Many thanks to Owen Sennitt for his articles in the EDP highlighting our plight. Since your articles we have observed 31 people stopping to look at our open day posters on the gate.
Dear Steve and Mary,
Thank you for your email.
Not quite the end of the road as you could replace the Yurt with a Touring Caravan which is of course moveable so does not need planning permission.
Perhaps worth a thought?
The whole system is quite mad as you are hardly going to be personally at risk even if your Reserve did flood. I am so sorry but there is little common sense and pragmatism left in this lovely country of ours!
If at first you don’t succeed try, try and try again!
Best wishes,
Henry.
Henry Cator OBE, DL
Cator + Co
Chair of Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance
Dear Mary and Steve
I am sorry to learn of the Inspector’s decision It is true that flooding will become much more frequent and intense over the coming decade so that part of the decision was almost inevitable.
What is important is that you both have created a wonderful legacy for the Broads which will become even more important all conservation sites come under pressure under climate alteration. You fought a brave and honourable fight and I salute your fortitude and legacy
Very best wishes
Tim O’Riordan
President of both the Norfolk Branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
Hi Steve and Mary,
What a fabulous site you have at Postwick. It was a pleasure to work there over the last two days.
I sincerely hope that those that are attempting to deny you use of the yurt will seriously reconsider their objections as you are doing a great job for nature in the Broadland area and far from having any possible detrimental impact it is all positive. The yurt cannot be seen from anywhere and it is actually in keeping with the natural environment. You certainly have the support from the Bure Valley Conservation Group (BVCG) members and we do conservation work weekly throughout the Broadland area.
Kind regards
Brian - programme co-ordinator BVCG
Dear Steve and Mary,
I was lucky to be part of the conservation group raking your meadow today. The site is a rare, valuable asset to Broadland and we are lucky to have such devoted and passionate people leading this precious project. I was extremely disappointed to hear of the issues you are having with the Broads Authority over the planning consent for what is clearly a hub to enable you to carry out the conservation duties , practical and managerial, and to immerse yourselves into the location you are carefully monitoring.
I was particularly disturbed to hear that you’ve also been given notice to take down the dead hedging by July. It was teeming with wildlife while we were there .To take it down - particularly within bird nesting period -is almost certainly detrimental to wildlife. This advice, given the nature of the location, is very insensitive and inappropriate and shows a complete lack of understanding from the planning department.
It is clear to all of us there today that your priority is to protect the nature on this site and we sincerely hope you are able to continue.
Kind regards,
Lorraine Colledge
The Studio Above, Acle, Norfolk
Dear Steve and Mary,
A bit disappointing that somehow the fact that the previous owner of the site lived locally was not understood by the Inspector; he didn’t seem to understand the reason for overnight stay.
The Broad’s officers SHOULD now accept that their “pure” planning case has been lost. But from previous emails it seems that they are simply uncooperative. It needs direct person to person negotiations with those responsible for the flooding and nutrient issues. If compromises can be achieves on these, personally I would then go for a 3 year temporary planning permission. This can always be renewed at the end of 3 years by which time, in the light of experience, it might be possible to arrange for some other longer term arrangement so that the next owner of the site can continue the conservation and scientific work.
I can’t criticise the BA’s officers for doing their best to protect their “National Park” when confronted with endless pressures for inappropriate development. But there comes a time when they have to accept that not everyone is trying to fiddle ways around the policies and there are genuine folk who are doing something different and worthwhile, as at Blackwater Carr.
This whole experience must be draining. I hope you can summon up enough energy to see if a sensible solution can be achieved.
Kind regards,
Alan
Inspector of Planning retired
Dear Steve and Mary,
I know how much you have put into this project and to have it refused, even though the positive aspects of your work were (finally) recognised must be doubly disappointing and dispiriting.
However, as Alan has suggested, the fact that the purpose of your “development” has been recognised by the inspector and the leisure plot designation dismissed, which thereby removes any objections under DM50, the inspector’s report shifts focus to more technical/scientific issues.
Now that the validity of your scientific field work has been established, the use of the yurt is properly based on the field research that you are doing. The inspector suggests that the yurt might not be needed because the previous owner did his observations without one. This suggestion, made initially by the BA was, as far as I am aware never fully addressed as it was seen as a frivolous comment by those who did not appreciate any of the work that you were doing, or the fact that the previous owner lived locally. The inspector, I understand, is a lawyer and, as such, may be understood not to have significant experience with biological conservation field work.
The Flood Harm Risk:
With the establishment of the “development” as a conservation activity, it should be understood that flooding in this particular part of the Broads is a completely natural occurrence which, in fact, makes the field work at Blackwater Carr even more interesting and important. Therefore flooding, per se, should not be considered only as a risk factor but also as an opportunity to study its ecological effects, which may provide guidance on conservation measures. This therefore calls for a balanced approach to flood risk assessment.
Nutrient Neutrality Issues
No figures have been provided for the permissible limits
Have any measurements been made at the site, if so when and by whom. Were the owners informed and able to be present?
Composting toilets are designed to combine the nutrients provided into stable organic material that will not allow the added nitrogen and phosphorous to leach out into the soil or ground water so that eutrophication is greatly reduced..
The management of the site has changed considerably and any changes in nutrient balance as a result of these changes would surely need to be taken as part of the nutrient accounting for the whole site.
Within 10 metres of the research site on the west bank of the Yare river there are 22 fishing “stations”. These are occupied by scores of persons on weekends and sometimes in the summer months a hundred or more may be seen fishing on the river bank. Many spend a whole day fishing.
No toilet facilities are provided for these crowds, and none exist within several kilometres. A quick calculation based on the numbers observed of the nutrient load being provided by these fishermen (and women) would far exceed any imbalance provided by one composting toilet! Is it possible that there is some inconsistency with respect to enforcement of these nutrient neutrality standard
It is so frustrating to have the Inspector demolish the objections from BA and then replace them with some more technical issues that seem to be either easily solved by a dimple restriction of access in one case (flood harm risk) or are lacking critical evidence (nutrient neutrality). I don’t envy your decision making task!
Brian
Coordinator, National Parks Environment Unit at National Parks Authority
Antigua and Barbuda
Good morning Steve and Mary,
I have received a copy of the appeal decision. It is rather frustrating and most disappointing.
The Inspector has concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on 2 grounds.
1. The Flood Risk and the lack of a sequential test
2. The nutrient impacts of the development
With regards to the following he disagreed with the council.
1. That there would be adverse impacts from the yurt, bench and fence.
2. Policy DM50 is not relevant and the site is not a leisure plot.
With regards to flood risk and the sequential test, I checked this with my colleague who worked on this previously. Apparently, it was agreed between the flood risk cnsultant and the Broads Authority during the consideration of the application that it was impractical to accommodate the yurt in an alternative location and was concluded that the sequential test did not apply.
With regards to the Nutrient Neutrality point, the ecologist who did the NN assessment advised that the information supplied was sufficient for the proposal. The inspector appears to disagree. He does not give any consideration to the fact that the toilet did not form part of the application as it already exists on the site and you could stay on the site without sleeping over and use the toilet just as much. It would change marginally with you sleeping over with perhaps very occasional use during the night.
In summary, he has thrown away two of the hurdles and the two technical matters remain.
Nicole Wright
Head of planning, Rural Solutions
Paul Rice1st June 9:04 am
User ID: 4363910
Visited the site twice in the last five years and it was well managed for wildlife and conservation, The yurt cannot be seen from the river or the access road. The knowledge that the couple imparts to all when people visit is amazing and should be applauded, This situation further demonstrates the apparent double standard thinking of the authority and with regard to flooding, the only victims would be the couple, This is a sad situation that should, by looking at the benefits to wildlife and education, have not happened. A simple granting of permission with conditions would have been best.
Comentarios