Tampilkan postingan dengan label to. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label to. Tampilkan semua postingan

Minggu, 22 Mei 2016

Never ask to pass the port

0

THOSE OF YOU who have experienced civilized upbringings must sometimes wonder why we always pass the decanter of port to the left after dinner in the main saloon. Well, the fact is that we don’t always pass it to the left, or clockwise.
We only pass it to the left in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere the decanter goes counter-clockwise. If you are ever in any doubt about which way it should go, just flush some water down the galley sink and see which way it revolves as it gurgles out. In the northern hemisphere it will revolve clockwise. In the southern hemisphere it will gurgle counter-clockwise. And those of you who paid attention in science class at school will know that this is due to the Coriolis effect, so named after the Italian plumber who first noticed it.

Port and cheese is a wonderful way to end a dinner on a boat and it needn’t always be a formal affair. For years we have recommended a small glass of port at sunset when at anchor for the night. Port travels better on boats than most wines do. In fact, I half remember reading somewhere that the Portuguese wine merchants used to ship cargoes of port wine as ballast aboard the Grand Banks fishing fleet so that it was suitably matured by the time they got back home to Portugal.

Cheese and crackers go well with port, and red grapes are good also, but if you’re adventurous you might want to try small bamboo skewers loaded with prosciutto, melon, and cheese. I should warn you that port and potato chips don’t make it.

Now, suppose you’re seated around the cabin table after a fine dinner in the northern hemisphere, and the person on your right neglects to pass the port to you, either by deliberate neglect because he doesn’t like you, or through sheer forgetfulness. What do you do? You would commit a gross breach of etiquette if you said: “Please pass the port.”

By tradition, you must say: “Do you know the Bishop of Norwich?”

Anyone with the civilized kind of upbringing I mentioned earlier will immediately pass the port, along with a suitable apology.  But if your question is met with a blank stare or an answer in the negative, you should say: “He’s a fine fellow, but he always forgets to pass the port.”

This is what is known in civilized circles as a heavy hint. If the guilty party does not respond by passing the port immediately, you are entitled to throw your gauntlet on the table and challenge him to pistols at dawn. Unless you are seated next to a lady, of course. If she looks nonplussed and fails to pass the port, I think you are entitled to grab it from her and help yourself without penalty.

Incidentally, although you may have a glass of port in front of you, obtained in the ordinary, non-combative manner, you should not take a sip until everybody has been served; and it is exceptionally bad form to drink your port before the main toast.

Incidentally, the decanter should be kept circulating until it is empty. This is because even the best ports start to deteriorate within 24 hours if they are exposed to too much oxygen. Most port benefits from an airing for a few hours before being served, to let it “breathe,” and pouring it from bottle to decanter, if done slowly and carefully, will get rid of most of the sediment that tends to collect at the bottom of the bottle. But there’s no point in keeping the remains for tomorrow. Even the ship’s dog wouldn’t look at it then.

Today’s Thought
Wine nourishes, refreshes, and cheers. Wine is the foremost of medicines  . . . whenever wine is lacking, medicines become necessary.
— The Talmud

Tailpiece
“Gimme a return ticket.”
“Yes, sir. Where to?”
“Back here, you idiot.”

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

Read more

Jumat, 20 Mei 2016

Gorge Fly Shop Fishing Reports January 19th

0

Gorge Fly Shop Weekly Fishing Report

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read more

In praise of beautiful overhangs

0

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

Kamis, 19 Mei 2016

Fancy Pants New Renderings

0

Since I originally made my 3D sketches of the shantyboat, a few things changed, a few things forgotten about were remembered, and Ive learned a lot about the boats construction. I wanted to reflect those changes in my 3D sketches.


 In these renderings, you can see the addition of the head which bumps out on the aft porch a bit. Also, of course, the motor well and Mr. Johnson have been added.
Less evident is that I positioned the floor correctly 21 inches below the deck. I also resized and repositioned the windows.

Here are colored and textured versions of same.



What you cant see from the outside is the bucket shitter in the head.


There you go. 3D rendering doesnt make anything more real, but it does help me understand some of the challenges Ill face when I start constructing the cabin.

Also, please note that I was unable to find a Queensland heeler 3D model for Hazel, so for now, the border collie continues to be a stand-in.


This is a rendering of you trying futilely to get on the boat while my 3D models callously look on unwilling to raise a finger to help.

UPDATE: I spent a ridiculous amount of time learning how to create 3D components from illustrator files.  New rendering, now with more Hazel dog!



Read more

Rabu, 18 Mei 2016

Finding the right balance

0


A READER in Anchorage, Alaska, who calls himself or herself “Iceberg” asks if I could repeat a column I recently wrote about balance in sailboats. Well, I don’t remember writing about that subject recently, but I did write about it many years ago. So here’s hoping that this is what you’re after, Iceberg:

 

THERE ARE MANY DESIGN FAULTS that sailboat owners will admit to, but unseaworthiness is not one of them. A skipper might well shrug off a lack of accommodation. He or she might well agree the boat is slow, or hard on the helm. But nobody wants to own an unseaworthy boat.

Seaworthiness is the happy result of a lot of factors but there is one that is often overlooked. It’s called balance.

According to Tony Marchaj, a sailor, pilot, naval architect, and research scientist, “Almost by definition, seaworthiness cannot be achieved if the boat is badly balanced.”

So what do we mean by balance? That question was answered by a famous British designer, J. Laurent Giles. He said good balance is “freedom from objectionable tendencies to gripe or fall off the wind, regardless of angle of heel, speed or direction of wind.”

He added that a well balanced boat had an easy motion in a seaway, that is, she passed easily over the waves, neither tending to plunge the bow deeply into the next wave ahead, nor throwing her nose high in the air as a wave passed the fore body. She would also unfailingly lift her stern to a following sea.

“One requires of the balanced yacht that she should retain the utmost docility and sureness of movement in manoeuvering at sea, in good or bad weather,” he added. “She must maintain a steady course when left to herself, but must be instantly responsive to her helm so that the heavier seas may be dodged if circumstances permit. She must be capable of being left to her own devices, sailing, hove-to, or under bare poles.”

That sounds like a very tall order to me. What sort of hull has this wondrous quality of balance? Here’s Marchaj again:

“In a narrower sense, this means that the inherently balanced hull does not substantially alter its longitudinal trim, and does not alter its course during the process of heeling and rolling.” In other words, to be well balanced, a hull, when heeled, should immerse about the same volume of topsides forward and aft.

Marchaj points out that many of the good old boats still sailing now were either designed for, or affected by, the old International Offshore Rule, which produced shallow, beamy hulls with pinched bows. “Usually, when they heel, the stern is lifted and the bow falls. Consequently, these boats are difficult to control by rudder and are unseaworthy.”

If the bow digs in as the boat heels, a boat will try to round up into the wind, of course, not only because of the wedge effect of the forward sections but also because the center of lateral resistance has moved forward while, at the same time, the center of effort of the sails has moved outward and gains more leverage. This is when the person at the helm suddenly finds the tiller up under his chin. Not that it does much good if the boat heels too far and the rudder comes out of the water.

Luckily, most of us don’t often sail in sea conditions that challenge the full seaworthiness of our boats. But if you should be of a mind to cross an ocean or sail around Cape Horn, balance might be a good thing to keep in mind as you search for the right boat.

Today’s Thought

Everything splendid is rare, and nothing is harder to find than perfection.

— Cicero

Tailpiece

“Are you allowed to smoke at school?”

“No.”

“Are you allowed to drink at school?”

“Of course not.”

“How about dates?”

“Oh, dates are fine, as long as you don’t eat too many.”

Read more

Heres what to give a sailor

0

A few years ago some of my landlubber acquaintances asked me what they should give for Christmas to their friends who own boats. I responded with a column of advice. I’m not sure that it did any good, but I’m thinking there’s no harm in repeating it now. So here goes: 

TINKLE-TINKLE, TINKLE-TINKLE. The man with the kettle is reminding us to give, and give generously. This week there will be sailors all over the world who are receiving Christmas gifts from non-sailors. And it is to the non-sailors that this column is directed.

All right . . .  listen up now, you lot. What are the traditional gifts a non-sailor like you gives a sailor? I’ll tell you: a couple of battens for the mainsail. A stainless shackle or two for the bosun’s bag. A woolly watch cap for cold weather . . . let’s face it folks, I’m sorry, but this is not generous giving. The sailor in your life deserves better.

Now, heavens above, before you protest, let it not be thought that I am a purveyor of ingratitude. I believe as much as the next man that it is more blessed to give than to receive. I, too, believe it’s the thought that counts. I also believe that you should give according to your means and I am an ardent admirer of fiscal responsibility, thrift, frugality, prudence, parsimony and similar human traits that Mr. Roget reminds me of in his thoughtful Thesaurus.

On the other hand, the problem facing us today is that your average sailor does not want a silly hat or another mainsail batten to add to the pile of spares already cluttering the cockpit locker. What he really wants is a couple of gallons of anti-fouling paint at $150 a gallon. Or a 35-pound CQR anchor for $600. Or a new color GPS chartplotter for $800. Or a jib furling system for $2,000. Or a new diesel engine.

Yeah, wow, a new engine. That would please him no end. That would make a really good Christmas present. Ten thousand ought to do it. Fifteen, maybe if they have to build new engine beds as well. It sounds like a lot but it’s not really, honestly it’s not, when you consider the huge amount of joy it will bring. A really huge amount of joy. Honest.

It’s not too late to correct your Christmas mistakes. If you haven’t been generous before, you can be generous now. Tinkle-tinkle. Do your bit to make a sailor happy. Truly happy. Tinkle-tinkle.Give till it hurts. Tinkle-tinkle. I mean, really hurts. Tinkle-tinkle. On behalf of sailors everywhere, I thank you and wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. 

Today’s Thought
Money-giving is a very good criterion . . . of a person’s mental health. Generous people are rarely mentally ill people.
— Dr. Karl A. Menninger
Tailpiece
“What’s that you’re burying?”
“Oh, just one of my chickens.”
“Chicken be darned. That looks like my dog.”
“Yeah, right, the chicken’s inside.”

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

Read more

Down among the mince pies

0


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

Jumat, 13 Mei 2016

And yet more amendments to subordinate legislation

0


And did I mention these other statutory instruments? They were all made on the same date and come into force at the same time as the others - the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Amendment)(England) Order 2015 (SI 2015 No.597), the Town and Country Planning (Compensation)(England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.598), the Town and Country Planning (Section 62A applications)(Procedure and Consequential Amendments)(Amendment) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015 No.797), and the Town and Country Planning General (Amendment)(England) Regulations 2015 (SI 2015 No.807).

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it is rather suspicious that after ministers had made such a fuss about these various proposed changes, they delayed actually laying them before parliament until the very last week of the parliamentary session, when MPs were distracted by thoughts of the coming end of this parliament, not to mention events elsewhere that rather distracted attention from what was or was not going on in the Westminster village.

Incidentally, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015 No. 659) must be one of the shortest-lived statutory instruments on record, having already been repealed by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (SI 2015 No. 596). [Note that the number of the repealed SI is higher than the number of the SI that repeals it – rather odd that, don’t you think?]

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

A Voyage to Remember

0



                                                       A Voyage to Remember, Miami to Panama

When we were snorkeling in Maui recently, talk turned to snorkeling in Panama and our life there.  I recalled an exciting trip I took bringing a boat to Panama from Florida.  Our friends suggested that the trip was interesting and unique enough that I should record it on paper.  So my attempt follows.

When I was on active duty in the US Navy, 1966-68, I initially attended navigation school in San Diego.  The subject was interesting enough to me that I graduated #1 in my class, and continued to study available nautical references on board the two ships on which I served.  Spending many hours per day on the ship’s bridge deck for months at a time (crossing the Pacific twice, navigating the Mekong Delta, patrolling the Vietnam coast and Gulf of Tonkin, and cruising to Japan for maintenance) provided plenty of time for such review.  I became an enlisted supervisor in the navigation department.  Later, in 1976 while visiting Hawaii, I picked up a reference on Polynesian navigation techniques (We, the Navigators) to help understand how the early voyagers were able to find their way in the ocean’s vastness.  In late 1980, our family was living in Panama.  My assistant and her husband were buying a used 46’ trawler (single diesel engine) in Florida which they intended to bring to Panama to live and cruise on.  They asked me if I would act as navigator for the trip from Miami to Colon, Panama.

They offered to pay for my flight to Miami, which I declined.  If I were to do this, I wanted it to be from a sense of friendship rather than any monetary obligation.  I provided a list of the different nautical charts, references, and instruments which would be necessary for such a trip.  My assistant’s husband, Charles, was a retired US Navy diver who now worked for the Panama Canal Company.  He was to fly to Miami and spend one week examining and preparing the boat, including obtaining the necessary navigation supplies, before we left port.  He was one very tough individual and totally fearless.  He recruited a third crew member, Bill, who I hadn’t previously met but who seemed like a solid character.  It would be just the three of us on a quick voyage back to Panama.

I had talked to one of my patients, then employed as a canal pilot, who had previously been a Caribbean charter captain.  He gave me a route recommendation, which appeared reasonable, and loaned me his sextant.  I flew to Miami on a Saturday in early December, took a cab to the yacht basin, and was prepared to leave harbor the following morning.  Upon arrival, I asked about the navigational charts and references and was stunned to discover that none of the publications I requested had been purchased because it was now December 6 and the contained data was only good through the end of the year.  They were deemed too expensive to obtain for such a short period of use, but, without the sight reduction tables, the sextant was useless.  Also, only one chart had been obtained.  It was an overall chart showing Miami toward the top edge and Panama at the bottom edge.  With such a large area to cover, the chart lacked any detail of depths and features of the various coastlines.  Additionally, the trawler had only been maneuvered on various headings once to check the accuracy and deviation of the compass.  The boat was equipped with a radar set, but the range was only a few miles.  LORAN coverage of the southern Caribbean was lacking at that time, and GPS had not yet been invented.  This was shaping up to be quite a challenge, and I was glad I had some knowledge of navigation without dependency on instruments.

Checking on supplies, the trawler was almost empty with very little on board for ballast, just some groceries, a few tools, and our suitcases.  Our only refrigeration was a single large ice chest.  On Sunday morning, we set out on our adventure.  The first leg was to follow the coast of Florida southwest to Key West, then head straight south to the coast of Cuba.  The hurricane season officially ends November 30; we were now in December but encountering strong winds.  As we headed south from Key West we were headed into night, crossing the Gulf Stream with a strong current from the west opposing strong wind from the southeast which made for large, steep waves against our under-ballasted hull.  Forty-six feet may sound like a large vessel, but, on the open ocean, it is a tiny presence.  The strong wind created a surface haze of spray allowing very limited visibility.  Instead of an enclosed bunk, I had a bed to (try to) sleep in at night.  I tried to hold onto the bed, wrapping my arms and legs around the mattress while resting, but was completely thrown out of the bed once by the lurching hull.  Once I heard a scream from Bill, “We are going over!” as the boat slid sideways down the face of a wave with the rudder seemingly useless.  Fortunately, before we were rolled in a trough by the next wave, the rudder finally caught hold and the bow came around sufficiently to face it.  When it was my time to go on watch, I filled a paper cup with water and held it in my hand.  If I were to fall asleep, I would drop the cup, and it would be my alarm.  It worked.  Everyone needed what rest they could get; there was no asking someone else to take part of your watch.

We were glad to see the morning, but were now presented with a new problem.  Our large chart showed no detail of the Cuban coast.  As we continued south, we wanted to approach the coast as a navigational reference but not get so close that Cuban gunboats would escort us into port.  The solution was Polynesian navigation using cloud formations.  Distinctive cloud formations are found over islands.  Although we never actually saw Cuba, we followed its cloud formations west along the coast while staying offshore.

As evening set in, we were ready to jump off from the west end of Cuba toward Mexico.  It is an easy dead reckoning exercise (hard to miss Mexico) but it also meant re-crossing the Gulf Stream as it flows north.  We subtracted a few degrees from our compass course to allow for the current and set off into the night.  The next morning we sighted Isla Mujeres and pulled into port for refueling.  That afternoon we headed back out to sea with Cozumel to starboard and the Swan islands as our next intended waypoint.  Heading southeast, we encountered rising wind and waves from the northeast.  As the hull angled into the face of each oncoming wave, it was obvious that the "thump, thump, thump" sound of the big single diesel slowed significantly.  The engine was losing power.  Upon inspection it was discovered that sludge, from the diesel fuel we just received, was clogging the fuel filter.  The engine was being starved for fuel.  To clean the fuel filter we needed to stop the engine.  Then it was discovered that the alternator, used to charge the batteries, was not working.  The batteries were very low on electrical charge.  If we stopped the engine, it was doubtful that the batteries held enough juice to restart it.  It was time to change course and our plan.

We turned to run with the wind toward the southwest for a smoother ride and slowed boat speed slightly to match the speed of the waves and reduce engine load.  We shut off almost all electrical equipment to save the batteries, and Charles went down in the belly of the boat, holding electrical wires by hand on the batteries until the battery acid started to bubble, in an attempt to recharge the batteries.  Through the night we steered manually, using a flashlight to read the compass, and no running lights.  When it was my turn to lie in bed, I wondered what the future would hold if that engine stopped; what bit of shoreline or reef would the drifting hull crunch coral on?  Fortunately, the engine kept "thumping".

The next morning we could see some of the Bay Islands near the coast of Honduras in the distance off to port.  The wind and waves were still strong.  Charles thought that the downwind island was Roatan and suggested we aim for it.  I pointed out that if he was wrong, we would be unable to work our way back to any of the islands further upwind.  So we angled our course to port and headed for the nearest island.  It turned out to be Roatan.  The old wooden wharf was on the lee side of the island, allowing us to get out of the wind and motor quietly up to the dock (where I was to receive quite a surprise).  I was standing on the bow, dock line in hand, peering intently at the dock’s shabby state with substantial holes punched in its gray, wooden-planked surface.  I wanted to make sure that when I leaped to the dock to tie up, I didn’t put a foot through one of those holes.  Suddenly, a young black man came out on the dock, and his first words, in clear English were, “Hey, Did you hear that John Lennon was shot and killed?”  Here I thought I was in some remote place far from the beaten path, and I was getting the latest news in my own language!  Mainland Honduras inhabitants speak Spanish, but on the Islands they speak English due to previous British influence.  In Roatan we were able to get an alternator from a wrecked yacht which Charles and Bill then installed.  The fuel filter was also cleaned, and we had a good meal and rest at anchor before leaving the next morning.

We cruised east along the Honduran coast taking turns on watch.  The following morning when I came up on deck, I was immediately concerned.  I looked down at the ocean and saw churned brown water.  I yelled to Charles that we were in too shallow of water and were in danger of running aground.  He replied that the radar range he had taken indicated that we were a sufficient distance from the beach.  I pointed out that the radar was not being reflected from the gently sloping sand beach, but from a line of tall palm trees several hundred yards behind the beach.  We immediately turned out to sea until we were in clear blue water.  Later that day we passed Cabo Gracias a Dios which held a lesson for us.  The Cabo is the outlet of a major river marking the border between Honduras and Nicaragua.  A submerged tongue of silt, an invisible delta, stretches miles out to sea at this location.  You can be miles from the coast and still run aground in very shallow water.  Several ship wrecks stood as evidence.

From here we headed south and slightly east out on the open seas, away from the Nicaraguan coast, with the next intended waypoint being the island of San Andres.  The weather was now good, and we were able to troll and catch fish for din

Read more

Rabu, 11 Mei 2016

More banner adverts

0

(Third in an occasional series)

I drew attention in two previous posts to large banner adverts displayed in Venice (Monday, 13 February 2012) and in Paris (Tuesday, 7 August 2012). The point of those two posts was that even in very sensitive locations, in terms of the historic townscape, the authorities in those cities are prepared to allow the display of banner adverts on buildings which are shrouded during the execution of repairs and maintenance. Bearing in mind that such advertising displays are, by their very nature, temporary, there can be no serious objection to such advertising to hide the paraphernalia of building work and scaffolding. Where the work comprises conservation of the historic fabric, the advertising revenue could even contribute to the cost of restoration.

The essential point I was seeking to make, is that if the city authorities in Venice are prepared to allow such temporary banner adverts in a World Heritage Site, such as the Piazza San Marco or, if the City of Paris is happy to allow them in the Place Vendôme, then there really can’t be any objection to similar short-term adverts in this country, even in conservation areas or World Heritage Sites, where they serve to hide the detritus of building work. And there certainly can’t be any objection to such advertising in the average and often undistinguished town centres of many English towns and cities.


I visited Venice again a month or so ago and, as I had expected, the Doge’s Palace is now visible in all its glory, sans advertising, as is the Bridge of Sighs, which had been similarly hidden from view on my last visit. The east front of Sansovino’s Library, facing onto the Piazzetta is also now free of advertising, but restoration work is continuing on various other parts of the Palazzo Reale, and so banner adverts are currently displayed over the shrouding on the south front of the Zucca (facing onto the Mole) and also at the west end of the Piazza San Marco (the range added to the palace by Napoleon, and now forming part of the Museo Correr). The accompanying photos illustrate these adverts.

[The “Caro” adverts on the façade of the Museo Correr would probably have been there anyway, as they were advertising a display in the museum of sculptures by the British artist, Anthony Caro, which was part of the Biennale.]

I doubt whether we will ever overcome the precious attitudes of town planners in this country to outdoor advertising, and so the only practical way of ensuring that banner adverts can be displayed in future on buildings under repair (or awaiting demolition, such as the late unlamented Tollgate House in Bristol), without being obstructed or frustrated by over-zealous town planners, is to amend the Control of Advertisements Regulations to give deemed to consent to such adverts.

Uncle Eric has demonstrated his enthusiasm for flying flags; so perhaps he should now embrace the joys of outdoor advertising in the same way.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Senin, 09 Mei 2016

Uncle Eric’s wheelie bin crusade

0


Since it’s Friday, I couldn’t resist passing on to you a joke sent to me by Stephen Ibbitson.

The date is some time in 2015 (I suggest before May of that year). Uncle Eric is walking down a new street and sees a collection of wheelie bins standing there.

"I thought wed made sure new houses had to store their wheelie bins out of sight?" he lamented to his Permanent Secretary.

"Oh, but we did, Minister. Those are the new houses!"

--------------

There is in fact a possibility that Uncle Eric may have moved to pastures new before the next general election. The Westminster rumour mill already has him marked down as the next Tory Chief Whip in the expected cabinet reshuffle during the current summer recess. If this appointment does eventuate, no doubt we can look forward to predictions that he will sit firmly on any Tory MPs who step out of line in the run-up to the general election, and that he will personally squash any backbench rebellions.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Avoiding changes of use from B1 a to C3

0


NOTE: For completely up-to-date and fully comprehensive coverage of the changes of use that are now authorised by the GPDO, and the way in which these are (or should be) handled by Local Planning Authorities, we would strongly recommend readers to obtain a copy of the author’s new book on the subject - ”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.

It has been reported that Brighton & Hove wish to prevent changes of use from Class B1(a) to C3 within their area by means of an Article 4 Direction. They were one of the authorities that applied unsuccessfully to be exempted from the provisions of the amended GPDO before these changes were made.

A news report states that the council “are to consider applying for an Article 4 direction from the Department for Communities and Local Government so that some areas of the city are exempt from the policy.” Strictly speaking, an LPA does not in fact need to apply to De-CLoG for an Article 4 Direction; they have the power to make the Direction themselves. Even if there are objections to the Direction, there is no longer a requirement for the Direction to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, although the LPA must properly consider any objections before confirming the Direction.

What the writer of the news story may have had in mind is that under the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 (SI 2010 No.654) LPAs are obliged to give notice of Article 4 directions to De-CLoG, and cannot confirm them for 28 days or such longer period as the Secretary of State may specify following notice of the draft Article 4 direction having been received by De-CLoG from the LPA.

The Secretary of State has power under Art. 5(13) to make a direction cancelling or modifying an Article 4 Direction at any time before or after its confirmation by the LPA, although Art 6(3) prevents the S of S from using this power in respect of certain classes of PD in a conservation area. Art 6(4) also prevents the S of S from modifying (but not from cancelling) an Article 4 direction which relates to a listed building (if it does not relate to land of any other description).

It may be the requirement to give notice of the Article 4 Direction to De-CLoG, coupled with the power that Uncle Eric has to make a direction cancelling or modifying an Article 4 Direction, that has led Brighton & Hove to decide that they need to go cap-in-hand to De-CLoG to beg them not to cancel an Article 4 Direction if they make one.

So, as I pointed out in a post some months ago (long before the amendments to the GPDO were finally made), Uncle Eric does have the whip hand in such matters, and can promptly overrule any Article 4 directions which seek to remove the extended PD rights he has so recently created. When these changes were first mooted last year I predicted a sort of ministerial ping-pong match, with Uncle Eric lobbing the ball back over the net every time an LPA makes an Article 4 direction in an attempt to remove the extended PD rights. But do De-CLoG ministers really want a series of stand-up fights with LPAs over this? I suspect that saner counsels may in fact prevail, and there may be some sort of negotiated settlement which would allow Brighton & Hove and other LPAs to make Article 4 Directions that exclude the permitted development right to change from a use within Class B1(a) to C3 in some parts of their area, or which modify this PD right in some other way that would exclude certain types of building or particular types of conversion.

Brighton & Hove are due to take a decision on 11 July on how to take this proposal forward, and it will be interesting to see how this develops. Other LPAs will no doubt be following this matter with considerable interest.

© MARTIN H GOODALL
___________________

UPDATE (12 July) : Brighton and Hove are going ahead with their Article 4 Direction, and it seems that a number of other councils are now proposing to make these directions. It will be interesting to see whether Uncle Eric or the boy Boles use their ministerial powers to block these directions. Meanwhile Islington LBC is contemplating a legal challenge to the GPDO amendment order by way of judicial review, based on the way the consultation process was carried out prior to the governments decision as to whether particular authorities should be exempted from the order. Other councils could join in if these proceedings get off the ground.


Read more

Minggu, 08 Mei 2016

B1 to C3 dispute hots up

0


NOTE: There have been significant changes to the law since this blog post was published, and so the material printed below does not accurately reflect the current position. For completely up-to-date and fully comprehensive coverage of this topic, we would strongly recommend readers to obtain a copy of the author’s new book on the subject - ”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.

It seems that the number of applications already made for prior approval of change of use from office to residential use has significantly exceeded even the government’s expectations, and some local planning authorities have been seriously spooked by the potential ‘loss’ of office floorspace (although whether their concerns are objectively justified is perhaps open to question).

No doubt in response to this, several authorities have now made or are seriously thinking of making Article 4 Directions, but it remains to be seen whether De-CLoG ministers will use their powers to block these directions.

Meanwhile, Islington LBC, jointly with Richmond LBC, applied to the High Court on Thursday of last week for permission to bring a claim for Judicial Review of the GPDO amendments. Subordinate legislation can be challenged in this way, although the two authorities will need to persuade the Court that the amending order was significantly tainted with illegality. I have not seen the grounds, but I assume that they are based primarily on the adequacy of the consultation carried out by De-CLoG before going ahead with the amendment order, and the rejection of many authorities’ applications for exemption.

I did express misgivings at the time about the apparently peremptory dismissal of the vast majority of the applications for exemptions. There is no doubt scope for argument over whether ministers took into account all material considerations or, in light of the grounds on which LPAs were seeking exemption, as to whether the decision to dismiss these applications was Wednesbury unreasonable. The whole way the government went about this process (giving LPAs only a fortnight to seek exemption from subordinate legislation that had not even been drafted at that time) was unorthodox, to say the least, and I predicted that one or more applications for Judicial Review might well result from this.

The timing is interesting. The cause of action arose before 1 July, so the new six-week time limit does not apply to this JR application. On the other hand, by the time the JR application was issued in the High Court, 11 weeks had elapsed since the amending order was made on 9 May. So it seems to me that the two LPAs may be at some risk of being told that they have not applied promptly, as required by the Civil Procedure Rules (both before and after the recent rule changes relating to JR). It is certainly a point I would take if I were acting for De-CLoG.

It is impossible to say what the outcome of this litigation might be but, in the meantime, the amending order remains in full force and effect, and LPAs (including those who are challenging this legislation in the High Court) have no choice but to continue processing prior approval applications, in default of which the right to make the change of use from B1(a) to C3 will become automatic 56 days after the application is received by the LPA.
______________

UPDATE (19 August): Lambeth LBC are now joining in the party. Their bid to apply for judicial review would appear to have been made at least 14 weeks after the cause of action first arose (with the making of the GPDO amendment order on 9 May). I rather doubt whether it could be argued that time only started to run from the date when the order came into effect (30 May) (on the theoretical, but highly improbable, basis presumably that parliament might not have approved the order), but that would still be 11 weeks prior to Lambeth’s application being submitted to the High Court. The old 12-week long-stop date applies to these proceedings, but the issue of ‘promptness’ would still have to be taken into account. It will be interesting to see how the High Court deals with the time issue in these proceedings, bearing in mind the reliance that has been placed on the new legislation in the meantime by numerous applicants for prior approval of office to residential conversions.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

And now – A1 to C3

0


NOTE: There have been significant changes to the law since this blog post was published, and so the material printed below does not accurately reflect the current position. For completely up-to-date and fully comprehensive coverage of this topic, we would strongly recommend readers to obtain a copy of the author’s new book on the subject - ”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.

Planning officers who are worried about the recently introduced rules allowing change of use from B1(a) (office use) to C3 (residential use), will soon have more to worry about. The government is preparing proposals to allow conversion of “some” retail floorspace (I don’t know yet what sort of premises might be involved) to residential use.

The spin put on it by Uncle Eric at a recent conference, when he foreshadowed these proposals, referred to “dormant out-of-date offices, empty shops and boarded up buildings”, which he intends to turn into new homes. He believes this will bring life back to town centres. Some town planners might not agree. Would it really strengthen the ‘vitality and viability’ of shopping centres, or just produce more dead frontage? No doubt primary retail frontages will be excluded, and we shall have to see the detail of De-CLoG’s proposals before we can understand the possible impact, and (perhaps more important for our day-to-day work) precisely how the new PD rights will work in practice. One can only hope that they will be less ambiguous than those set out in the recent amendment to the GPDO in May.

Pickles also seems to have wittered on in the same speech about “giving rural communities new power to turn old barns and outhouses into new homes and businesses”, which he claims will boost the rural economy whilst protecting the open countryside from development. The recent changes to the GPDO definitely do not permit change of use of agricultural buildings to residential, so is the government seriously proposing to make it possible to do this in future? We shall have to see what emerges in the promised consultation document, which is promised before the end of this month, and then in the resulting amending legislation – in the form of yet another amendment to the GPDO.

If the GPDO is to be amended yet again, maybe this would be a good opportunity for De-CLoG to sort out the muddle in paragraph N of their amending order in May, so as to drop the requirement that the LPA should “have regard to the NPPF as if the application were a planning application” and make it clear that the only considerations to be taken into account are those relating to any transport and highways impacts of the development and any contamination risks or flooding risks on the site. Otherwise, why make these changes of use permitted development at all?

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Office to residential – some interesting examples

0


NOTE: There have been significant changes to the law since this blog post was published, and so the material printed below (including the appended comments) does not accurately reflect the current position. For completely up-to-date and fully 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.

There are interesting and encouraging signs that some LPAs are taking a positive and proactive approach to the new permitted development right allowing the conversion of offices to residential use. Furthermore, despite the doubts I expressed initially, it seems that there are no qualms about multiple conversions, involving the creation of a significant number of new flats within a single large office building.

I understand that Birmingham City Council has recently approved a 120-unit conversion in an office building in the city under the prior approval procedure introduced in May, rather than by means of an application for full planning permission. Other large schemes are in the pipeline around the country, but a few authorities are showing a degree of reluctance to accept such conversions, even for single units. As I have observed before, we shall have to await the outcome of a number of appeals before it becomes clear how the issues that arise from the drafting of the legislation are likely to be resolved.

It seems that the LPAs that are responding positively to these prior approval applications are fully prepared to accept that there is no opportunity to seek any element of affordable housing in such schemes and that the scope for securing other benefits from developers is limited. If there are any LPAs that don’t accept this, they may find out the hard way, through the appeals process, what the true limits of their powers are under the new prior approval procedure.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Sabtu, 07 Mei 2016

Guide to Permitted Changes of Use published

0


My book, A Practical Guide to Permitted Changes of Use has now been published, and pre-ordered copies are now being distributed by post. The digital version of the book will also be available this week. We are holding the pre-publication price for direct orders for a further week, until 13 November. After that, the price will be £40.

Advance orders have exceeded all expectations, and about two-thirds of the original print run has already been sold. An early reprint is on the cards.

Readers who have not yet made up their mind to buy a copy of the book may find it helpful to have a note of the book’s contents, and so I am reproducing below the complete Table of Contents.

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION


1.1 Development orders – an overview
1.2 Loss or removal of permitted development rights
1.3 Changes of use under Part 3
1.3.1 The physical extent of changes of use permitted by Part 3
1.3.2 Commencement and completion of the permitted development
1.4 Temporary uses under Part 4
1.5 Caravan sites and recreational uses under Part 5
1.6 Saving provisions in respect of the 1995 Order
Table 1: Changes of use permitted by Part 3
Table 2: Changes of use permitted by Part 4
Table 3: Changes of use permitted by Part 5


CHAPTER 2
CHANGES OF USE TO / FROM SHOPS OR ‘RETAIL’ SERVICES


2.0 Preliminary note

2.1 Changes of use to and from use as a shop

2.1.1 Change of use from a catering use to use as a shop
2.1.2 Change of use from ‘retail services’ to use as a shop
2.1.3 Change of use of an agricultural building to use as a shop
2.1.4 Change of use from a shop to other uses

2.2 Changes of use to or from ‘retail services’

2.2.1 Change of use from catering use to ‘retail services’
2.2.2 Change of use of shop to ‘retail services’
2.2.3 Change of use of betting office / pay day loan shop to ‘retail services’
2.2.4 Change of use of agricultural building to ‘retail services’
2.2.5 Changes of use from ‘retail’ services to other uses

2.3 Flats above shops or ‘retail services’

2.3.1 Change of use to shop plus flat(s)
2.3.2 Reversion of part residential use to shop
2.3.3 Change of use of shop to ‘retail services’ plus flat(s)
2.3.4 Partial residential conversion from ‘retail services’
2.3.5 Change of use of shop and flat(s) to ‘retail services’
2.3.6 Reversion of part residential use to ‘retail services’
2.3.7 Conditions applying to changes of use under Class G
2.3.8 Development not permitted by Class H

CHAPTER 3
CHANGES OF USE TO AND FROM CATERING USES

3.1 Change of use of pub, bar or hot food take-away to café or restaurant


3.1.1 Change of use involving a pre-2005 A3 use
3.1.2 Change of use involving a post-2005 A3 use
3.1.3 Restrictions on changes of use from Use Class A4

3.2 Change of use from Use Class A1 or A2 (etc.) or Casino to Café or Restaurant

3.2.1 The development permitted
3.2.2 The qualifying use
3.2.3 Exclusions
3.2.4 Floorspace limit
3.2.5 Prior approval
3.2.6 Commencement

3.3 Other changes of use to café or restaurant

3.4 Changes of use from catering uses to other uses

CHAPTER 4
CHANGES OF USE TO AND FROM OTHER COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES


4.1 Changes of use to and from a business, industrial or storage use
4.2 Changes of use to and from use as a hotel or guest-house, etc.
4.3 Changes of use to and from use as a residential institution
4.4 Changes of use to and from Use Class C2A
4.5 Change of use from Casino or Amusements to other uses
4.6 Temporary changes of use
4.7 Changes of use between flexible uses

CHAPTER 5
CHANGES OF USE TO AND FROM RESIDENTIAL USE


5.0 Preliminary note

5.1 Changes of use between single dwelling and house in multiple occupation

5.2 Residential conversion of a shop or from financial or professional services


5.2.1 The development permitted
5.2.2 The qualifying use
5.2.3 Exclusions
5.2.4 Floorspace limit
5.2.5 Limits on building operations
5.2.6 Prior approval
5.2.7 Commencement and completion
5.2.8 Exclusion of permitted development under Part 1
5.2.9 Other permitted development that may be possible

CHAPTER 6
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF AMUSEMENT ARCADE OR CENTRE OR CASINO


6.1 The development permitted
6.2 The qualifying use
6.3 Exclusions
6.4 Floorspace limit
6.5 Limits on building operations
6.6 Prior approval
6.7 Commencement and completion
6.8 Exclusion of other permitted development

CHAPTER 7
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL OFFICES


7.1 The development permitted
7.2 Qualifying office use
7.3 Exclusions
7.4 Prior approval
7.5 Commencement and completion
7.6 Permitted development within the curtilage under Part 1
7.7 Proposed changes to Class O

CHAPTER 8
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF ‘STORAGE OR DISTRIBUTION CENTRE’


8.1 The development permitted
8.2 Restricted curtilage
8.3 Qualifying storage use
8.4 Exclusions
8.5 Floorspace limit
8.6 Prior approval
8.7 Commencement and completion
8.8 Exclusion of other permitted development

CHAPTER 9
RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING


9.1 The development permitted
9.2 Restricted curtilage
9.3 Qualifying agricultural use
9.4 The definition of “agriculture” and “agricultural use”
9.5 Exclusions
9.6 Limits on numbers and floorspace
9.7 Limits on building operations
9.8 Prior approval
9.9 Commencement and completion
9.10 Exclusion of other permitted development

CHAPTER 10
CHANGE OF USE TO USE AS A STATE-FUNDED SCHOOL OR REGISTERED NURSERY

10.1 Change of use of various commercial premises


10.1.1 The development permitted
10.1.2 Exclusions
10.1.3 Restrictions on further changes of use
10.1.4 Prior approval
10.1.5 Operational development
10.1.6 Commencement and completion
10.1.7 Change of use back to previous use

10.2 Change of use of an agricultural building

10.2.1 The development permitted
10.2.2 Restricted curtilage
10.2.3 Qualifying agricultural use
10.2.4 Exclusions
10.2.5 Floorspace limit
10.2.6 Prior approval
10.2.7 Commencement and completion
10.2.8 Restrictions on further changes of use
10.2.9 Operational development
10.2.10 Exclusion of permission for further agricultural buildings

CHAPTER 11
CHANGES OF USE TO AND FROM USE FOR ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE


11.1 The development permitted
11.2 The qualifying use
11.3 Exclusions
11.4 Floorspace limit
11.5 Prior approval
11.6 Commencement and completion
11.7 Operational development
11.8 Changes of use from use for assembly and leisure

CHAPTER 12
FLEXIBLE USES

12.1 Changes of use within the terms of a flexible planning permission

12.2 Change of use of an agricultural building to a flexible use


12.2.1 The development permitted
12.2.2 Restricted curtilage
12.2.3 Qualifying agricultural use
12.2.4 Exclusions
12.2.5 Limits on floorspace
12.2.6 Exclusion of building operations
12.2.7 Prior approval
12.2.8 Commencement and completion
12.2.9 Exclusion of other permitted development

CHAPTER 13
PRIOR APPROVAL APPLICATIONS


13.0 Introductory note
13.1 The nature of a prior approval application
13.2 Form of application
13.3 Application in respect of building or other operations
13.4 Written description of the development
13.5 Plans and other drawings
13.5.1 Drawings of proposed building works
13.6 Other information
13.7 Application fees

CHAPTER 14
PROCESSING AND DETERMINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL APPLICATION


14.1 Request for further information
14.2 Invalid applications
14.3 Consultations
14.4 Determining the prior approval application
14.4.1 Transport and highways
14.4.2 Contamination risks
14.4.3 Odour impacts
14.4.4 Impacts of waste storage and handling
14.4.5 Opening hours
14.4.6 Air quality
14.4.7 Noise
14.4.8 Light impacts
14.4.9 Flooding risks
14.4.10 Retail and similar impacts
14.4.11 Rural development policy
14.4.12 Design issues
14.4.13 Consideration of responses to consultations
14.4.14 The National Planning Policy Framework
14.4.15 The Development Plan
14.4.16 Other considerations
14.4.17 Human rights
14.5 Conditions
14.6 Planning obligations
14.7 Community Infrastructure Levy
14.8 Appeals
14.9 Lawful Development Certificate
14.10 Carrying out the development

CHAPTER 15
THE 56-DAY RULE


15.0 Preliminary note
15.1 General approach
15.2 Commencement of the 56-day period
15.3 Extending the 56-day period
15.4 Has the application actually been determined?
15.5 Notifying the applicant of the authority’s decision
15.6 Commencement of development in default of notification of a decision

CHAPTER 16
TEMPORARY USE OF OPEN LAND


16.1 The scope of the temporary use permitted
16.2 The temporary nature of the permitted change of use
16.3 Reversion to normal use of the land
16.4 Moveable structures

CHAPTER 17
TEMPORARY CHANGES OF USE OF VARIOUS BUILDINGS

17.1 Temporary use as a state-funded school


17.1.1 The development permitted
17.1.2 Exclusions and other conditions
17.1.3 Operational development

17.2 Temporary use of various business premises

17.2.1 The development permitted
17.2.2 Exclusions, restrictions and other conditions

CHAPTER 18
TEMPORARY USE OF BUILDINGS OR LAND FOR FILM-MAKING


18.1 The development permitted
18.2 Exclusions and restrictions
18.3 Prior approval

CHAPTER 19
TEMPORARY USE AS A CARAVAN SITE


19.1 The scope of the temporary use permitted
19.2 The definition of “caravan site” and “caravan”
19.3 Cessation of the temporary use
19.4 Caravans within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse
19.5 Temporary caravan camping on a small site
19.6 Temporary caravan camping on larger sites
19.7 Temporary caravan camping by exempted organisations
19.7.1 Certification of exempted organisations
19.8 Temporary accommodation for agricultural or forestry workers
19.9 Temporary accommodation for workers on building and engineering sites
19.10 Travelling showmen’s sites
19.11 Power to withdraw certain exemptions

CHAPTER 20
OTHER CAMPING AND RECREATIONAL USES


20.1 Use for camping and recreation by certain organisations
20.2 Other camping uses

APPENDIX A
LOSS OR REMOVAL OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS


A.1 The pre-existing use
A.2 Loss or abandonment of the pre-existing use
A.3 Continuation of the pre-existing use
A.4 Unlawful buildings and uses
A.5 Removal of permitted development rights by condition
A.6 Planning obligations under section 106
A.7 Restrictive covenants
A.8 Article 4 Directions
A.9 Revocation or amendment of a development order
A.10 Exclusion of permitted development by the GPDO itself
A.11 Development requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment
A.12 Change of use after only a brief period of existing use

APPENDIX B
THE PLANNING UNIT AND THE CONCEPT OF ‘CURTILAGE’

B.1 The Planning Unit


B.1.1 The planning unit created by a planning permission
B.1.2 The rule in Burdle
B.1.3 The ‘agricultural unit’

B.2 The ‘curtilage’ of a building and its significance in planning terms

B.2.1 The definition of ‘curtilage’
B.2.2 The curtilage of a listed building
B.2.3 Other buildings attached to a listed building
B.2.4 Extension of the curtilage
B.2.5 References to ‘curtilage’ in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO

APPENDIX C
THE USE CLASSES ORDER


C.1 Specific exclusions from the Use Classes Order
C.2 Mixed uses
C.3 Physical and legal extent of uses within the UCO
C.4 The Use Classes


I fear this blog has become rather narrowly focused on permitted changes of use in recent weeks but, now that my book has been published, I hope to get back to other aspects of planning law in future posts. I will start by taking a look at the Housing and Planning Bill in the near future.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

 
Powered by Blogger