A long day after a good overnight rest before going to Norwich to see the Broadland Planning committee consider my application, which proved to be a long and unsatisfactory affair with them recommending refusal.
Then some LibDem colleagues joined me at The Hotel Norwich to review re-organising Glisson Printing by use of a new machine. Tonight, seemed even colder than last night but at least the wind had stopped.
I was hoping that I could catch up on quite a bit of sleep last night but I was slow to get off and then felt quite cold as the chill wind whistled around Heronshaw. I still slept in until just before 8.00am, however, and so I felt a bit more rested than yesterday. A nice bath and then simple cereal breakfast and got going in time to leave for Norwich at 9.30am. I drove across town to the Broadland District Council offices for a Planning Committee of the Broads Authority. It was the meeting that was to consider my application to re-develop Heronshaw and it took some time for me to settle into the routine of their meeting and to get a copy of their agenda to study.
** "Read More" BELOW for the complete story **
When eventually my application came up, the consideration took place as follows:- The North Norfolk Planning Officer introduced the application without slides, photographs and without any reference to the drawings that were pinned on a screen to the side. There also appeared to be no drawings or plans in the committee papers. "This is a redevelopment of an existing plot to which there were no deep objections with a high standard of design. There were objections to the possible use and height of the boat-house which the applicants say they require for accommodation of their boat. The recommendation is one of approval with careful conditions attached". The Chairman "We have to be very careful to impose conditions that quite clearly prevent this becoming a separate dwelling". Member, "We have to make sure we've got 'em. Why can't they walk across to the house for toilet?". Officer responding, "They say they are a boating family that lives for their boating activity..".
Another member, "With regard to the main building, the size, scale and form looks bigger to me but I feel the application is O.K. apart from the toilet and showers". Another member, "Can't we approve it without the toilet facilities and sail loft?". Officer, "The applicant insisted that these facilities be in the plan and that is the application that you have to decide. We feel that a section 106 agreement to control the use rather than the existence of these facilities would be satisfactory". Member, "Look what happened before at .....(Barton??), these agreements do not do it, I think that we should refuse it". Officer, "If you want to defer it for a site visit, there are certain....". Interruption from member (Baroness ...). "Another thing; this obscured glass window is a feature more appropriate in an urban area and is out of place in a rural area and the fact that it is a necessary aspect of the design is urbanising it".
Another member, "And do these windows turn out to defeat the object of the privacy. Does it open?". Officer, "I have no information as to whether it is designed as an opening window or not." Member, " Chairman "There is concern that about the certainty of a section 106 agreement", (turning to officer alongside him). Advice officer, "It is certainly possible to prevent the use separately". Member, "I propose refusal". Member, "I second that". Vote 7 against, 3 indicated no preference (believed Chairman, Mr Lloyd and Mr Tolley). Planning Officer, "Scale of boat-house?". Member, "No, sail loft". Another member, "sail loft". Comment:
The members appeared very concerned about the use to which the new boat-house would be put and did not take the officers advice that a section 106 agreement could limit the use. They continually worried about the proposed shower, laundry and toilet. They did not seem to appreciate that the new Heronshaw was to comprise a single upper storey and that the downstairs laundry was being demolished so that putting the downstairs facilities in the adjacent boat-house was logical. Also the additional toilet saving people gardening or working on the boat from trooping upstairs and across the carpets. The officers report mentioned three letters commenting but did not draw the distinction between the only objection (from the modern chalet opposite for non-planning reasons) and the comments of the immediate neighbours who were not objecting because their comments had been addressed in the conditions.
The obscured glass was proposed at their suggestion and building regulations prevent it from opening to explain that. There was no particular mention of the sad plight by nature of subsidence of the existing Heronshaw nor of the very positive comments of the design consultant who felt that the proposals would very much improve the dyke. Also, the committee did not fully understand what we had in mind and, in particular, why we wanted the facilities in the boat-house because we had not fully explained these. The idea is that we first build the boat-house and transfer the laundry facilities. Then we strip out the furnishings from Heronshaw and store them in the garage, sail loft and boat-house whilst the internal and external cladding of Heronshaw are taken off and much of the building disassembled.
We then try supporting the shell of Heronshaw on new piles whilst we investigate how much of this grand old 1920's building (including the thatched roof, floor and frame) can be saved. We have applied for its complete replacement as a precaution as it may not be possible to save it due to deterioration and it might have to be rebuilt with a spot decision being made at the time. There would therefore be a year or eighteen months when the main bungalow could not be used and the facilities of the new boat-house would allow the property to be used for those two seasons. It is probably true that once Heronshaw is renewed, we could make do with just a boat toilet disposal facility in the boat-house; though the toilet would still be useful and the shower more convenient for those coming back in their wet-suits from sports sailing (and capsizing!) in the river.
We felt that the laundry would be better downstairs in the new building next to the washing line and did not want the weight and vibration of the machines upstairs in Heronshaw having experienced the failure of the piles in the past. All this over with, I bumped into the Planning Officer in the car park and discussed with him the above background and the choice I have of either re-submitting the application without the boat-house facilities or filing an appeal and he suggested that I await the minutes and reasons for refusal (about which he was also unclear) and then re-submitted a more detailed application. Then I drove into Norwich to get a plaice-and-chip lunch and then telephoned my architects to report on the above proceedings and they are going to try and talk to the officers to find out how to proceed.
Across to the industrial estate by the airport where I met some colleagues from Cambridge for another meeting to review re-organising Glisson Printing by use of a new machine. It was more successful than this morning's debacle and in a de-briefing afterwards at the Hotel Norwich we agreed a plan of action. Back to Heronshaw and some time making a repair to the central bunk of the Paxton Princess before going up to telephone home and update today's journal. I took particular care to note down today's planning proceedings in case of our going to appeal. Tonight, seemed even colder than last night but at least the wind had stopped.