Although I feel sorry for the lady if she has in fact inadvertently done something which is against planning regulations, it's still necessary to comply with whatever is the law in this regard. There's a saying something along the lines of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and I suppose this applies here. Just because you own land - however little - it doesn't always mean that you can do just what you want with it. I agree that little or no harm seems to have been done in this case, but her actions could however create a precedent, which her local council should take seriously - otherwise they may well find that other landowners do the same, using this precedent to back up their case.
One still has to ask what harm she has done. She has built nothing. A farmer could well install a pond, expecially if it helps with drainage, because this is simply caring for the land and using good husbandry.
I agree that council officials are people with a job to do, but we have probably all experienced bureaucracy at work - it is slow and inflexible. Regulations should be applied with sensitivity and respect for people as individuals,surely. There is also a possibility that the regulations should be changed if they lead to actions such as this, and this is ulikely to happen unless there is public pressure for it to happen.
I do think that most people find this decision puzzling and foolish. If it is against common sense, then people have the right to question it and to protest, in my view.
From what I understand, had it not been for new purchasers wanting an extra piece of land, this lady's lovely transformation would never have come to light. We all know about rules and regulations but common sense must also prevail. Power to the OAP I say.
From a quick scan of what's happened I think that some responsibility may lie with the solicitors who acted for the people who bought the land - if this land had an Agricultural Restriction on it then this should have been brought to the purchasers' attention. It should've shown up in the Searches at the very least.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
As I understand it the land in question that was bought and added to the garden was previously part of a field and as such it will have been part of a Registered Agricultural Holding. To use it for anything other than agriculture will be in breach of planning regulations - this should have been made clear to the purchasers by their solicitor when handling the purchase. They could then have applied for permission for Change of Use to Residential - I think that's the appropriate classification. It is quite simple but it requires a fee. Sometimes people don't bother and think it doesn't matter. This proves that it does.
People would be up in arms if a farmer built a house on a field without planning permission - I'm afraid it's the same thing.
This has happened in the past and the house has been demolished.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Good to see you back on the forum, Dovefromabove!!! You make an excellent point - it would be interesting to know what she was told by her solicitor and whether she has grounds for compensation from him.
Snowdrop, I should make it clear that I was agreeing with you, not with Geoff. He and I must have posted at much the same time.
I did read the newspaper report and I think it said that she had bought an extra ten feet of agricultural land to add to her garden, Derek.if I did that, I don't think it would occur to me that growing things and creating a pond to collect the water already present in agricultural land was in any way forbidden.
Posts
Although I feel sorry for the lady if she has in fact inadvertently done something which is against planning regulations, it's still necessary to comply with whatever is the law in this regard. There's a saying something along the lines of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and I suppose this applies here. Just because you own land - however little - it doesn't always mean that you can do just what you want with it. I agree that little or no harm seems to have been done in this case, but her actions could however create a precedent, which her local council should take seriously - otherwise they may well find that other landowners do the same, using this precedent to back up their case.
One still has to ask what harm she has done. She has built nothing. A farmer could well install a pond, expecially if it helps with drainage, because this is simply caring for the land and using good husbandry.
I agree that council officials are people with a job to do, but we have probably all experienced bureaucracy at work - it is slow and inflexible. Regulations should be applied with sensitivity and respect for people as individuals,surely. There is also a possibility that the regulations should be changed if they lead to actions such as this, and this is ulikely to happen unless there is public pressure for it to happen.
I do think that most people find this decision puzzling and foolish. If it is against common sense, then people have the right to question it and to protest, in my view.
From what I understand, had it not been for new purchasers wanting an extra piece of land, this lady's lovely transformation would never have come to light. We all know about rules and regulations but common sense must also prevail. Power to the OAP I say.
From a quick scan of what's happened I think that some responsibility may lie with the solicitors who acted for the people who bought the land - if this land had an Agricultural Restriction on it then this should have been brought to the purchasers' attention. It should've shown up in the Searches at the very least.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Is she prohibited from developing her land ? did she develop land adjacent to hers that is owned by the Council ?
Derek
As I understand it the land in question that was bought and added to the garden was previously part of a field and as such it will have been part of a Registered Agricultural Holding. To use it for anything other than agriculture will be in breach of planning regulations - this should have been made clear to the purchasers by their solicitor when handling the purchase. They could then have applied for permission for Change of Use to Residential - I think that's the appropriate classification. It is quite simple but it requires a fee. Sometimes people don't bother and think it doesn't matter. This proves that it does.
People would be up in arms if a farmer built a house on a field without planning permission - I'm afraid it's the same thing.
This has happened in the past and the house has been demolished.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
answers the questions
Derek
Good to see you back on the forum, Dovefromabove!!! You make an excellent point - it would be interesting to know what she was told by her solicitor and whether she has grounds for compensation from him.
Snowdrop, I should make it clear that I was agreeing with you, not with Geoff. He and I must have posted at much the same time.
I did read the newspaper report and I think it said that she had bought an extra ten feet of agricultural land to add to her garden, Derek.if I did that, I don't think it would occur to me that growing things and creating a pond to collect the water already present in agricultural land was in any way forbidden.
Have you read the article? To whom are you referring?