Squeezing in berths and heads

15.20 in ads, and, berths, boat, Boat Plans, heads, in, mean, really, squeezing, the, what

A READER called Eric asks: “Why do boat builders insist on putting TWO toilets/heads in a boat as small as 32 feet? Cmon, how many 400-square-foot apartments/houses on land have two bathrooms?”

Well, Eric, if I had to take a flying guess I’d say it was the boatbuilder’s sales department that demanded two heads. Apparently it’s a major selling point, especially among the fairer sex. It’s the same reason that builders insist on putting six berths in a four-berth boat, and four berths in a two-berth boat. The sales manager wants to be able to boast that his 25-footer is a family boat that can accommodate Mom, Pop, and four kids on weekend jaunts, unlike the competition whose 26-footer only has berths for two adults and two kids.

It sounds better in the ads, and looks good in the color brochure, but no boat designer in his right mind would come up with this idea on his own. He knows better than anyone how awkward and inconvenient too many berths are in a small boat, and what a wicked waste of space. He also knows how little time people spend in the head and how hard it is to compensate for the extra space a second head steals from the interior.

But he has to earn an honest nickel, and the boatbuilder is the boss, so he grinds his teeth and squeezes in a couple of berths here and a couple of heads there, knowing full well that he’s creating a travesty of boat design.

There are a few traditional designs that follow more normal rules of practical and esthetic design and, ironically, they usually cost a lot more than the plastic Best Westerns that fill our marinas.

So, Eric, I’m afraid there’s only one thing left to do, and that’s to take yourself to an old-fashioned naval architect and commission him or her to design you a boat with as few bunks and heads as you consider appropriate. You will instantly become that architect’s dream customer, and you might even feel your feet being kissed, but whether you’ll be able to find a builder willing to create this aberrant kind of boat, one so far removed from the modern norm, is quite another matter.

Today’s Thought

Change doth unknit the tranquil strength of men.

— Matthew Arnold, A Question 

Tailpiece

“Did you visit that spiritualist last night?”

“Yeah.”

“Was she a good one?”

“No, just a medium.”

Read more

In praise of beautiful overhangs

09.44 in a, about, beautiful, Boat Plans, boats, in, learning, little, lot, many, of, overhangs, praise, thanks, to

I FOUND A PROFILE of a Pearson Vanguard in a boating book the other day and I couldn’t help but be struck by how beautiful she was. That man Philip Rhodes could design a mean sheerline. Combined with low freeboard, Vanguards still look gorgeous 50 years or so after they were built.

The bow, in particular, has a cocky sheer and a rounded profile that seems just right for a seagoing boat, while the stern rises just enough to complement the wonderful curve that sweeps from fore to aft as befits a creature intended to live among waves.

By today’s standards, the overhangs are excessive. The bow and the stern overhangs measure more than 10 feet combined on a boat only 32 feet 7 inches overall. But today’s boats have traded beauty for utility and interior space, which is a compromise not necessarily for the better.

Designers tell us that overhangs enable a boat to go faster. They increase the boat’s waterline length as she heels, and waterline length, as we all know, is the major factor affecting the maximum sustained speed of displacement boats. I have never been convinced of this alleged benefit. Not for any good mathematical reason but just because I can’t believe it makes enough difference in waterline length to matter. I’m even suspicious about the very claim that heeling adds to waterline length. Some boats roll buoyantly upward, out of the water, as they heel. I bet they don’t add much, if anything, to the wetted waterline. And besides, when you’re running downwind, and not heeling, there is no gain in waterline length at all.

In any case, I personally don’t think the Vanguard’s overhangs are excessive. Another famous and very handsome design of that period, the Camper & Nicholson 32, had overhangs totaling 9 feet. Furthermore, L. Francis Herreshoff, the great master, designed what he called “sensible cruising boats” with overhangs very much like the Vanguard’s. His famous H-28 ketch, at 28 feet overall, had a waterline of just over 23 feet.

There’s no doubt, though, that very long overhangs are dangerous at sea. They’re very elegant, but on smaller boats they’re suited only to sheltered waters. They cause pounding at the bow and slamming at the stern.

A friend of mine once took his 30-Square Meter to sea. This was a narrow-gutted formula racing class with very long overhangs, because the goal for naval architects was to design the fastest sailboat you could build with a maximum of 30 square meters of sail area. My friend got caught in quartering seas and found that the leverage afforded by the long stern overhang caused each overtaking swell to spin the boat almost broadside on, into a dangerous broach. Those 30 Squares were gorgeous to look at, and extremely satisfying to sail to weather, but they were lousy seaboats in bad weather.

The Vanguard was designed in the days when the Cruising Club of America (CCA) rule applied, of course. When that rule was superseded by the International Offshore Rule (IOR), the rear ends of racing boats suddenly changed from generous, flowing, callipygian sterns to mean and tight pinched-in haunches, often with unsightly reverse-sheer transoms. This did nothing for seaworthiness or looks. It just helped a boat get a better handicap under the IOR formula.

Manufacturers of cruising boats, like lemmings plunging over the cliff, followed the style of the racers, of course, in the hope that prospective clients would be impressed. So we had a very ugly production run of racer/cruisers in the 1970s and early ’80s. Happily, though, there were the occasional standouts, like Pearson and Philip Rhodes.

I feel thankful to them every time I see a Vanguard.

Today’s Thought

Perhaps the greatest difference between the beautiful yacht and the plain one is the way their crews treat them, for the crew of the beautiful yacht usually gives her tender loving care.

—L. Francis Herreshoff

Tailpiece

Overheard at the yacht club bar:

“My dirty bottom is really wreaking havoc with my performance.”

“Yeah, just imagine what that would do to your boat.”

Read more

Down among the mince pies

11.27 in –, among, Boat Plans, court, down, high, homes, in, judgment, mince, offices, pies, the, to

Well, here we are – Merry Christmas! (as the song goes) – the end of another busy year.

We are all still digesting the important changes in planning law and procedure that have taken place in the past year, with more to come in 2014. But those on which I have not yet commented in this blog will have to wait now until the New Year.

Readership of the blog was artificially inflated earlier in the year by ‘bots’ that were designed to plant spam comments (mainly as a means of securing free advertising for other websites) until we reached a ridiculous total of more than 49,000 monthly page views before we pulled the plug on the spammers. Readership has since settled down to between 25,000 and 30,000 page views a month, and this tempts me to consider the possibility of including paid advertising on the site, but it could spoil the page design and has various other disadvantages, so I am not yet convinced that it would be a good idea, although it would certainly generate revenue.

The readership statistics give an interesting insight into the topics that are of major concern to readers, most of whom come to the blog by keyword searching on the internet. By far the largest number of page views is on the subject of ‘curtilage’. The piece I wrote on ‘Curtilage Confusion’ on 25 January 2011 has so far attracted a total of 21,128 page views (and this relates only to that original piece – no doubt many of the readers accessing that item went on to look at the other articles I subsequently wrote on this topic). It is an issue that has also generated more individual queries than any other, which only serves to reinforce my view that we would be a great deal better off if the concept of ‘curtilage’ were to be entirely removed from planning legislation, to be replaced in future by the ‘planning unit’ (a different concept, but one which is much more easily understood and therefore more readily identified in particular cases).

The second most popular blog post is an article I wrote on 11 July 2011 on ‘Agricultural dwellings and other houses in the countryside’, which has been viewed 10,390 times. Clearly there are a lot of people who would like to live in the countryside, and who find themselves frustrated by agricultural occupancy conditions and by the rules that apply to applications for new dwellings in the countryside. I am afraid I can’t offer them much comfort in most cases, but there is clearly a good deal of pent-up demand, the full extent of which may be revealed if the government introduces permitted development rights for barn conversions (and for the residential conversion or replacement of other agricultural buildings by homes) next Spring, as proposed.

This seems to be confirmed by the number of page view there have been for the piece I wrote on this proposal, entitled ‘Barn conversions to be permitted development’, on 13 August 2013, which has received 3,387 page views so far, making it the fifth most popular post on this blog.

The third most popular blog post is a puzzle to me. It is a comment on ‘Powers of entry and RIPA’ posted on 7 February 2012. I have a bizarre vision of members of the criminal fraternity desperately researching this subject on the internet. If that is what is causing the apparent popularity of this item, then I am afraid they are likely to have been disappointed, as the piece simply discussed some of the evidential aspects of planning enforcement.

Another post that has attracted a substantial number of page views (4,418 to date) is ‘Office to residential – the new right to change of use, published on 19 May 2013. The enthusiastic take-up of these new permitted development rights has surprised many, and has alarmed a number of local planning authorities. It remains controversial, and it is clear that some councils are determined to frustrate or delay these residential conversions for as long as they can (bearing in mind that they must be completed before 30 May 2016), but it remains to be seen in light of appeal decisions, the first of which are likely to be issued in the near future, whether these conversions can be successfully resisted.

There is clearly a substantial appetite among the public for general advice and guidance on planning issues, and I hope that this blog will continue to provide useful help on the subject. One or more books may follow, and I am currently working on the first such book, with a view to publication within the next year.

So have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year, and I hope you will continue to find material in the blog that is interesting and informative and which helps, to some extent, to explain the mysteries of the planning system.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Tarpon Anticipation

05.21 in anticipation, Boat Plans, in, olympic, opst, peninsula, skagit, stock, tactics, tarpon

So you hear that anticipation is half the fun of going on a trip. Well I have to agree. 

 Two months ago I was invited on a very exclusive hard to book tarpon trip in florida. Where? Cant tell you, if I do I dont get to go back, EVER! Have you ever seen the movie Location X? Well if you havent, find it watch it and tell me about it, it is all sold out and I have been looking for it. That is where I am going!

I have heard a ton about this amazing tarpon fishery and now I have a chance to go! So now I am at Buffalo Wild Wings in Portland Oregon having a cold beer thinking about the trip. I have an early flight out in the morning to Orlando Florida where I will meet up with my buddy Tom Larimer who is attending ICAST, the world fishing and fly fishing trade show. From there we will head out to our destination.

I have been trying to picture this trip in my mind. For a while now, I keep playing out how the day will go; We spot tarpon, keep calm, hit your target, set the hook, the fight begins! I want that picture of me chest deep in the water holding a 100 plus pound tarpon!

Knowing my shoulders are both shot can I really battle the silver king? Well we will see.

The point is half the fun of the trip is the anticipation, the processing. Remember that all last longer than the trip. Adventure that is what it is all about, if everything was the same it would be boring.

Update coming soon.

Travis Duddles
Owner and CEO | Gorge Fly Shop
541.386.6977

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read more

Scientific Anglers Frequency Whats your Frequency

03.13 in anglers, Boat Plans, chapter, fishing, fly, frequency, get, in, rods, scientific, started, two, whats, your

Scientific Anglers decided it was time to clean up all the confusion in the mid-price line market. After examining what was available it was determined that the choices were too confusing. There must be a simpler way! Frequency Fly Lines solves this problem

Great lines at a good price...$49.95. This series has 6 tapers (3 floating and 3 sinking) all with AST coating and welded front loops. There are only 4 sizes for each taper (5-8 or 3-6..depending on the taper)

Frequency - Trout (3-6wt) 

Trout

General Purpose Trout Line

Exactly what you should expect in a trout line. It features a mid length head for ease of casting and enough rear taper to make mends at moderate distances. It features a braided multifilament core, formulated with AST for slickness and Line ID marking system for easy identification. Looped on the front end for easy leader attachment.

Boost

Frequency - Boost (3-6wt)

Half of a line size heavier than the Trout taper Boost gives you that extra edge needed for modern fast action trout rods. Boost will carry larger heavier flies more easily than the Trout line and all the same great features.

Magnum

Frequency - Magnum 

(5-8wt)

Big flies, indicators, large dries will all turn over with ease with this 1/2 line size jump Magnum Taper fly line. Looking for a streamer line this is it. 

Frequency - Sink Tip (5-8wt)

10 Sink Tip

!0 foot of type 3 sink tip material makes this the line of choice for streamers and wet flies to get them down. Mid-Length head for easy control and a sink rate of 2.5 - 4.0 ips. 

Full Sinking

Frequency - Full Sink and Intermediate Sink (5-8wt)

Ideal Still water angling fly line. Choose between the intermediate with a 1.25 ips sink rate of the full sink with its 3-5 ips. 

Lots of good choices in this new series from S/A and especially for $49.95...By eliminating features such as rear loops, multi colors and more sizes than one could ever need S/A was able to bring the price down to a mid-level creating a good line for the price. 

So whats your Frequency!

Read more

The heater that iced up

22.37 in 25, a, Boat Plans, for, heater, iced, in, love, magazines, sailing, that, the, up, vertue, with, writing

THEY SAY THAT IF you have a heater on your boat, you can extend your sailing season by six weeks or so at each end. I have never been swayed by that argument. Having spent most of my life in the sub-tropics, I have no love of sailing in the cold. Or the cold-and-rain, as happens around here. So I reckon there’s no need for a heater on a boat in this region.
There was one on a little Cape Dory 25D I once owned. We found her on an island in the San Juans, and sailed her home one bitter-cold day in February, when there was ice on deck. We had an overnight stop in a marina in Anacortes, where we ran into an old sailing friend. He offered us an electric heater because he said a cold night was forecast, but we scoffed and turned him away. “We have a nice Force 10 heater installed,” we said.
After a meal ashore, we came back to the boat and lit the heater. It had started life as a kerosene model, but the previous owner had converted it to gas. A small can of propane screwed onto the bottom.
We soon noticed something strange. It didn’t seem to be producing a lot of heat, and what heat it did produce rose to the top of the cabin and stayed there. What was even stranger was the fact that the can of propane was collecting a coat of ice. If we stood up in the cabin, the air was luke-warm from the belly-button up, and freezing cold from the belly-button down. As the layer of ice on the can grew thicker, we shut the heater off, fearing that it was actually producing more cold than heat on average. Our bunks were below belly-button level, so we spent a very cold night aboard, having brought only light-weight sleeping bags with us.
One of the first jobs I did on that boat was to convert the Force 10 back to kerosene heat.
It was a fairly easy job once I’d bought the right tools for flaring the copper tubing and so on. The new burner put out a lot more heat and never tried to make ice, but the hot air still hung around above belly-button level until we bought a 12-volt fan and mounted it where a reading lamp used to be. That stirred the air up nicely, distributing warmth all over the cabin from head to toe.
But we rarely used that heater because the fan used electricity, and I was scared we might flatten the battery overnight and not be able to start the diesel engine on a cold morning.
I have learned over the years that very little is simple on a boat, and the less you have to go wrong the better off you are.
So we never had a heater on any other boat since. And our belly buttons have been very grateful.
Today’s Thought
What is true, simple and sincere is most congenial to man’s nature.
— Cicero, De Officiis
Tailpiece
“Who gave you that black eye?”
“My wife.”
"I thought she was out of town.”
“So did I.”

Read more

Floating Fly Line Color Does It Matter

09.58 in Boat Plans, color, does, floating, fly, form, game, in, it, line, matter, memory, muscle, redington, time

You cant always pick your family but you can pick your fly line.

Over the last 10-15 years I have watched fly line manufactures building more lines with earth tone colors or even clear and fewer hi-vis or bright colors. Anglers seem to be asking for and buying more and more of these lines that are more camouflaged, but does the color matter to the fish. That is the question that few seem to ask, nor do I think we really know. When it comes to this subject color of a fly line, there are all types of opinions, so here is what I think.

I personally come from the train of thought that being able to see a fly line on the water and in the air really helps an angler’s ability to catch more fish. First off a bright colored line is easier to see while casting, this helps you judge distance and placing a cast in tight quarters. Second and most important is being able to see your line while it is on the water, if you can’t see your line, you cannot control it. As a former guide line control is everything! That brings me to the third reason; if you go on guided trips it allows your guide to see your line and judge where your fly is much better.

I am a steelhead addict and fish dry lines with flies on the surface or in the surface film as much as I can. I fish the brightest line I can, all though these bright lines in good tapers are getting hard to find. Here is why I like a bright line for steelhead angling. When fishing a damp fly in the surface film I am always scanning for a fish that came to check my fly out, but did not eat it, this is a fish I want to work. When these fish come up from the bottom to check a fly out they commonly make a disturbance on the surface as they turn to return to the bottom. It is critical to see exactly where your fly is, once you know where the fly is; now you can scan the area around it for any signs of fishing moving. If you do this you will catch more steelhead, but if you have trouble seeing the tip of your line this task will get much more difficult. Scanning an area 6 foot by 6 foot is much easier than trying to locate the tip of a fin in an area 20 foot by 20 foot.

Trout anglers that are very successful will generally tell you the most important tricks to catching more fish is presenting the fly properly. If your line is not controlled properly than the fly is not presented properly, the result is not very successful trout fishing. Drag on the fly is generally a big NO, NO. Drag is minimized by controlling and correcting the drift or drag of your line. This is much tougher to do with a line that is hard to see. I have never seen a trout spook from what I would say was the color of the line, but I have seen many spook from the shadow of the line. Even a clear line cast a shadow, I have seen many fish spook from a clear lines’ shadow.

Greg Darling joined me this year on our annual trip to the Palometa Club in Ascension Bay, Mexico. We did a rod comparison that Greg wrote an article about called NRX vs ONE...Who rules the flats!  Rio had just released the Rio Bonefish QS Fly Line in florescent orange; this looked like the perfect fly line to take to pop out in photos. A few days into the trip we found some nice bones on a outer flat, guides wanted us to put the permit rod away and get our bonefish rod out. I knew that these bigger single bones were much spookier, so here is the test. When we pulled out the 9’ 7 weight Sage ONE rod lined with this line, I was waiting for the two guides to start scream at me “what did you bring that line for!” As I cast the line 75 feet to a bone, the only thing that our lead guide said was “nice cast, strip, strip, strip. You got him!” I hooked and lost a bonefish in less than a foot of water. We fished the rest of the afternoon searching for permit and sliding into the shallows whenever a nice bone presented itself. Greg hooked and landed several bones that day on the Orange line. We asked the guides about their thoughts on the bright lines. They said that they love them, it helps them see right where the fly is. This helps them read the fish and see the eat. They wished that more of the lines anglers showed up with had these lines.

Sage ONE + Hatch 7plus + Rio Bonefish line = BONEFISH

Here is why I do not think a bright colored line spooks anymore fish than a camouflaged or clear line. Think about it this way, have you ever swam under water and opened your eyes? What does the surface look like? It has lots of broken colors and lines; this is from light being reflected in the surface water. This reflected light is always moving and changing, I would think that a bright yellow, green or orange line would be no different than this constantly changing surface light. Fish spook from the shadow of a fly line, bright or camouflage they shadow the same, even clear fly lines shadow.

Orange is the new Clear

At the end of the day fish what you have confidence in, but if you want to try a really bright line in a good taper they are getting harder to find. Line companies have had to go with consumer demand which is for natural colored lines. Rio does a very nice bright orange in the Rio Gold; this is a great choice for trout. For Saltwater Rio the Bonefish Quickshooter in a hi-vis.

By Travis Duddles
Owner, Gorge Fly Shop

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read more

Planning topics in the Autumn Statement

02.20 in amendments, autumn, Boat Plans, in, minor, planning, statement, the, topics

For reasons that I have never been able to understand, George Osborne loves making announcements about changes in planning law and practice that the government is proposing to introduce. Despite his remit being strictly financial and economic, Gorgeous George has never hesitated to trample on Uncle Eric’s turf, not to mention the territory of various other ministers, whenever he wants to big up his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Saviour of the British Economy.

As other commentators had spotted even before the Autumn Statement was formally delivered in the Commons today, quite a lot of what the Chancellor has thrown into his Autumn Statement is what someone aptly described as “warmed-over press releases” - various bright ideas that the government had dreamed up and announced some time ago.

For example, the Autumn Statement contains not one but two mentions (in paragraphs 1.220 and 2.191) of the proposal, previously announced by Chris Grayling, to set up a specialist Planning Court “early in 2014” to hear Judicial Review applications and statutory appeals (e.g. under sections 287, 288 and 289 of the 1990 Act) that currently go to the High Court. There is also an intention to speed up the process between lodging the claim and the hearing, plus a proposal for appeals from the Planning Court (part of the ‘Upper Chamber’) to leapfrog the Court of Appeal and be taken direct to the Supreme Court. All of this was in Grayling’s original consultation paper, but today’s announcement suggests that the government intends to press ahead with these proposals, irrespective of what responses have been received from consultees – a common approach on the part of this government, who see consultation as a purely nominal bit of window dressing before they can get on with what they were going to do in the first place. I still haven’t found the time to look at Grayling’s consultation paper, and must make a point of doing so before these changes come into effect. It looks as though we can expect the changes to be introduced early in the New Year, although it occurs to me that this may require primary legislation, in which case the changes may not come into actual effect until much later in the year.

It seems that the government intends to go on fiddling in a piecemeal way with the planning system. Further changes that they seem to be contemplating (although the Autumn Statement was distinctly short on details) include further steps in an effort to reduce delays at various stages in the planning process, coupled with various ‘incentives’ for improved performance and a promised reduction in the costs incurred by developers (but I bet that doesn’t include a reduction in application fees!). Among these ideas are proposed measures to improve plan making, including introducing a statutory requirement to put a Local Plan in place (I was under the impression that LPAs were already under that duty); also legislating to treat planning conditions as approved where a planning authority has failed to discharge a condition on time, and using legislative measures to strengthen the requirement for planning authorities to justify conditions that must be discharged before building can start. This seems to presage a welcome reduction in the imposition of so-called ‘conditions precedent’, which seem to be spooking quite a few builders and developers these days.

The government is clearly frustrated and disappointed that its cunning plan (worthy of Baldrick at his best) to put ‘under-performing’ local planning authorities into special measures, so that developers can apply for planning permission in those areas directly to De-CLoG (or in practice to the Planning Inspectorate), has netted only a single fish, and that was a Tory-controlled authority - much to the chagrin of the council leader, who has fired off a furious complaint to Uncle Eric about his lack of commitment to localism. So now ministers are going to move the goal-posts by allowing developers to bypass the LPA where it makes fewer than 40% of its decisions on time, in the hope that more authorities will be swept into the ministerial net. The problem is that, on recent form, at least half of them may turn out to be Tory-controlled, and these councils are likely to be just as upset by this as Blaby Council was.

Another little wheeze is to withhold the New Homes Bonus where planning permissions are granted on appeal rather than by the authority itself. So yet more grief for NIMBY-loving Tory councillors in the green and pleasant land of Middle England. This is part of a general review of the New Homes Bonus, which is intended to be completed by Easter 2014.

Some possible sugaring of the pill for NIMBYs is offered by a suggestion that the ‘bribes’ to accept new development offered to councils (in the form of the New Homes Bonus and the neighbourhood funding element of the Community Infrastructure Levy) might be extended to individual households in the affected areas. The government clearly hasn’t figured out yet how this might work, but it conjures up the intriguing possibility that NIMBYs might be directly bribed (officially and above-board, of course) not to object to development in their own backyard.

One particular bone of contention for developers is the very low threshold that some councils have been seeking to introduce for triggering a requirement for affordable housing contributions. In some authorities in Wales this has been set as low as 2 units! Wales, of course, is now beyond the reach of ministers in Whitehall, but in England it is proposed that there should be a nationally imposed minimum threshold of 10 units below which an LPA cannot demand any affordable housing or financial contributions in lieu. I fear, though, that this will prompt those LPAs that currently have higher thresholds to reduce them to the ‘default’ figure of 10 units, thus imposing an affordable housing obligation on an even larger number of housing developments than is the case now.

Further tinkering with the regime for major infrastructure projects is on the cards, but I don’t propose to go into these details here. (Another time, perhaps.)

Finally, the government is still thinking in terms of further widening the scope of Permitted Development. It is surprising, bearing in mind the predilection of ministers to repeat previously–made announcements whenever possible, that there was no mention of barn conversions and other previously proposed changes to the GPDO which are currently slated for next Spring. However, there was one additional proposal. This is for change of use from retail to restaurant or assembly and leisure uses (A1 to A3 or D1) to become permitted development. At the same time, it is also proposed to reverse the legislation (in 2008, or was it 2004?) that extended the definition of development in section 55 to include the insertion of a mezzanine floor in certain retail premises.

So we have here quite a rag-bag of further miscellaneous ideas from the government, which will only add even more complication to an already byzantine planning system (despite the government’s claims to be doing the opposite). It is disappointingly clear that the government still has no coherent strategic vision for planning and development, but remains hopelessly addicted to ad hoc gimcrack ‘quick fixes’, which will do little to sort out the chaotic mess into which the planning system has descended under successive governments. God save us from all these dreadful politicians!

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Savings for old provisions in the GPDO

11.02 in Boat Plans, for, gpdo, in, old, provisions, savings, the

NOTE: For completely up-to-date and comprehensive coverage of this subject, we would strongly recommend readers to obtain a copy of 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.

When I wrote the other day about Article 8 of the GPDO 2015, I mentioned the possibility that there may be some general rule of statutory interpretation which would preserve the effect of the repealed legislation, but I had not had time to look this up.

I am grateful to Fraser Kerr for reminding me of section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Although we are dealing here with a statutory instrument rather than an Act of Parliament, under section 23 (1) the provisions of this Act apply (unless the contrary intention appears) to subordinate legislation made after the commencement of this Act as they apply to Acts of Parliament. Section 16(1) provides that where an Act repeals an enactment, the repeal does not (unless the contrary appears) affect the previous operation of the enactments repealed or anything done or suffered under that enactment.

This is enough, I think, to protect the effect of a prior approval already granted before 15 April 2015, and this provision should also suffice to enable any pending prior approval applications and/or appeals against their refusal to be determined after 15 April, whereupon any prior approval so granted could be acted upon, even though the prior approval application was made under the provisions of the 1995 Order. It would also appear that the relevant provisions (including any limitations, conditions or restrictions) applying to the permitted development in question would be those under the 1995 Order, rather than the 2015 Order, although I am not absolutely certain about this last point.

In other cases, where no prior approval application had been made before 15 April, or in any cases where no prior approval was required (and where development had not commended before 15 April), the permitted development will now be entirely governed by the provisions of the 2015 Order.

So far so good, but I don’t think this answers the second problem which I posed in my last post, namely whether dwelling units (or floorspace) converted under a relevant class in the 1995 Order (e.g. under Class MB) should be counted towards the numerical limit (or cumulative floorspace limit) in the corresponding Class in the 2015 Order (Class Q in the example given). I am not convinced that the Interpretation Act has that effect. In this connection, I also looked at section 18 of the Interpretation Act, but I am not convinced that this section has the effect of enabling the provisions of the former classes of development in Part 3 of the 1995 Order to be read as if they were equally applicable to the corresponding new Classes in Part 3 of the 2015 Order. But I am open to persuasion on this point.

This last issue is perhaps more important, from a practical point of view, than the first point I raised. I am assuming for the time being that I am right in thinking that the numerical and floorspace limits in respect of development carried out under the 1995 Order do not affect development subsequently carried out under the corresponding provisions of the 2015 Order, but (as before) I would welcome any comments from readers on this point.

[P.S. I wrote this piece before I had seen Tom Bright’s comment, which has now been published under the previous post. I will take a look at the other point he raises, regarding Article 4 Directions, and come back on this subject in a future post.]

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Short term lets in Greater London

22.33 in –, and, blame, Boat Plans, crisis, ea, flooding, game, greater, in, lets, london, short, term, the

Planning professionals whose practice includes dealing with residential property in Greater London will be aware of section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 (as amended), which provides that for the purposes of what is now section 55(1) of the 1990 Act, the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of any residential premises in Greater London involves a material change of use of the premises and of each part of them that is used for that purpose. Use as temporary sleeping accommodation’ means use as sleeping accommodation which is occupied by the same person for less than 90 consecutive nights and which is provided (with or without other services) either for payment or by reason of the employment of the occupant.

The provision applies whether or not the relationship of landlord and tenant is created by this arrangement. So if used in this way, a residential property is no longer a single private dwelling within Use Class C3, but is a sui generis use. This has two consequences. First, it cannot be claimed in this case that the property should still be treated for planning purposes as a single dwelling, because the 1973 Act takes it out of that category. Secondly, it follows that a breach of planning control comprising this change of use is subject to the 10-year rule, rather than the 4-year rule.

The operation of this legislation was reviewed by the Court of Appeal in Fairstate Limited v. FSS [2005] EWCA Civ 283. The question at issue in this case (as Ward LJ put it in his judgment) was “what if any breach of planning control occurs where the use to which a London flat was put changed over three stages – (1) for more than ten years as temporary sleeping accommodation which made that unauthorised use lawful, but (2) with a change for about five months to longer-term residential occupation, and finally (3) reverting back for the next four years to temporary sleeping accommodation.”

It was common ground between the parties in that case that, at stage (1), use of the flat for temporary sleeping accommodation was a material change of use that had become a lawful use by virtue of section 191(2) of the 1990 Act. Nevertheless, it was held by the Court of Appeal that the change from stage (2) to stage (3) (from permanent back to temporary sleeping accommodation) was a further breach of planning control in respect of which enforcement action could be taken.

Now, according to a report in yesterday’s Evening Standard, ministers are proposing to scrap this provision, so as to allow short-term lets in Greater London (for example “for a few days while the owners go on holiday”). The demand for short-term accommodation during the 2012 Olympics has been cited as the sort of thing that ministers think ought to be catered for. The suggestion is being canvassed by Kris Hopkins, the recently appointed junior minister in De-CLoG who is responsible for housing.

The whole point of this 1973 legislation was to protect much-needed housing accommodation for permanent residents in the capital, and we are all well aware of the huge unmet demand for such accommodation. If a significant proportion of the available housing stock were to be used for holiday accommodation or other short-term lets, which may well prove more lucrative to property owners, this will only exacerbate an already dire shortage of suitable accommodation for workers in London.

No firm proposals have yet been put forward, and it remains to be seen if the government will press ahead with this idea. What do Mayor Bojo and his advisers think about it? I am sure that Shelter and others concerned with housing provision will have plenty to say on the subject. If the government does want to relax the rules in Greater London to some extent, the new rules would no doubt have to be carefully framed to avoid the loss of permanent residential accommodation in the capital. The limited type of temporary letting that Kris Hopkins was talking about might be an acceptable concession, but anything that would result in the permanent loss of residential accommodation should be avoided.

Offhand, I don’t know whether this was simply a kite-flying exercise on the part of Kris Hopkins, or the beginning of a consultation exercise, but if you own residential property in Greater London, don’t get too excited about these ideas for the time being – it may take some time before any definite proposals are formulated, if indeed the idea goes forward at all.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

What real sailors do in winter

00.44 in a, an, appeal, beauty, Boat Plans, bow, do, for, forever, in, is, job, of, real, rollers, sailors, thing, what, winter

 

I WAS ONCE ASKED by someone who had spent a long time in the sub-tropics: “What do northern sailors do in winter?”

Well, some go skiing. Some flee south in RVs. Some go away on cruise ships. These are the dilettantes, the dabblers, the amateurs, the superficial tire-kickers.

And before you accuse me of using big words you can’t understand, let me explain that a dilettante is someone (especially someone French) who follows sailing for an amusement, a diversion. Someone who doesn’t take sailing half seriously enough.

The real sailors are reading books of ocean adventures. They’re studying boat plans and looking at ads for Herreshoff 28 ketches. They’re making plans to get time off from their partners, and continue their clandestine affairs with their boats.

They’re poking holes in the shrink-wrap so they can get inside and sit on the saloon couch for a bit, maybe making a cup of coffee on the stove and searching for the half-bottle of rum they hid in the cabinet for medical emergencies.

They check the bilges for water and crank the motor over half a turn by hand, so the impeller doesn’t take a fatal set. They check that there’s air circulating through the cabin, to deter mold. They switch on the VHF, listen to forecasts of raging storms, and grin to themselves, snug in their winter refuge.

They read with delight the logs of their past year’s cruising, and dream of those lovely lazy breezes and warm seas. They play back in their minds, time and time again, the peaceful nights at anchor, the early-morning call of the loon, and the shrill cry of a kingfisher carrying breakfast back to a forest of open beaks.

The thing about serious sailors, as opposed to those dilettantes, is that they are in love with their boats. They can hardly bear to be parted from them. They tend and care for them. They talk to them as if they were flesh and blood. They nurture them. They praise their good qualities and pardon their faults.

And in that definitive demonstration of ardor, they look back, long and hard, when they part. That’s what real sailors do in winter.

Today’s Thought

A man nearly always loves for other reasons than he thinks. A lover is apt to be as full of secrets from himself as is the object of his love from him.

— Ben Hecht

Tailpiece

“What’s the special today?”

“Ve got fine zoop today, sir. You like some zoop, mebbe?”

“Zoop? What’s zoop?”

“You don’t know what is zoop? You know what is stew, yes? Vell, zoop is same ting, only looser.”

(Drop by every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for a new Mainly about Boats column.)

Read more

An innocent adrift in the soup aisle

10.27 in adrift, aisle, an, Boat Plans, in, innocent, is, most, mystery, navigation, not, precise, soup, the, wonderful

 

THE ADMIRAL having been stricken with a long-term virus disease, it falls to me to forage for provisions. Unaccustomed as I am to grocery shopping, I bravely set sail for the victualling barge, an enormous structure named the Fred Meyer.

Inside, it’s all narrow gangways crammed with people seeking provisions, mainly women. Shelves from floor to ceiling hold all manner of gear from Tuscan melons to plumber’s wrenches.

I launch my little cart due west toward the Soup aisle and find myself passing through terra incognita, an area charted as Ladies’ Underwear. Speeding up, and averting my eyes from the flesh-colored frillies, I bear hard a-port at Cheese and  heave to in the Canned Soup aisle. I consult my sailing instructions from the Admiral:  “2 pkts Andersens pea soup. See lower shelves of soup aisle.” Oh, if only you knew the pathos of it. It’s all she can eat. It’s all she feels like, as she lies propped up in bed. Everything else tastes terrible.

It involves a long search. I reach the end of the aisle, go about, and tack back. Campbell’s everywhere. Thousands of cans of Campbell’s. No Andersens.

A pretty lady comes along. I try my trick of looking helpless, hoping she will take pity on me and lead me by the hand to the Andersens. No such luck. She speeds straight past, avoiding my gaze (deliberately, I believe, and regret to say). She grabs four small cans of Campbell’s, throws them in her cart, and sprints off.  

I drop my sailing instructions, bend down to pick them up, and lo, there on the very bottom shelf, where only a very underdeveloped dwarf would find it,  is a small and lonely collection of Andersens Split Pea Soup. I grab two cans — and feel a surge of relief and triumph.

I consult my instructions again. Fiber One.  Now, I’m not completely helpless. I know it’s a breakfast cereal. It must be with the packets of Cheerios and Cap’n Crunches. I cruise up and down the aisle. It’s crowded, and people get irritable when you drop anchor to inspect the labels and block the traffic.  

I’m on a collision course with a steely-eyed lady of advanced years at the helm of a large trolley. I’m plainly the stand-on shopping cart, being on the starboard tack, but she appears to have no knowledge of the responsibility of a give-way trolley — or, more likely, I fear, she doesn’t give a damn. Rule number two of the International Regulations  comes to mind and at the last moment I throw the helm over. I flash her my number one first-class glare, and draw my breath in with a loud hiss, but she sails past unrelenting.

Now I’m desperate for a pilot. I bear off downwind for the check-out counters where there’s a woman in an apron placing batteries on a shelf. She’s obviously a pilot and, just as obviously, she is engaged, but I see no pilot flag so I dive right in.

“Excuse me,” I say politely, “can you tell me where to find Fiber One?”

“Sure,” she says. She sprints off down the aisles, heaves to in the very same Breakfast Cereal aisle that I have just left, and reaches to the very top shelf where a lonely and (I must say) very inconspicuous packet of Fiber One resides.

“Very good for regularity,” she says a little too loudly.

“Thank you,” I say quietly, hoping she will go away now.

“It’s the fiber. My doctor says you don’t need prune juice if you eat Fiber One.”

Traffic in the cereal aisle is coming to a standstill. An interested crowd is gathering. They’re looking at me intently, trying to judge whether my insides are blocked up and whether I need a good dredging.

“Not for me,” I tell my pilot lamely. “Wife . . . Sick . . . No exercise . . .“

I thank her once again and the crowd parts to let me escape. I can tell they’re not buying it. They think it’s me that needs the Fiber One. They can tell. They’re smiling that sneaky smile that says I know you’re lying.

I shall make sure the Admiral is aware of the ignominy I am suffering in the course of revictualling and I shall light a candle for her quick recovery. I can only hope she is better before  she runs out of Fiber One.

Today’s Thought

I never make a trip the United States without visiting a supermarket. To me they are more fascinating than any fashion salon.

— Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, NY Journal-American, 8 Apr 64

Tailpiece

You’ve heard of King Arthur’s Round Table, of course. But do you know who was the roundest knight? It was Sir Cumference. And how did he acquire his size? From too much pi, naturally.

(Drop by every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for a new Mainly about Boats column.)

 

Read more

Monster Arapaima in the Deep Jungle of Guyana

03.01 in 2015, arapaima, bend, benefit, Boat Plans, day, deep, experience, guyana, in, jungle, monster, my, of, oregon, spey, the, your

Some anglers like to fish the same water for many years. Each time you fish there it becomes like visiting an old friend, reflecting on special days and fish from the past. Other anglers look beyond what they know and where they have been for new angling challenges and adventure. That is exactly what clients Dave Farley and Tim Youngkin had in mind when they heard about fishing for Arapaima in Guyana from my article in the Gorge Fly Shop Newsletter in the spring of 2013.

It is a very limited fishing season in Guyana, for 3 weeks in the spring and 3 weeks in the fall, with only 4 anglers per week. Outside of that the fishing for this species is illegal in these protected waters. The next available week was in November 2014. They said we are in and put their money down. There was a lot of preparation on their part with fly tying and buying as well as a lot of new heavy duty 65lb core Rio Leviathan lines. The rest of them break like trout tippet. As there is a weight limit on the charter flight into the jungle, strategic packing and planning was essential. This part was unrealistic but the reality of the situation. This is not a full service fishing lodge but the remote jungle Rewa Eco lodge reached by charter flight and a boat trip.  The money they get from this tourism helps the tribe be self sustaining without selling of logging and mining rights that would destroy this rare place.

After fishing the water nearby the lodge the guides determined there were more fish up river and further into the jungle. So they left the comforts of the lodge for a hammock in the jungle under an open shelter. They spent days up there without creature comforts. It was extremely rustic but in the middle of huge Arapaima that would eat the fly. There was also a scientist along that had been studying those ancient fish for years. They both had some ass kicking action as well as landing fish. The two photos included show a fish landed by Dave and one by Tim. The largest was well over 200 lbs.

So get out of bed….put down the remote….get off the computer and make a plan to get on the water!

Jerry Swanson
Fish Head Expeditions, LLC
jerry@fishheadexpeditions.com
503-539-1451

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read more

Curtilage in relation to lawful use

09.11 in a, avoiding, b1, Boat Plans, c3, changes, curtilage, from, in, lawful, of, relation, to, use

I have received a comment from a planning officer which raises a question about a particular LDC application that they have received. I don’t think I should publish the officer’s comment in the form in which it was submitted, as it discusses the application in more detail than is perhaps appropriate in this forum. Nevertheless, the comment raises specific points of interest which I thought it worth discussing here.

A CLOPUD is being sought for development which is claimed to be permitted development. This depends on the land in question being domestic curtilage so as to bring it within the terms of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a dwelling on a smallholding. The officer says this was an outline permission. But before the dwelling was built there must have been a reserved matters approval. In any event it is the outline permission that constitutes a planning permission, and section 75 of the 1990 Act provides that where planning permission is granted for the erection of a building, the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used, and if it doesn’t then the permission is to be treated as authorising its use for the purpose for which it was designed. (I am assuming that the house has actually been completed - failing which no PD rights under Part 1 could arise yet.)

If the approved drawings are examined, it should be easy enough to determine the extent of the planning unit to which that permission related, but this may no longer be of any great relevance because, in the case in question, evidence apparently indicates that the relevant area (now claimed to be ‘curtilage’) has been used as garden land well in excess of 10 years, and this would seem to indicate that its use has become lawful, so that it lawfully forms part of the same planning unit as the house.

Notwithstanding this, my correspondent refers to an appeal decision on another site in 2001 in an appeal against the refusal of a CLEUD for “use of surrounding area of land to house to use as residential”, which was dismissed because the Inspector concluded that “whilst it is unusual for a home not to have residential curtilage – no area is defined on the permission”. With respect to that inspector, this is a rather inaccurate and woolly statement. I suspect that what the inspector meant was that the permission did not identify any planning unit other than the footprint of the house itself (which is unusual but not unknown). However, in the present case, this is no longer relevant, because an area of garden land has been added to the planning unit, and the evidence indicates that this change of use has become lawful under the 10-year rule.

The next question is how far the domestic curtilage extends. I have discussed this issue in this blog ad nauseam, so just take a look through the various discussions on this issue. But ‘use’ as domestic curtilage is not a use for planning purposes – it is just a matter of fact, and it can change at any time very easily.

Two points should be borne in mind. First, by virtue of Art. 3(5)(b) of the GPDO, PD rights cannot be exercised over land whose use is unlawful. It follows that permitted development within a domestic curtilage cannot be carried out on land that is not lawfully in domestic use. So whilst there is no qualifying period for land to become domestic curtilage, it cannot be treated as domestic curtilage for the purposes of the GPDO if its residential use is unlawful or has not yet become lawful. On the other hand, if the relevant area is lawfully used as part of a planning unit falling within Use Class C3 (i.e. a single private dwellinghouse and the land occupied with it and lawfully used for domestic purposes) the domestic curtilage can be extended at any time to include an enlarged part or even the whole of that planning unit (see Sumption v. Greenwich LBC). Whether this has in fact happened is simply a question of fact, applying the test in Sinclair Lockhart’s Trustees and the other cases discussed in previous posts.

If the garden land is lawfully used as such (as seems to be the case here), then it is capable in principle of having become part of the domestic curtilage. In fact, if it forms part of the formal garden around the house, or a vegetable garden, and is not separated from the house by, say, a paddock or area of rough grass, then it is very likely that it is indeed part of the domestic curtilage. An LDC cannot be issued in respect of the ‘use’ of land as ‘domestic curtilage’ (for the reason previously mentioned) but a certificate can be issued in respect of permitted development that is dependent on the land in question being within the domestic curtilage (i.e. PD within Part 1), which in effect provides the desired confirmation of the status of the land as domestic curtilage, albeit by a slightly different route.

So in the case mentioned by my correspondent, it seems that the land in question is lawfully part of the residential planning unit, and it is simply a question of deciding whether as a matter of simple fact it does actually form part of the domestic curtilage as such. If it does, then (subject to the rules in Part 1 as to the precise siting and dimensions of extensions and outbuildings), it would appear that a CLOPUD ought to be issued in respect of the proposed domestic extensions.

I have gone through this case simply to show how questions of this sort should be approached. The outcome of the pending application to which I have referred will ultimately turn on a factual judgment as to the actual extent of the domestic curtilage, and this will depend on the evidence put forward by or on behalf of the applicant. In assessing this, planning officers should always bear in mind paragraph 8.15 in Annex 8 to Circular 10/97 and the judgment in FW Gabbitas v. SSE referred to in that paragraph.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Judicial Review – the new rules

19.51 in –, Boat Plans, curtilage, in, judicial, lawful, new, relation, review, rules, the, to, use

Readers who keep up-to-date with such matters will already be aware that the government’s new restrictions on applications for Judicial Review (‘JR’) came into force on 1 July.

The changes that relate to legal challenges to planning decisions are quite simple. They do not affect legal challenges to appeal decisions made by planning inspectors or by the Secretary of State, under sections 288 and 289 of the 1990 Act. The new rules only affect legal challenges to other decisions, such as the grant of planning permission by a local planning authority (or by the Secretary of State, for example on a called-in application under section 77) which are brought under Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Where the application for JR relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or a local planning authority under the Planning Acts, the claim form must be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose. No change is made to the identification of the date when “the grounds to make the claim first arose”, and so in accordance with the decision of the House of Lords in Burkett, that date is the date on which the planning permission under challenge was actually issued, not the date of the committee meeting or the date of the delegated decision when it was resolved to grant planning permission.

In simple cases, the two events can occur on the same day or within a day or two of each other, but in more complex cases several weeks or months can sometimes elapse between the decision to grant permission and the actual issue of that permission. In practice, this may give objectors a bit more time to get themselves organised, as the kind of decisions that tend to be challenged by way of JR are often the ones that involve some complexity. Nevertheless, objectors who wish to challenge such a decision should not hang around. Lawyers need to be instructed as early as possible to advise on a potential High Court application, so that if they advise that an arguable case can be put forward, the necessary application can be issued and served within the 6-week time limit.

This latest amendment to the Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not affect the power of the Court to extend time, so the absolute six-week cut-off that applies to section 288 applications does not apply to JR applications under CPR Pt.54. The position now is really no different from that which obtained before the House of Lords’ decision in Burkett, a situation with which we all seem to have coped at the time. In appropriate cases, the court will no doubt be prepared to extend time, although it will clearly not do so if the failure to apply within six weeks is simply the result of unpreparedness on the part of the claimant or simple dilatoriness, whether on the part of the claimant or on the part of their legal advisers.

The new rules amend Part 52 so as to remove the right to renew the application for permission to proceed with a claim for JR at a hearing in open court following a previous refusal of permission on the papers, but only if the judge who refused permission on the papers certifies that the claim is totally without merit. I confess to having some misgivings about this, but it is to be hoped that judges will exercise this power sparingly, and only in the most obvious cases.

The new rule under Part 54 (the six-week time limit) applies only in respect of those cases in which the grounds for JR arose on or after 1 July 2013. The new rule under Part 52 (oral hearing of a renewed application) does not apply to an application for permission to bring proceedings for JR that was made before 1 July.

Increases in the court fees payable in these proceedings had already been introduced under previous rule changes.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Learning to trust your crew

19.44 in adrift, aisle, an, better, Boat Plans, boats, crew, deserve, in, innocent, learning, old, soup, the, these, to, trust, your

A sailor I know told me the other day that he is hesitating about buying a bigger sailboat because he’s afraid his usual crew — his two teenage daughters — won’t be able, physically, to handle the bigger craft.

Now I am too streetwise to get into an argument about the capabilities of women, but I was reminded that several years ago I wrote a column on this very subject. I dug it out and gave it to the worried sailor; but it struck me that the advice I handed out then is still valid today. Here it is:  

A FRIEND OF A FRIEND is dreaming of crossing the Pacific under sail. He normally holds down a highly technical and well-paid job, but he’s out of work right now and not likely to be hired again until the economy improves.

However, he is a frugal man and has husbanded his resources. So now he’s thinking that this might not a bad time to turn his dream into reality.

His loyal wife, who crews for him on their 32-foot cruising sloop, is happy to go along with him, but he is worried about his two daughters, aged 16 and 14.

“If they were boys I wouldn’t have a moment’s hesitation,” he says, “but I’m not sure girls will be able to handle the hardships.”

Well, I don’t know these daughters of his, of course, but I can’t help thinking it’s a bit old-fashioned to regard girls as lacking in the ability to handle crew duties aboard yachts. What they might lack in brute strength they surely make up for in ingenuity. You only have to be able to read to know that girls of 15 and 16 are sailing bigger yachts than his around the world on their own these days.

Besides, boys don’t always make idea crews anyway. The last time I crossed an ocean with a son, who was then 17 years old, I lost a lot of sleep worrying about him.

As we were the only two watchkeepers, he had specific orders to call me if he spotted another vessel at night. He had specific orders to call me if he thought a sail change was necessary. He had specific orders to wear a harness and tether when he was alone in the cockpit at night.

But he was 17. He was becoming a man. He couldn’t help himself. Nature was pumping testosterone through his tissues. He didn’t obey any of those orders. Although he was color blind, he guided us through a fleet of fishing boats one dark night way out in the South Atlantic while my wife and I slept below. I nearly had a fit when I found out.

And when we were running fast in the southeast trades I was woken up one night by the thud of footsteps running forward along the cabintop. My untethered son was jibing the foresail singlehanded, shifting the pole from one side to the other. I lay awake, staring into the darkness, listening to the noises, waiting for the thuds that would indicate he was returning to the safety of the cockpit. But they never came. Had he gone overboard? I reasoned — I hoped — that he had returned along the side deck. I wanted to get up and peek out of the companionway hatch, but I didn’t want him to know that I had caught him in an act of disobedience because that would have forced me to impose disciplinary punishment or else lose my power of authority over him, such as it was. So I lay there fretting for another half hour until it was time to go on watch and I could decently make an appearance. And there he was, sitting in the cockpit, neatly buckled up and looking the picture of innocence in the moonlight. I could have bitten him. But I didn’t ask him why the jib pole was suddenly on the other side.

I don’t think a girl would have disobeyed her father/skipper like that. Girls don’t have the same impulse to prove they’re macho.

Or do they? Maybe now I’m the one who’s acting old-fashioned. Well, if I am, I can’t help it. Old-fashioned is what I am. Like it or lump it. But my advice to the friend of a friend is simple: Go for it. Invest some trust in those daughters of yours. I’m sure it will be amply repaid.

Today’s Thought

A man who trusts nobody is apt to be the kind of man nobody trusts.

— Harold Macmillan
Tailpiece
Did you hear about the short-sighted moth that blundered into a 2-year-olds birthday party? He burned his end at both candles.

Read more

Finally in the water

17.25 in Boat Plans, decking, finally, in, the, water, wood

Springtime in Colorado. After ten days of cold and light snow, the temperatures finally got up in the 60s, and we were able to launch the new boat this week. Everything went perfectly. I had re-inforced the deck at the bimini support attachment points, put flotation foam in the stern, installed a new battery, and readied my list of supplies. Amazingly nothing was forgotten; everything performed as designed; and the setup-launch-retrieval was easier than expected.

Read more

More planning changes in the Queen’s Speech

10.11 in –, a, Boat Plans, building, changes, in, more, opportunity, planning, queen’s, shrouds, speech, the, wasted

I had not expected that we would get much more in the way of new planning legislation before the next General Election but, once again, planning reform featured in today’s Queen’s Speech, at the commencement of the final session of this parliament.

Announcing an Infrastructure Bill, Her Majesty said, “My government will introduce a Bill to bolster investment in infrastructure and reform planning law to improve economic competitiveness. The Bill will enhance the United Kingdom’s energy independence and security by opening up access to shale and geothermal sites and maximising North Sea resources. Legislation will allow for the creation of an allowable solutions scheme to enable all new homes to be built to a zero carbon standard and will guarantee long-term investment in the road network.”.

On increasing the housing supply, she said “My government will increase housing supply and home ownership by reforming the planning system, enabling new locally-led garden cities and supporting small house building firms.” and added “My ministers will continue to promote the Help to Buy and Right to Buy schemes to support home ownership.”

Government press offices have jointly published a lengthy briefing note on today’s Queen’s Speech to flesh out the bare bones of the legislative programme announced from the throne. The proposed Infrastructure Bill in particular seems to be a pot pourri of various measures that go well beyond the provision of infrastructure.

I propose to concentrate solely on those elements in the Bill that are directly relevant to planning as such. Among these elements, the Bill will simplify the process for making changes to Development Consent Orders (DCOs) for nationally significant infrastructure projects by speeding up non-material changes to a DCO, and allowing simplified processes for material changes. It will allow the Examining Authority to be appointed immediately after an application has been accepted and for the panel to comprise two inspectors, in the hope of speeding up the process and saving money.

The Bill will also allow certain types of planning conditions to be discharged upon application if a local planning authority has not notified the developer of their decision within a prescribed time period, reducing unnecessary delay and costs.

“Subject to consultation” [Pause for hollow laughter], the Bill is intended to make it possible for oil and gas companies to conduct underground exploration and extraction (by ‘fracking’) of oil and gas from shale deposits below land not owned either by them or by the owner of the land on whose land the shaft is sunk.

The Government is at pains to point out that this legislation is entirely dependent on the outcome of their current consultation exercise, but you would have to be extremely naïve to believe that the government will be persuaded to desist from pressing ahead with this legislation, irrespective of what consultees may say about it. The press release itself stresses the government’s enthusiasm for pressing on with “full and rapid implementation” of this project to deliver “at least 3-4 billion barrels of oil equivalent more than will otherwise be recovered over the next 20 years, bringing over £200 billion additional value to the UK economy. The Government accepted Wood’s recommendations in full in February 2014, and is introducing measures in this Bill to put the principle of Maximising Economic Recovery of petroleum in the UK into statute.” Not much sign there of a willingness to take on board the strong opposition that is likely to be revealed by the current consultation exercise.

There are also proposals regarding the energy efficiency of new homes. This will take the form of some slight relaxation of the commitment to implementing a zero carbon standard for new homes from 2016. A minimum energy performance standard will be set through the Building Regulations. The remainder of the zero carbon target, the government says, can be met through cost effective off-site carbon abatement measures – known as ‘allowable solutions’ - as an alternative to increased on-site energy efficiency measures or renewable energy (such as solar panels). Small sites, which are most commonly developed by small-scale house builders, will be exempt. What constitutes a “small site” for this purpose will be the subject of consultation, and will then be defined in the regulations.

The Zero Carbon Home standard will be set at Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, but the legislation will allow developers to build to Level 4 as long as they offset through the allowable solutions scheme to achieve Code 5. Energy efficiency requirements for homes are set out in the Building Regulations ( made under powers in the Building Act 1984), but there are insufficient powers in that Act to introduce off-site allowable solutions, so the Infrastructure Bill is expected to contain the necessary enabling powers for this.

Finally, there is a proposed provision that is unlikely to excite much interest among the general public, but which causes considerable concern to conveyancers and to planning lawyers. The Bill will transfer statutory responsibility for local land charges registers (currently maintained by local authorities) to the Land Registry, who will in future be responsible for dealing with local land charges searches submitted by conveyancers on behalf of homebuyers.

Local authorities have built up considerable local knowledge and expertise in the maintenance of their LLC registers and related databases, and are uniquely well placed to be able to give accurate (though not invariably infallible) answers to LLC searches, related enquiries and other queries. This local knowledge and expertise will be entirely lost if or when the LLC registers are transferred to the Land Registry. It is likely to cause considerable difficulty for purchasers and their solicitors, to homeowners and not least to local authorities themselves, especially when contemplating enforcement action, where accurate local records are essential.

This proposal seems to be part of a wider aim to commercialise and even, possibly, to privatise the Land Registry itself, which can only lead to even greater difficulties for all users of the system.

So far as increasing the housing supply is concerned, the Government is proposing In the next session to provide development finance to support smaller builders to develop new homes (through the Builders’ Finance Fund), and to deliver further homes on small sites over the course of its programme. The Government says it will also scale back the imposition of Section 106 levies on small-scale development.

The government also intends to introduce a loan fund to support “up to 10,000” new service plots for custom-build homes, as well as consulting on how to implement their previously announced “Right to Build” to give custom-builders the right to land in their local area. [If the government thinks they will achieve anything like 10,000 self-build or ‘custom-build’ housing starts by this means, they really are living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.]

The government proposes to introduce secondary legislation (a Development Order?) to allow for a locally supported garden city to be built in Ebbsfleet, backed by an Urban Development Corporation, as well as other ‘locally led’ or ‘locally supported Garden Cities. [Quite frankly, I am afraid this is simply ‘pie-in-the-sky’.] The Government says it is also rolling out two further programmes to provide infrastructure support for large-scale, ‘locally supported’ schemes.

More interestingly, from the point of view of those of us involved in day-to-day development management, the government says it will help speed up the time taken for sites granted planning permission to be built out, including reforming “unwieldy procedures and conditions” attached to existing planning permissions, whilst at the same time (they say) protecting environmental safeguards.

They also propose to make further changes to Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO to make it easier for “empty and redundant buildings” [sic] to be converted into productive use, supporting brownfield regeneration and increase the supply of new homes. The changes introduced this year and last year were certainly not confined to empty and redundant buildings, and I don’t suppose the further changes of use that the government is now proposing to allow will be either.

Meanwhile, the government will be pressing on with its “Help to Buy” scheme. They are convinced that it is not causing a housing bubble in London and the South-east, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In the same way, they are determined to press on with the “Right to Buy” scheme which has caused such a devastating loss of social housing stock, and has significantly worsened the plight of homeless families by depriving them of the opportunity of being re-housed in decent housing in the public sector.

Will this be the last gasp of this government? Frankly, the outcome of the General Election on Thursday 7 May next year is completely unpredictable in light of recent electoral upsets, and I am not sure what direction, if any, will be discernible from the result of tomorrow’s Newark by-election. I still believe that if they are sufficiently ‘spooked’ by continuing unpopularity, the government might yet throw the planning system into Reverse, just as Maggie Thatcher did in 1987. Only time will tell.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more