then flatten & turf the remaining area,hey presto a paddock with a drinking facility
                      He who smiles in the face of adversity,has already decided who to blame

                      Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The danger is that once something has been used as 'garden' for X number of years, it's much easier to get permission to build on it, and whilst this lady might never intend to do that, who knows what future owners might do? Surely though, this could be mitigated by insisting on a covenant or something similar?

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Recent Blog Posts

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X