Added: Jobeth Wortman - Date: 09.02.2022 04:44 - Views: 46285 - Clicks: 4743
Oklong winded, let's see if this works. Is this a windows based system??? Works for me mate but then again I'd already read it Richard.
It works for me too, and granted it does say for the 'Bro Authority'. However, my research has and at the time of my post had turned up this So, the organisation we today refer to as 'The Bro Authority' could not have existed in Wocka Wocka Wocka.
The current Bro Authority was established by the Act. The administration was also called the Bro Authority. As now, I believed they used the legal services of Norfolk County Council. Mmm I too would like enlightenment as to how something that doesn't exist has an office which is the original BA offices s a document 4 yrs before existence since BA came into being April 1st ,strange but true.
Look I k oe Daz has had plenty of grief on here for asking questions n I too have mentioned research n I my self have just been hunting around n found nothing hence I ask questionis this forum so unfriendly now that simple questions get met with researchkinda rude I think given that there is nothing I can see on the internet to support a reason for this but local knowledge would. FWIW, I don't find this forum at all unfriendly. For you to keep making that allegation doesn't make it so.
If you could contribute more to the topic of the thread and less to personal remarks, I would be very grateful. I am now thank u but I like daz found nothing in the internet so if he hadn't asked the question I would have n that's what part of this forum is about isn't itconsider me enlightened Richard. I hope that, now you've read the first Planning Inspector's decision, the second Inspector's decision, and the High Court judgement, you can accept that the covenant simply restricts the mooring of any boats to private boats.
The decisions and the judgement are explicit in saying that the covenant is NOT a permission, and that the mooring of such boats would be a change of use from the permission for commercial use and would, therefore, require a new permission. Having read through both planning documents, it seems to me that the landowner was rather silly not taking up the planning permission.
He had 25 boats and two pontoons approved, subject to some conditions. The conditions if I have read them right was basically tell the BA how you intend to lay out the basin, parking and turning for vehicles, plan landscaping to provide tree screening, remove sunken boats, and improve access I don't think I missed anything. What is wrong with such conditions. The only bit that I maybe would think a bit OTT is only 28 days stays on the boats.
That is obviously intended to stop full time residential use, but is 28 days fair? We used to stay away every weekend during the summer for two nights a weekend, that would only be 14 weekends, and that is not taking into if boat owners wanted to stay for more than weekends e. But, as has been said before, take what you are given, prove no problems, then apply to amend. Or am I thinking totally incorrect? I think that before the Bro Authority legally existed there was an advisory body headed by Aitken Clarke with the same name.
It had no powers of its own but was there just to advise councils in the Bro area. This may explain why they ed a document before they existed in law. Malcolm Martins. If that is the case, why not just the document ion the name of the then planning authority, which was presumably Norfolk County Council Paladine wrote, " I hope that, now you've read the first Planning Inspector's decision, the second Inspector's decision, and the High Court judgement, you can accept that the covenant simply restricts the mooring of any boats to private boats.
The decisions and the judgement are explicit in saying that the covenant is NOT a permission, and that the mooring of such boats would be a change of use from the permission for commercial use and would, therefore, require a new permission Nasty Ludham women There is the whole situation in a Nasty Ludham women It is so simple that it makes one wonder why everybody cannot get it. Unless of course some will only understand things that suit them and pretend that the rest never happened.
I understand that bit fully. The bit that I wonder about, and suspect would happen, is that if the chap Nasty Ludham women for planning for 25 boats, with fully documented details akin to what the appeal conditions required, would he simply get that planning approved.
One of the commentators on here suggests that the three month stipulation was too tight. But, if such planning was submitted, Nasty Ludham women any action by the authority would be somewhat pointless Nasty Ludham women such planning is likely to be granted. I've just seen the post by Paladine from a while ago suggesting I do more in depth research re the BA. Not needed TBH. The implicit suggestion I was trying to make was that while those in favour of the current owner suggest the BA entered into the covenant agreement, it was NOT the current BA, but a former one. My comment was not aimed at you Daz.
Or for that matter any particular person. No problem Exile, I never suspected it did anyway, and my thoughts are not altered either way. Treasu reChest. Manko, I think he has rather hit whatever he uses as a thumb, rather than the nail. He obviously published that without reading my concise, accurate, full and to the point not my words synopsis of the legal situation. For that pike to disseminate such blatant misinformation, when people's lives are being affected, is so outrageous that, IMO, he should be banned from swimming through the murky waters of the Blessed Authority's committee rooms ever again.
Paladine may I remind u that others have the right to there opinion n this my way or no way approach is very tiresome nowthis is a discussion forum not a court Members have the right to post whatever within TOS n just because u disagree give u no right to state that ur published documents are rightif this was all cut and dryed then there would be no hearing in Feb next year it wouldn't be requiredbut there is a hearing n until then its not over and done with so please refrain from giving that impression.
Yes u have your beliefs but others have there's too and a perfect right to post them on here as members without being ridiculed for it. If u wish to ban Eddy from the boards authority then jion them n make it happenbut at least someone has spoken u n is not afraid to do so because IMHO till payers gave been treat like second class citizens for way too long n its high time some chickens came home to roost.
Whilst discussion is good, it is a shame this Forum has been largely hijacked by the aggrieved who continue to blur the facts with trivia and inconsequential facts to blur the issues to try and defer what is probably the inevitable given the actual FACTS. However i just want them to know that that is not the view of the majority or if it were, their petition would have atures plus and I guess it has not got there quite yet!!! Cannot be bothered to look!! Or perhaps I really am wrong again!
RickH, perhaps you may do well to heed your own advice Did the National Pike make a typo? In his article on Tripe Island, the pike refers to Thorpe Island several times. Does this plaice really exist?
I believe their opinions are correct, you don't. It matters not, either way, as those opinions will be considered at the oral hearing in February. That hearing is also irrelevant in some respects. The Bro Authority has sent out letters advising of a planned course of action.
These are NOT eviction notices, which will only be sent out once an injunction is obtained. That course of action can be effected regardless of, and before, the determination of the oral appeal. My suspicion is that the BA will get the legal paperwork and notifications relating to the injunction in place, wait for the appeal decision, then, if when?
That appears to be the sensible, most cost-effective way of proceeding. Regardless of any compassionate grounds, to take action now, when daylight hours are short and staff are absent on leave, was never an option, and the delay is not as a result of any adverse action or publicity, no matter what some people would claim. Common sense really.
Edited for predictive text errors! I'm not sure I agree with you Paladine. If the evictions were to actually take place before the appeal, and the appeal were to be successful, there would be potential for embarrassment. Yes they could do it in law, but a little common sense suggests not to. I do wonder though if the outcome will be very similar to before, i. Personally I cannot see why there was a problem with the last lot of conditions Highjacked really explain how the minority as YOU putcut Marsh man can hijack a discussion ,far more likely that it's a case of I don't agree with them n if we're going into misrepresentation then surely ur post is just thatit claims Nasty Ludham women minority in your eyes has infiltrated a discussion wat a load of bull.
I would say the amount of support on Facebook and the petition is remarkable considering the short time that the campaign has run. For those that haven't read or bothered to read the facts regarding the eviction they were posted on boats in Nov I believe n the dat e wat 18 th Dec for the eviction ,now I'm sorry but that's well in advance of any hearing are u saying that that is fairrightlawfulif when Roger wins this appeal then who would look out of step if they had evicted boaters before the appeal??? Are they eviction notices stamped by the court, or are they pre-action letters?
I rather suspect they are the latter, saying quit the property by such a date, otherwise a court order will be sought. There is a lot of misunderstanding by some of the exact form of certain documents The covenant is not planning permission. I think you may be similarly mistaken with this letter Oh no Nasty Ludham women not Daz no mistake at all uv read one n the details are in here somewhere but they say in no uncertain terms remove your boat before Dec 18 ththey were posted I think Nov 5th but don't quote me on that but they definitely exist every boat got one live abroad or bit with one exception n ull let u work that one out uv remarked about it before.
To clarify, hopefully, whether or not eviction notices have been issued, I am posting the text of the letter that was sent to Thorpe Island residents by the Bro Authority.Nasty Ludham women
email: [email protected] - phone:(654) 784-9617 x 2857
Beautiful ladies looking online dating Kailua1 Hawaii