Boat Plans Skiff | Prior approval applications – the 56 day rule

Boat Plans Skiff

NOTE: 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.

I have been busy in the past few weeks working on my first book, of which more anon, but as a result there has been no time to write this blog. One of the topics which I have been considering is the widened scope for changes of use under Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO – especially the conversion of office buildings (under Class J) and of agricultural buildings (under Class MB). This has been the subject of several posts in this blog in the past couple of years, and so I won’t repeat that material here.

As readers will be aware, these changes of use cannot be made until an application has been made to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required in respect of certain aspects of the development (as specified in the relevant Class in Part 3). The LPA has 56 days in which to determine the application, and this has been the source of some difficulty, due to uncertainty as to precisely when the 56-day period begins and precisely what the LPA has to do (and when) in order to prevent the development going ahead without their prior approval after the end of the 56-day period.

So far as the start of the 56-day period is concerned, the wording of paragraph N(9) in Part 3 is perfectly clear. The development cannot be begun before “the expiry of 56 days following the date on which the application was received by the local planning authority”. Thus Day 1 of the 56-day period is the day immediately following the date on which the application is received by the LPA (no matter what day of the week that was). The incidence of weekends and public holidays has no effect on the 56-day period.

Some LPAs seem to be under the impression that time does not begin to run until they have ‘validated’ or registered the application, but this is not so. Provided the application complies with the requirements of paragraph N and is accompanied by the correct fee, the 56-day period will begin to run on the day after it is delivered to the LPA. If payment of the fee follows after the application itself, then the application may be considered to be complete upon subsequent receipt of the fee, and the 56-day period will then commence on the day after that date. (See Infocus Public Networks Ltd v. SSCLG [2010] EWHC 3309 (Admin).)

Two points may arise with regard to the LPA’s compliance with the 56-day rule. One relates to the validity of their determination of the prior approval application (or whether it has in fact been determined); the other relates to the communication of that determination to the applicant.

The addition of paragraph N(2A) to Part 3 in 2014 has largely removed the ambiguity that was inherent in the original drafting of paragraph N where a prior approval application is rejected by an LPA because, in their opinion, the proposed development does not comply with one or more of the conditions, limitations or restrictions in the relevant class of Part 3, or the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with them. It is reasonably clear from the wording of paragraph N(2A) that a rejection of a prior approval application in accordance with that paragraph does amount to a determination of the prior approval application, even if the LPA is objectively wrong as to the non-compliance of the development with the qualifying criteria under the relevant class of Part 3. The correctness or otherwise of the LPA’s opinion can only be tested by way of an appeal against this decision under section 78 of the 1990 Act.

However, the adequacy of the information provided relates only to the issue as to whether it is reasonably sufficient to enable the authority to establish that the proposed development complies with the relevant conditions, limitations or restrictions, so as to qualify as permitted development under the class in question. If the LPA purports to reject the application in relation to the adequacy of the information for other purposes, going outside the question of compliance with the qualifying criteria, this may perhaps call in question the validity of the decision. If the LPA’s opinion on this point strays outside these stated parameters, it might possibly be argued that the authority has not actually determined the application, which could raise the possibility that the 56-day period might continue running. In such cases, however, a notice or other written communication informing the applicant of the LPA’s rejection of the prior approval application, whatever the stated reasons, would probably be regarded as a valid determination of the application, leaving an appeal under section 78 as the only course that would then be open to the applicant (unless they then choose to make a planning application instead). Thus it is unlikely that a wrongful or mistaken rejection of a prior approval application would result in the 56-day period continuing to run in these circumstances.

The other point to be borne in mind is that the critical event for the purposes of the 56-day rule is the authority’s “notifying the applicant as to whether prior approval is given or refused”. This does not necessarily seem to require a formal decision notice; a bald statement either that prior approval is given or that it is refused might suffice to meet this requirement. Nor does there seem to be any statutory obligation on the LPA to state their reasons for refusing prior approval, although it would no doubt be good practice to do so, and this does indeed appear to be the standard practice of most authorities.

Bearing in mind that subparagraphs (a) and (b) in paragraph N refer to a written notice of the LPA’s determination that their prior approval is not required, or giving their prior approval, it is clear that the notification of their determination must be in that form (although this does not preclude its being sent in electronic form, such as an email). Furthermore, as subparagraphs (a) and (b) refer to the receipt by the applicant of the notice, it would appear that the notification as to whether prior approval is given or refused must be received by the applicant within the 56-day period. It is clear that merely to make a decision within the 56-day period will not suffice (in contrast to the differently worded provision in Part 6 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO, relating to various operational development on agricultural land), but it also seems, by analogy with subparagraphs (a) and (b), that it may not suffice to post a notice of that decision within that time if it does not actually reach the applicant before the expiry of the 56-day period. Failure on the part of the LPA to observe both of these requirements may result in the applicant automatically being entitled to proceed with the development in accordance with paragraph N(9)(c).

The applicant may be able to provide evidence of the actual date of receipt of the notification, but where this remains uncertain the usual presumption as to the service of documents would no doubt apply.

Despite diligent research, I have been unable to find any relevant appeal decision or judgment precisely dealing with the situation where notice of a determination is posted within the 56-day period (under either Part 3 or Part 24), but is not received by the applicant until after the expiry of this period. (There have, of course, been a number of decisions confirming that the authority is out of time if, having determined the application within the 56-day period, it fails to dispatch the notification of its decision within that period.) However, there was a case in North Somerset in 2009 (apparently not the subject of any appeal or other proceedings), where notification of the refusal of prior approval of a mobile phone mast was sent to the applicant by Second Class post on Day 52 or Day 53, but was not received by them until Day 57. The applicant relied on this as allowing them to proceed with the development. The resulting dispute appears to have been settled by negotiation, although the company continued to insist that they had been correct to treat the late receipt of the notification of the council’s decision as being out of time.

I would be interested to hear from any reader who is aware of any appeal decisions on this precise point (i.e. posting of notification of a determination, either under Part 3 or under Part 24, within the 56 days, but its receipt by the applicant after the expiry of the 56-day period). [But please note – instances where this has occurred but has not been the subject of an appeal decision (or judgment) really won’t be of any practical help.]

The general approach to the 56-day rule is illustrated by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Murrell v. SSCLG [2010] EWCA Civ 1367, on which I commented in this blog at the time. (It was a case which actually involved the 28-day period for the determination of a prior notification of agricultural development under Part 6). This established that the GPDO does not make the running of time dependent on a decision by the local planning authority to accept an application as valid. Whether there was a valid application or not is an objective question of law. The application for determination as to whether prior approval is required does not need to be in any particular form and does not need to be accompanied by anything more than what is prescribed by the GPDO (in the case of a Part 6 application, a written description of the proposed development and of the materials to be used and a plan indicating the site, together with the required fee). It is not mandatory to use a standard form or to provide any information beyond that specified in the GPDO.

The appellant’s application in Murrell complied with the requirements of the GPDO and was a valid application, contrary to the LPA’s assertion. The GPDO does not require an application to be accompanied by proposed elevations or a block plan. It does not require a location plan, although in Murrell a location plan was in fact provided with the application. Nor does it require multiple copies of any documents. Since use of a standard application form is not mandatory, the council was mistaken in stating that these were the only forms they could accept and in requesting the appellants to complete and return, in quadruplicate, a new standard form. Accordingly, the councils assertion that the application was invalid was wrong in law.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the council was entitled to ask for further information. It was not, however, entitled to refuse to treat the application as a valid application until that further information was received. The clock carried on ticking from the date of receipt of the application until the expiry of (in that case) the 28-day period.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Do you find information about Boat Plans Skiff are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Skiff. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Nz | A Day at the Lake

Boat Plans Nz

Not much to report.  This summer in Colorado has been unusually cool and rainy, providing fewer dry, sunny days for boating.  Yesterday we did take the boat out and had a bit of an adventure.  Friends brought their boat, a 21 pontoon boat, also.  I had checked the weather forecast before leaving; nice weather until mid afternoon when wind and possible rain was predicted.

We joined up with our friends, who anchored their pontoon at the entrance to a small bay, for lunch on the pontoons broad deck.  Everyone was enjoying the beautiful weather and showed no concern about a possible change later that afternoon.  Then my wife, myself, and our friend, Roger, left in our boat to explore the lake which was several miles long.  His wife and her two sisters stayed on the pontoon.  As we headed up the lake, the wind picked up, and whitecaps started to appear.  The waves continued to build, but by now we were at the upper end of the lake where we were somewhat protected.  As we came downwind along the opposite lake shore, I was able to make out the pontoon in the distance and noticed that it was no longer anchored in the center of the small bay, but drifting toward the shore.  When I pointed it out, Roger agreed we better get over there to see what had happened.  As we crossed the lake we met with the full force of the waves, 2-3 feet high.  We lowered our bimini to reduce windage and took some spray in the cockpit from occasional waves breaking on our starboard side.

When we got to the pontoon, it was being pounded on the rocks on the lee side of the bay.  The three women on the pontoon had decided that the anchor was dragging so they started trying to pull it in.  They did not take down their boats bimini; they did not start the motor and use it to position themselves over the anchor.  Thus, their efforts to bring in the anchor only accelerated the effects of the strong wind and waves which quickly pushed their boat onto the rocky shore.  My job was to get our boat as close as possible so that a tow line could be passed.

The wind and waves were too strong to keep the bow of our boat into the wind while maneuvering slowly, and I wanted to keep our propeller as far as possible from the shallow rocky shore.  So I approached the pontoon bow first with the waves breaking against our stern.  The engine splash well and covered rear deck were valuable in keeping our boat interior dry.  Roger went over the side (with a life preserver), waded chest-deep to the pontoon, and passed a tow line to our runabout.  Then it was just a matter of putting our 75hp Evinrude in reverse and backing off, pulling the pontoon with us.  I wasnt sure that the prop would have enough reverse thrust for the task, but it worked well.

Once we were free of the shore, they were able to get their engine started and the tow line was returned.  We headed for a somewhat sheltered marina which was further downwind.  With the wind and waves behind us, we were able to surf the face of waves, and it became an enjoyable run.  On later inspection of the pontoon, the actual aluminum tubes had been protected by aluminum angles welded onto the tubes to act as strakes which minimized damage.

It frustrates me that all the women involved showed so little interest in learning competent boat handling.  This entire situation could have been avoided.  What happens if they encounter a more serious situation in the future?  People die from simple errors.       

Do you find information about Boat Plans Nz are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Nz. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Wood | The 56 day rule – a further example

Boat Plans Wood

I am grateful to Greg Dowden of Indigo Planning for passing on to me a copy of a double appeal decision (3065819 and 3133462) in Richmond issued last November, which demonstrates how a local planning authority can come unstuck on the 56-day rule, and the consequences they may then face in terms of costs. The two prior approval applications that were the subject of these appeals were dated 20 October 2014, and each was refused by notice dated 30 December 2014. In each case, the development proposed was change of use from B1(a) to C3 residential to provide two 2-bed dwellings. One application proposed one on-site car parking space and the other proposed two on-site parking spaces.

The Council received the two prior approval applications on 23 October, as acknowledged on their web-site. On 4 November the Council requested revised site plans showing the car parking spaces, and these were provided, after which the Council stated that the applications were accepted as valid on 5 November. On the basis of the date that the Council received the applications, the 56 days would expire on 18 December, whereas if taken from the date when the Council stated that the applications were valid, the 56 days would expire on 31 December. The refusal notices were dated 30 December 2014.

The GPDO does not contain a requirement or provision for applications to be validated, as is confirmed by the Court of Appeal decision in Murrell, but paragraph W(2) lists the information that must accompany an application, including ‘a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development’ and paragraph W(3) provides that a local planning authority ‘may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in this Part as being applicable to the development in question.’ The Council claimed that whereas they could have refused the application when they considered it did not provide the necessary information, ‘in the spirit of reasonableness an e-mail was sent to the appellant on 4 November 2014’ requesting the site plan showing the car parking. Whilst it appears to be the case that the appellant complied with the request and supplied another site plan, this approach is not what is provided for in the Order, and the Inspector referred again to Murrell, which confirmed that a request for further information does not stop the clock. Whether or not the application did contain the necessary information, as set out in sub-paragraph (2), the choices open to the Council were clear - accept the information or refuse the application under paragraph W(3). [The Council was, of course, entitled to request further information, but still had to determine the application within the 56-day period.]

The council also fell into error in relation to their consultations. They sent out a consultation letter dated 7 November 2014, that is to say after the request for and receipt of, the disputed site plan, stating that “We are writing to advise you that this Council has received the above prior notification on 23 October 2014 and are required to give notice on any adjoining owner or occupier of the proposed development. Any comments must be received within 21 days from the date of this letter i.e. 28/11/2014 because the local planning authority must issue written notice to the developer within 56 days from receipt of the application (31/12/2014) that either prior approval is not required or prior approval is granted, otherwise the developer may proceed”. In the terms of the GPDO (see paragraph W.(11)), the 56 days calculated from the stated date of receipt, 23 October would end on 18 December, not 31 December as stated by the council.

The Inspector noted that there appears to have been some interchangeable use by the Council of the words ‘received’ and ‘valid’ but the wording in the GPDO is clear - “56 days following the date on which the application under sub-paragraph (2) was received by the local planning authority”. The Inspector therefore concluded that the 56 days should be considered as running from the acknowledged date of the Council’s receipt of the applications, 23 October 2014, and expired on 18 December. In the absence of a written notice under paragraph W(11) by that date, the permitted development could now proceed.

The LPA raised two other issues on appeal. The first of these was whether the building was in use within Use Class B1(a) on 29 May 2013, or if it was not in use on that date, when it was last in use before that date. The appellant produced a statutory declaration to which a lease was exhibited, showing that the appeal premises were leased as offices until surrender of the lease in November 2007. The Inspector accepted that Class B1(a) could be taken to be the lawful use of the building. No other use had been shown to have been established or permitted between the surrender of the lease and 29 May 2013. The Council and others had referred to various indications to the contrary, but no firm evidence was submitted, even where this might reasonably have been obtainable by the Council, such as the business rate record. On the balance of probabilities on the information available, the Inspector therefore concluded that the premises in question were in B1(a) office use on 29 May 2013, or when last in use prior to that date, and that the proposed change of use was therefore development that is permitted under Class O.

The other issue raised by the LPA related to transport and highways impacts. The Inspector did not accept the Council’s contentions in this regard, and in any event, having determined that the Council had missed the 56-day deadline for determining the prior approval application, it would not have been open to him to consider any transport and highways impacts of the development [nor could any contamination risks or flooding risks on the site be taken into account by the Inspector in these circumstances].

The Council also suggested various conditions, but since the Inspector had already concluded that the appellant was entitled to go ahead with both developments in any event, there was no basis on which he could attach further conditions in addition to the standard ones contained in Class O. Unilateral obligations under section 106 (relating to the proposed parking arrangements) had been submitted to the Council with the prior approval applications, but they were subject to a proviso that “the obligations in this Deed are conditional upon the receipt from the Council of a written notice that Prior Approval is not required or a receipt from the Council of a written notice giving their Prior Approval”. Neither of these events had occurred and so the Inspector confirmed that these planning obligations under section 106 are not binding on the appellants.

Having got it so comprehensively wrong, the Council can hardly have been surprised that a full award of costs was made against them, although they did their best to resist the costs application. The appellant had sent an e-mail to the Council on 30 December 2014 stating their view that the 56-day period had elapsed, and by return e-mail the Council disagreed with that view, issuing the refusal notice that day. The Council did not agree that the premises were in B1(a) use on 29 May 2013 or when last in use. There were several options open to the appellant after the expiry of what they viewed as the 56-day period, or after the receipt of the refusal notice. First, they could accept the situation as stated by the Council and make a planning application for the proposed development instead. Secondly, they could carry out the development on the basis of their view that the 56 days had elapsed, so that it was now lawful to go ahead with the two developments. Thirdly, they could submit an application for a lawful development certificate for the proposed development, on the basis that the development applied for had become lawful due to the Councils failure to respond within the 56-day statutory period. Finally, they could lodge an appeal against the Council’s purported refusal of prior approval (and also against its failure to determine the application with the 56-day period).

Obviously, a planning application was not a realistic option, and might have been dismissed, quite apart from the expense and delay that would have been involved. The second option would also have carried a significant risk in view of the difference of opinion with the Council, both over the 56-day period and over the qualifying office use, and could well have led to enforcement action being attempted against the appellant. The third option of seeking a lawful development certificate would have been less risky but likely to lead to the same differences of opinion being aired as became the subject of these two appeals, with the possibility of refusal. (Another option referred to by the Council of obtaining a lawful development certificate to show the lawful use at 29 May 2013 would also have resulted in delay.) These appeals were a reasonable response to the situation and the only real option open to the appellant.

The appellant had in fact made continuing attempts to avoid the cost and delay of appeal. This started with the e-mail of 30 December, the response to which was the Council’s assertion that the 56 days was still running followed by the refusal notice. On 24 March 2015 the appellant contacted the Council to again to give them the opportunity to rectify what was seen as an error, but the Council refused. The first appeal was submitted on 3 May 2015 and the appeal in respect of the second development appears to have followed a few months later. It is unclear why this occurred, but possibly in light of the Council continuing to contest the first appeal.

On the procedural matters that the Council alleged were relevant to the costs issue, the Inspector drew attention to his accompanying appeal decision and the reference to the Murrell case, which explained the situation regarding the amount or quality of information submitted for prior approval, it being for the Council to accept it or refuse the application; there is no provision for ‘stopping the clock’ from the operative date of receipt of the application provided that the information is as required under paragraph W(2).

On the substantive grounds, there was a lack of evidence to back counter-claims on the B1(a) use, in the face of the statutory declaration. Parking was a matter that had been accepted by a previous Inspector for what appears larger numbers of domestic users, although the loss of any commercial users would have had an effect, but the dimensions of the parking and access were stated not to have changed.

Ministerial advice on costs in appeals is now set out in the online Planning Practice Guidance (although it largely repeats the basic principles that were previously set out in the well-known costs circular). Among the sins on the part of LPAs that may result in an award of costs are:

• preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations; (The Inspector decided that the LPA’s conduct had had that result in this case.)
• acting contrary to, or not following, well-established case law; (The Murrell case and the GPDO give the procedure for accepting or rejecting information in a prior approval application, but not ‘stopping the clock’.)
• failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal; (In the circumstances of this case, because of the operation of the 56-day rule, this did not arise in this case with regard to transport and highways, and the evidence produced by the LPA in defence of their contrary view of the B1(a) use was lacking.)
• persisting in objections to a scheme or elements of a scheme which the Secretary of State or an Inspector has previously indicated to be acceptable. (Once again this did not in fact need to be addressed in the Appeal Decision, but a previous Inspector had ruled on highway and parking matters for a similar-enough proposal. The appellant had to bring evidence to address this at appeal in case their 56-day claim failed.)
• not reviewing their case promptly following the lodging of an appeal against refusal of planning permission (or non-determination), as part of sensible on-going case management. (The appellant gave the Council numerous opportunities to address the case and avoid the appeal, and these were not taken.)

The Inspector reiterated that the appellant had little viable option but to appeal, having taken all available steps to avoid that state of affairs and had then tried to broker a reason to withdraw it, but to no avail. As a result the appellant had been put to the cost of appeals that should have been avoided, by the Council’s refusal to accept that the 56 days had elapsed and by their persisting with the claim that the proposal was not permitted development [by reason of the disputed B1(a) use] and that it would result in highway impacts. He therefore found that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, had been demonstrated and that a full award of costs was justified in both appeals.

I felt it was worth reporting this appeal decision (and the accompanying costs decision) fairly fully, because it is a graphic example of a local planning authority’s failure to appreciate how the 56-day rule operates, and the consequences of missing the 56-day deadline. The costs decision is also in line with similar decisions in other cases, and it behoves LPAs to sit up and take notice, and to ensure that planning officers clearly understand how the prior approval procedure under Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO actually operates.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Boat Plans Wood are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Wood. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Designs And Plans | The 56 day rule – some additional points

Boat Designs And Plans

NOTE: 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.

A couple of readers have written to me to draw attention to Article 7 of the GPDO. This is a new provision that did not appear in the 1995 Order.

There was no provision in the 1995 Order for any extension of time in respect of the determination of a prior approval application. However, Article 7 (after restating the basic rule that prior approval applications must be determined within 56 days) now allows the LPA to make a decision in relation to the application within such longer period as may be agreed by the applicant and the authority in writing (which could comprise an exchange of emails).

There is, of course, no obligation on the applicant to agree to such an extension of time, but if they do not do so a prudent authority might then refuse the application fairly promptly in order to avoid the 56-day rule coming into operation, thereby enabling the development to go ahead in any event. It is clear that any agreement to an extension of time would have to be explicit and unequivocal; it cannot be assumed or implied, nor can it be construed from only one side of a purported exchange of correspondence. A nil response from the applicant to the LPA’s a request for more time would not prevent time from continuing to run for the purposes of the 56-day rule. There would need to be some written evidence that both parties had agreed to extend time.

One correspondent queried whether sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Article 7 do in fact enable time to be extended (or whether sub-paragraph (a) in fact rules this out), but there is no doubt that any one of sub-paragraphs (a) or (b) or (c) may apply; there is a comma after sub-paragraph (a), so it is clear that each is an alternative to the others.

Reverting to appeals against non-determination of a prior approval application, after further representations from the LPA, the Planning Inspectorate subsequently changed their minds in the case I mentioned in my last post, and accepted the appeal, on the basis that the case raised other issues besides the question of non-determination within the 56-day period. In the absence of such additional issues, though, it would appear that it is unnecessary (and in fact impossible) to appeal against the non-determination of a prior approval application. The right to proceed with the development arises automatically. However, if there is any doubt in such a case as to the qualification of the pre-existing use under the terms of the relevant Class of permitted development in Part 3, or as to the nature and scope of the proposed development itself, it may in such circumstances be advisable to make an application for a Lawful Development Certificate under section 192 of the 1990 Act, as I mentioned previously.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Boat Designs And Plans are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Designs And Plans. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans And Patterns | Spey Day 2015 My Experience Your Benefit Bend Oregon

Boat Plans And Patterns

Got the email from Erik of Anglers Rendezvous (our Sage, Redington and Rio reps) that our annual Farbank Mini Spey day was going down on March 22nd, 2015 in Bend, Oregon, a short three hours drive from my hometown of Hood River. I thought, what a great excuse to get away and spend six hours casting Spey and Switch rods until my hands had to be pried from the cork handles...Like a warrior whos held a sword for hours during battle and his hands wont let go.

Spey Day - Bend Oregon

Sage and Redington Spey & Switch rods
patiently wait their turn to perform.

If this years Spey day is anything like last years, I am going to thoroughly enjoy it. Its not too often that a guy has the chance to cast multiple Spey and switch rods side by side, for an instantaneous direct comparison. To really get a feel for the difference, casting different models, lengths and tapers side by side is by far the best method of telling the differences. Honestly, not only is it fun for me to spend the 6 hours casting all the rods but it translates into the confident conversations that I have on a daily basis with customers who call the shop or drop in looking for guidance in making their first spey rod purchase or their tenth.

From a customers standpoint, there is nothing like talking to someone on the phone that has actually cast or fished with the rod that they are interested in. From a shops standpoint there is nothing like having an employee who has actually cast or fished with the rod that the customer is interested in. First hand knowledge of equipment reeks through your conversation over the phone. I hate talking to someone that seems to be reading right out of the catalog trying to sell me something. It doesnt take too long to realize when this is happening.

Google or YouTube anything today and in a matter of milliseconds you have years of information and opinions at your fingertips. This is a good thing and it can be a bad thing. Good because you can do research without the pressure of a used car salesman breathing down your neck paid by commission. Bad because you can do your research...too much research...research overload, so much to the point you cant make a decision one way or another. Youre now more confused than when you first started. If youre reading this and are thinking of making a Spey or Switch rod purchase, with all due respect, do some research, and pick just a couple of fly shops that actually fish with spey rods and youre confident with, give them a call and get dialed in. I have had numerous conversations with customers who have over researched and finally, out of desperation reach out to us. I once had a customer (if this is you, I didnt mention any names) straight up, within the first few seconds of our conversation confessed that he had been researching the equipment he was interested in for months and that he had literally called nearly every fly shop in the United States and now was so frustrated because he kept getting conflicting intel. I totally understood what he was saying and I respectfully said to him...that he had become so saturated with information he couldnt make a decision because most of the folks he talked to contradicted the previous guy he called. I politely said to him that he needed to take a breath and pick a couple of shops, who actually use spey rods, and start to trust somebody. He agreed with my statement and confessed that he was exhausted from all the research and he thanked me for being so honest with him. I could actually feel the tension in his voice subside as I told him this.


In short hed become so overloaded with different personal preferences from so many shops that he couldnt choose. Shop employees where giving him advise on their casting preferences but neglecting to ask him about his. He was transitioning into the two handed world from single hand rod experience. So I was able to gather enough info from him and his background with a single hand rod that I could recommend a rod suitable to the casting style he was already used to, which made for a smoother transition for him. The equipment he was interested in was expensive and he wanted the confidence that he was making the right choice for his investment. He didnt have a local shop that he could test drive the equipment or talk to anyone who even used a spey rod.

Spey Rods and Reels stacked like chord wood!
OK, where do I start!

There are many reasons why you need to take a deep breath, sit back, relax a bit, and approach the spey/switch scene with a bit of trust. I say that assuming from this point on you will take my advice and use a shop that actually lives and breaths to spey fish and knows the equipment.

There are a number of variables that will help us get you dialed in. For instance, your casting style, are you on the aggressive side or are you a bit more laid back and patient, what size of a river you fish, what style or technique will you want to use and much more. I cannot give you a true diagnosis of the correct rod you should choose, by just considering my casting style. That would be like going to the doctor because youre ill and the Doctor diagnoses you with his symptoms. Doesnt make sense, does it? I need to gather as much information from you to help you make the right choice.






For example, I once set up a petite woman with a Sage One 7116-4 (116" 7 weight) Switch rod and a Rio Skagit Max Short head due to the fact that she was small, the shorter switch rod and head fit her perfectly. The standard, go to, introduction to Spey rods, Sage One 7136-4 (136" 7 weight) was too big for her. Once she took the Switch rod outfit to the river, it didnt take her long to fall in love with it. I try my best to get as much information from the customer and their casting style before recommending which rods would suit them. If they have no experience at all, either with a single hand rod or a two hander, my default recommendation is typically a fast action rod such as the Sage One. Theres a reason for this. Typically a fast action rod is much more forgiving than an ultra-fast action rod, were your timing is somewhat critical, or a slow action rod because most people, honestly dont have the patience to wait for a deep flexing rod to load up before they start their forward stroke. When casting an ultra fast rod, such as the Sage Method, if your stroke is on its "A" game the rod will let you know how awesome you are by producing blistering line speed with little effort. BUT if youre having a "B" day, youre gonna struggle and you may not like the Method so much. The Sage One is the perfect go to rod for most folks. Its easy going for a somewhat laid back caster, super smooth and yet still has the power if you give it a little more umph on your bottom hand when you need to. Now there are other rods that have a fast action that would suit the needs of most folks, Im just using the Sage One as an example, because in the Sage lineup of rods, it is my go to "comfort food" rod. Its an amazing tool. I wouldnt know these intimate details of the Sage One if I didnt have a personal relationship with the rod. The Method is an awesome rod, no joke, its awesome...for the guy who loves an ultra fast rod...not so awesome for the guy who likes a more traditional full flex rod.


In the six hours I spent casting, I cast 4 weight switch rods to 15 10 weight spey rods and everything in between. Spending considerable amounts of time on each. If you want to test your casting skills grab a 4 wt switch rod and immediately after casting that for 20 minutes grab the 15 10 weight Sage Method, then go straight for the Sage Accel 7126-4 aka "Mr. Wiggles" and just see if it doesnt take some adjusting before you get your stroke back. This is why I go to these "Spey Days". To be able to grab rods and cast them side by side for an accurate instant comparison is priceless for the customer who doesnt have that opportunity or have a local shop that they can do so themselves. My experience equals your benefit. You, the consumer benefits from my personal time spent with each of these rods. Now, if you call the shop and ask me about a rod that I have never cast, I will tell you that I have never cast that one...yet. I will be honest with you and tell you that I havent lined that rod up yet. I can still describe the action of the rod, maybe even talk to you about the taper, give you a great line recommendation but this conversation wont have the passion in it compared to the rod I have actually went out and spent time on the water with or even personally owned. You can tell when someone has a bit of passion about something.


Ill end with this. The "Spey Day" was on one of my days off...just sayin...

Low and Clear

This beautiful Steelhead was caught on a Sage One 6126-4 in low clear water conditions. When water is low and clear, lighter rods, lighter sink tips or no sink tips, and natural colored flies are a good choice to improve your odds in landing the prize...

Remember, if you can’t find it at the Gorge Fly Shop, you don’t need it!

Gorge Fly Shop
John Garrett | Product Specialist
541.386.6977

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Do you find information about Boat Plans And Patterns are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans And Patterns. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Aluminium | What a day!

Boat Plans Aluminium

Having been busy/out-of-town the past few weeks, this week was finally the chance to take the new boat out.  I picked a nearby (50 miles) small reservoir knowing that this was a test run with possible complications.  The boat performed well; however, there are still adjustments to be made.  In a few spots at the transom, the red bottom paint came off.  I dont expect it to be difficult to repair; probably just a light sanding and thorough cleaning to improve adhesion.  The engine RPM topped out at 4200 which is below the recommended range of 4500-5500.  I was using a 17" pitch propeller and will need to switch to a 15" or 13", both of which I have on hand.  The indicated speed was 35+ mph due to the speedometer only reading to 35 mph.  I need to decide if I should replace the speedometer.  We had three people and 8 gallons of gas on board with the bimini top up.  The boat accelerates quickly with very moderate bow rise and vision is good from the drivers seat.

I want to view and photograph the boat at speed, but we will need a second boat for that.  On this lake the shore areas are "No Wake Zones".  The reason for the "What a day!" label for this entry is because when we arrived home from the lake, and I was putting away the boat, I developed some stomach discomfort which quickly worsened into acute appendicitis.  We went to the emergency room, and within a few hours my appendix was removed.  Now no strenuous exercise for the next six weeks.

Do you find information about Boat Plans Aluminium are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Aluminium. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Pontoon Boat Plans Aluminum | The 56 day Rule Some further thoughts

Pontoon Boat Plans Aluminum

NOTE: 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.

Since I wrote my previous posts on this topic on 9 and 13 February and 11 March, I have taken the opportunity to look in more detail at the requirement as to the timing of the LPA’s notification of their determination of a prior approval application.

On the basis of the practical examples that I quoted in those posts, the consensus would appear to be that notification of the LPA’s determination of the prior application must not only be given by the authority within the 56-day period, but must also be received by the applicant within that period, and a proper construction of paragraph W(11), read as a whole, would seem to support this.

In paragraph W(11) of Part 3, sub-paragraph (a) refers to “the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice of their determination that such prior approval is not required” and sub-paragraph (b) refers to “the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice giving their prior approval”, although sub-paragraph (c) merely refers to “the expiry of 56 days following the date on which the application was received by the local planning authority without the authority notifying the applicant as to whether prior approval is given or refused”.

Sub-paragraph (c) relates to both of these two alternative notifications under sub-paragraph (a) or (b), and (by implication) to the third possibility that the notice served by the authority may be to inform the applicant that prior approval is refused. It therefore seems clear from the context that sub-paragraph (c) must also be taken to refer to the receipt by the applicant of such a notice, so sub-paragraph (c) should in practice be read as - “the expiry of 56 days following the date on which the application was received by the local planning authority without the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice as to whether prior approval is given or refused”.

Whilst on this topic, I am grateful to a correspondent for drawing to my attention the position regarding an appeal under section 78 against non-determination of a prior approval application, where the failure of the LPA to determine the application or to notify the applicant of that determination within the 56-day period is the sole determining factor in the appeal.

In such a case, the Planning Inspectorate seems recently to have taken the view that no appeal is required (or can be made) in such a case. I have been shown a letter from the Planning Inspectorate, written in May of this year in response to an appeal which had been made against non-determination of a prior approval application in Gloucestershire, in which they stated that, because it would appear that the LPA did not determine the application within the required 56 day period, the applicant can proceed with the development in these circumstances, and no right of appeal applies. The LPA had the power to refuse the application on the basis that the development was not appropriate for the prior approval process but there was no indication in this case that they did so. In the circumstances, the Inspectorate stated that the appeal appeared to be invalid and no further action would be taken on it. A copy of this letter was sent to the LPA who were asked to note its contents.

This would appear to dispose of the need to appeal against non-determination. If the applicant is correct in their assertion that they have the right to carry out the permitted development, then the expiry of the 56-day period would in principle enable the development to proceed, but if there is any doubt in such a case as to the qualification of the pre-existing use under the terms of the relevant Class of permitted development in Part 3, or as to the nature and scope of the proposed development itself, or if there is a dispute with the LPA as to the qualification of the site for change of use under the relevant Class in Part 3 (or where the LPA is otherwise challenging the right to carry out the proposed development), caution may suggest that the correctness of the applicant’s assertion as to the lawfulness of the proposed development should be tested by means of an application under section 192, before going ahead with the development.

It may be helpful to readers who are making an LDC application to be reminded of the judgment in F W Gabbitas v SSE and Newham LBC [1985] JPL 630, where it was held that the applicants own evidence does not need to be corroborated by "independent" evidence in order to be accepted. If the local planning authority has no evidence of its own, or from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicants version of events less than probable, there is no good reason to refuse the application, provided the applicants evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate "on the balance of probability”. This was helpfully summarised in paragraph 8.15 of Annex 8 to Circular 10/97. The Circular was cancelled in March 2014, but the legal principles that it set out continue to apply.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Pontoon Boat Plans Aluminum are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Pontoon Boat Plans Aluminum. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Catamaran | First Build Day Building Form

Boat Plans Catamaran

After months of hemming and hawing over plans and possibilities and uncertainties and even driving to the Middle of Nowhere to get a trailer, finally we start building the boat.  Or at least we build something that is essential for building the boat.

The Glen-L plans call for making a building form upon which to build the boat.  With the building form you get the boat at a height you can work on it, as well as have a level, plum, and square form upon which to assemble the individual pieces.

From these photos you also get an idea of just how beautiful a location we have to build the Shantyboat  Thanks to Lawrence and his family for their generosity, and perhaps their healthy curiosity as they watch the project slowly come together from a pile of lumber to a boat.

I actually found an error on Glen-Ls otherwise flawless building plans.  The plans called for the cross spalls to be 97", which is one inch over 8 (a frustrating waste of conventional length lumber).  Another measurement in an end view gave half the measurement of the cross spall as 3-11 1/2", or 95 inches. As usual after a little back and forth clarification, I got a message from Gayle:

Wes,

I had Glen take a look at the plans and heres his
response:

Seems to be an error. The cross palls should
extend 3 11-1/2" each side of CL or 95" long. You
have thickness of side planking, plus FG plus rub
rail to obtain beam of 8 2". This will make an 8
width on the bottom to match the two 4 wide PW
panels. 

Gayle Brantuk

This building form was mostly made of scrap lumber.  The stringers (the frames of the boat that run longitudinally) will sit on top of and perpendicular to these cross spalls on top of the building form. 

I actually built the form wrong, at least according to the plans (the side pieces are reversed inside out).  And though it didnt hurt anything, it set me off on a cascade of self-recrimination at my carelessness.  If I assembled the boat with as little attention to detail, I would be wasting material, causing undue frustration, and making an ugly boat.

This made me rethink ways I could balance my eagerness with my sense of precision.  The next week I switched gears from my cavalier construction of the building form to a slower more careful approach.

Jen and Kai both helped me make the building form.  And after Kai and I had a pretty pointless conflict, I realized one very important boatbuilding need that I hadnt taken into account for people working hard in the hot sun all day:  Snacks!

Do you find information about Boat Plans Catamaran are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Catamaran. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans And Patterns | Short term use of residential property in London

Boat Plans And Patterns

I have blogged on this topic several times in the past year, but I was wondering why the journos on the Evening Standard were getting excited on this subject in an article in today’s edition of the paper. The Deregulation Bill, which will enable the Secretary of State to relax the rules on short-term lettings in Greater London is still in the House of Lords, and the third day of the Report Stage is not due until Wednesday of this week, so Royal Assent is unlikely to be achieved until after both houses come back from their half term break after 23 February. By my calculation, that isn’t going to leave time for subordinate legislation to be laid before parliament so as to come into effect before the General Election (although I am open to correction on this, if any of you know better).

So what exactly prompted today’s article in the ES? I think it must have been De-CLoG’s publication today of a document entitled “ Promoting the sharing economy in London - Policy on short-term use of residential property in London”, which is yet another expression of the government’s wishful thinking, without actually telling us when we can expect the promised change to come about (if indeed it ever does, given the uncertainty over the likely result of the General Election).

The position today is, and will remain for the time being, that short-term lets (of less than 90 days) in Greater London are a material change of use (to a sui generis use) which requires planning permission. The ES seems to think that the change in the law is immediate, but it is not even imminent. That could conceivably change, but I am still not betting on its happening this side of the General Election; and what will happen after that is beyond the wit of man to foretell.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Do you find information about Boat Plans And Patterns are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans And Patterns. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Australia | Angles and Precision

Boat Plans Australia

I have experience in the housebuilding, construction world.  I used to joke with my workers when theyd talk about measurement in sixteenths.  "Sixteenths?  I didnt know they made fractions smaller than eighths."  And in homebuilding, unless you are a finish carpenter, there is seldom need to take such fine measurements.

Not so much in building a boat.  I realized early that a sixteenth here and a sixteenth there soon adds up to errors in real inches.  The tolerances are small because it all has to fit together and somehow like voodoo, keep water out.  My usual tolerances are not good enough because, it turns out, that recent science has shown that water molecules are smaller than an eighth inch.

The angles of the end cuts were not specified in the plans.  In fact, I had to resurrect my long dormant high school geometry knowledge in order to calculate the angles.  Working with the plans a bit, I got the length and the height of the triangle that would be the end of the boat.

Out comes the trigonometry reference.  Looking at it and with some research on the interwebs, I realized there was a magic word I remember being thrown about in high school trig that I never did decipher: SOHCAHTOA.  This time around it made sense.  Of course!  Sine, cosine, and tangent.  Opposite, adjacent, and hypotenuse. So I had the opposite and adjacent sides (TOA!), and so used tangent to calculate the angle.  Fucking magic!

The angle was so frustratingly close to 45 degrees that it made everything just a little bit more complicated.  43.5 degrees.  Looking at a particular angle drawn on a board, it wasnt easy to visualize whether the angle (or its complement) were correct for that cut.  Yet, the 3 degrees difference between the two was maddeningly significant.

In fact, after all that work, while I managed to cut the long lateral pieces at the right angle (43.5 degrees, FYI), I managed to cut every end piece with the wrong angle (it should have been the complement at 46.5 degrees).

As I predicted, this tiny 3 degree error would make our lives slightly crazy as every stringer came together with a frustrating little gap or overhang at the ends.  Grrr.


Do you find information about Boat Plans Australia are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Australia. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Pdf | The 56 day rule a practical example

Boat Plans Pdf

NOTE: 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.

When I wrote my piece on the 56-day rule the other day, I queried the position where notification of the council’s determination of the prior approval application went out very close to the deadline, and so was not received by the applicant within the 56-day period. I am grateful to a correspondent for drawing my attention in this connection to an appeal decision in Tower Hamlets, issued on 24 June 2013 (APP/E5900/C/12/2182746).

This was an application for prior approval in respect of a telephone kiosk under Part 24. The inspector stated at the beginning of his decision letter that the authority had 56 days in which to give notice whether prior approval was required, and for the applicant to receive such notice. It appears to have been assumed without question in this case that a written notification sent within the 56 days but not received by the applicant within that time would not comply with the 56-day rule, so that the right to carry out the development then became automatic, notwithstanding the LPA’s decision and the purported notice of their refusal of the prior approval application.

Both parties agreed that the time within which the applicant should have received such notice expired on 26 December 2011. The authority sent out an undated letter on 23 December refusing prior approval. That letter was received by the appellant in the post on 29 December 2011, outside the 56-day period. However, a copy of this letter was also sent out by two emails at 4.32 p.m. on 23 December, one of which went to the email address given on the applicant’s headed notepaper, and was received by them on that day.

There can be no doubt that transmission of the letter by email to the applicant’s stated email address was an effective communication of the written notice of the LPA’s determination of the prior approval application, notwithstanding that the applicant had not confirmed on the application that they would agree to receive communications by email. Section 329(1)(cc) of the 1990 Act permits the service of a notice using electronic communications where an address for service has been given (as it had been by virtue of its being shown on the applicant’s headed notepaper).

The question, however, still arose as to whether the receipt of the email at or shortly after 4.32 p.m. on 23 December was actually in time. At first sight it seems obvious that it must have been. But there’s a catch!

The applicant relied on Section 336(4A) of the 1990 Act, which provides that where an electronic communication is used for the purpose of serving or giving a notice or other document on or to any person for the purposes of this Act, and the communication is received by that person outside that person’s business hours, it is to be taken to have been received on the next working day, and in this subsection, “working day” means a day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, Bank Holiday or other public holiday.

The inspector quite rightly drew attention to the words “that person’s business hours”. This does not mean ‘normal’ business hours, but the business hours which that person chooses to keep. Whilst it may be usual for offices to remain open until 5.00 or 5.30 p.m., some businesses do close down earlier on Friday afternoons and this was, of course, the last working day before the Christmas holiday, so it is not surprising that the applicant’s office closed down for Christmas before 4.30 on that day. In any event, if a person keeps business hours that are different from the norm, it is their own business hours which apply for this purpose.

In this case, therefore, the email of 23 December had been received outside the applicant’s working hours, and so (in accordance with section 336(4A)) it had to be taken to have been received on the next working day, which was Wednesday 28 December in this case, because Christmas Day fell on a Sunday and so there was an extra Bank Holiday on Tuesday 27 December. So the notification of the council’s refusal of prior approval was received outside the 56-day period after all, and on that basis the Inspector held the applicant had been entitled (as they did) to go ahead with the erection of the telephone kiosk.

I am not aware of this appeal decision having been challenged, but I note that whilst paragraph A.2(6)(a) of Part 24 refers to “the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice of their prior determination that such prior approval is not required”, sub-paragraph (b) uses the words “the giving of that approval to the applicant, in writing”, and sub-paragraph (c) uses the words “notifying the applicant, in writing, that such approval is given or refused”. Sub-paragraph (d) also uses the words “notifying the applicant, in writing, of their determination as to whether such approval is required”. So the only sub-paragraph that refers to the receipt of written notice by the applicant is (a), relating to a notification (at any time, but in practice within the 56-day period, because one of the other sub-paragraphs would otherwise apply) that prior approval is not required.

I am not totally confident that the inspector’s easy assumption that notification of the refusal of prior approval of the Part 24 application had to be received by the applicant within the 56-day period is necessarily correct. It seems that, so far as notice under sub-paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) is concerned, simply dispatching the notice to the applicant within the 56-day period might in fact meet the time limit, even if that written notification is not received within the 56-day period. If that is correct, then section 336(4A) will not have any application, because it is only relevant in those cases where it is the date of receipt of the notice that counts.

In paragraph N of Part 3, sub-paragraph (a) refers to “the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice of their determination that such prior approval is not required” and sub-paragraph (b) refers to “the receipt by the applicant from the local planning authority of a written notice giving their prior approval”. So far so good; but sub-paragraph (c) refers to “the expiry of 56 days following the date on which the application was received by the local planning authority without the authority notifying the applicant as to whether prior approval is given or refused”.

Which brings us back to the point where we started, with the query I first raised in my post on 9 February. I argued in that piece that sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph N should be interpreted, in the light of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), as referring to the receipt of that notification by the applicant. But I am still not confident that the courts would agree with this interpretation if the point were ever to be argued before them. Telecoms companies seem to have taken an aggressive stance on this in relation to Part 24 and, in the absence of an adjudication by the High Court, they seem to have persuaded LPAs, and at least one inspector on appeal, that notification of the council’s determination of the prior approval application must be received within the 56-day period. Maybe we should proceed on this working assumption and hope that no LPA ever feels brave enough to litigate the point!

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Boat Plans Pdf are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Pdf. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Aluminum | Catching up

Boat Plans Aluminum

Continuing work on “The Book” (actually a writing project involving several different titles), combined with a recent holiday, has resulted in a more than usually lengthy delay since my last post here.

There is quite a backlog of topics on which I could write, but still being very short of time, I will just make a few passing comments on some topical issues.

The government, and their various opponents, are now in full election mode, with only three weeks left before parliament is dissolved, when the so-called ‘short’ campaign (a full five weeks of it) commences. There is clearly going to be quite a bit of unfinished business left over, the ultimate fate of which is going to depend on the outcome of the election.

Rather surprisingly, Eric Pickles’ current PPS threw doubt the other day on the government’s intention to go ahead with their previously enthusiastic proposal to make permanent those permitted development rights that are currently due to expire on 30 May 2016. These comprise the authorisation of larger domestic extensions and the residential conversion of offices that fall within Use Class B1(a). So even if we get a Conservative, or Conservative-led, government after 7 May, it seems there is now some doubt as to whether these temporary permitted development rights will be extended to 30 May 2019, as the government had proposed, and then perhaps be made permanent.

Despite ministerial harrumphing (and Uncle Eric is very good at doing that, if nothing else), relaxation of the restriction on short-term lets in Greater London still remains in doubt. The Bill on which this depends (which is expected to become the Deregulation Act 2015), having proceeded at a snail’s pace through the House of Lords, had its Third Reading there on 4 March and now awaits what our parliamentarians delight in calling “Ping-pong” (consideration of Lords’ amendments by the Commons, return of any rejected amendments to the Lords for further consideration, and so on – hence the name), which is due on 10 March.

Royal Assent should follow quite quickly after that, possibly even the very next day (11 March) but the new Act will not actually amend the 1973 Act, which prohibits short-term lets in Greater London; it will simply give the Secretary of State power to make a statutory instrument amending or modifying that prohibition. Up to yesterday, I had been under the impression that there is no longer enough time left in which to lay such subordinate legislation before parliament in this session, but I see that the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General (Amendment) Regulations 2015 were made yesterday, laid before Parliament today (just 25 days before parliament is dissolved), and will come into force on 6 April, i.e. in one calendar month from now.

If the Deregulation Act receives Royal Assent next week, on the day after a very quick consideration of Lords amendments, we already know that the relevant section will come in to force immediately on the passing of the Act; so could Uncle Eric make the requisite Order on 12 March, lay it before parliament on 13 March and bring it into force on 13 April? That would allow no more than 18 days for theoretical consideration of this statutory instrument before the dissolution of parliament. I don’t have access to a copy of Erskine May, so I don’t know whether this is procedurally permissible or not. Perhaps the Opposition could put a spanner in the works by proposing a negative resolution in that event.

However, if I was right in my previous assumption that by the time the Deregulation Bill receives Royal Assent it will then be too late to lay fresh subordinate legislation before parliament, or if it can be de-railed by the tabling of a negative resolution, then it will be entirely dependent on the view on this issue that is adopted by the ministers who are in office after 7 May as to whether this ever comes forward. Ministers have not in any event said that they will wholly revoke the restriction on short-term lets in Greater London, and so any amending order that may be made could be quite limited in its effect, and be hedged around with various ifs and buts.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Boat Plans Aluminum are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Aluminum. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Yacht Boat Plans | The 56 day rule – another example

Yacht Boat Plans

NOTE: 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.

I am grateful to a correspondent for passing on to me details of another appeal decision, issued last month, which dealt with the practical operation of the 56-day rule. This appeal related to a prior approval application under Part 3, Class MB, involving the residential conversion of a detached barn to produce two dwellings. The appellant claimed that he did not receive notification of the council’s decision within the 56-day period. It was agreed by both parties that the 56-day period would have expired on 4 June 2014. The council’s decision was dated 3 June, but the decision was not authorised under the council’s scheme of delegation until 4 June. Thus the decision could not have been sent out until Day 56 at the earliest.

The applicant stated that he had received the decision by post on 9 June, and that the council’s website was also updated with details of the decision on that day. He stated that the decision was not emailed to him. The council did not comment on or contradict any of this evidence. The inspector therefore held that, if the decision was posted on 4 June it would have been received by the appellant after the 56-day period and therefore that the postal notification did not take place within the statutory period.

As in the Tower Hamlets appeal (under Part 24), which I summarised in a previous post, the inspector in this case appears to have assumed that notification of the council’s decision must not only be dispatched (whether by hand, by post or electronically) within the 56-day period, but that it must actually be received by the applicant within that period.

Maybe in light of both of the Tower Hamlets decision and now this decision we can assume that this is the rule (until or unless the High Court tells us otherwise!). On the other hand, I understand that there have been other appeal decisions on the 56-day rule (which I have not seen) that went the other way, so maybe the jury is still out on this issue.

One other point that can be quickly disposed of is the implied suggestion (which has also been raised elsewhere) that publication of the council’s decision on its website could be taken as ‘notifying the applicant’ of the council’s decision. In my view, this could not amount to notification for the purposes of paragraph N(9)(c). Notification requires a written communication addressed to the applicant (or their agent), whether by post or by email, and merely posting information on the council’s website would not suffice for this purpose.

UPDATE: I now have the appeal reference for the decision reported above, kindly supplied by Mike Rutter. It is 2224715. If you go into the Planning Portal website, search for appeals and type in this reference, a few more key clicks will bring up a PDF of the decision letter.

© MARTIN H GOODALL


Do you find information about Yacht Boat Plans are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Yacht Boat Plans. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Wooden | Modified next boat design

Boat Plans Wooden

After re-considering the boat lines plan I posted a few months ago, I decided it could be improved.  The aft portion seemed too dominant, so I added more taper to the deck & topsides, and gave the transom more of a forward slant.  That aft section is now proportionally smaller.  My goal in developable designs has been always to show that a design that can be sheathed in plywood doesnt have to look "boxy", and I think that has been achieved.  Of course, a developable design can also be sheathed by almost any other technique or material.  There are no sharp curves which would require extra thin sheathing materials; 6mm ply will bend to

any of these curves.

An outboard engine of 60-90 hp should give 30-40 mph at the altitude here (6000) and somewhat faster speeds near sea level.  I have wondered about installing an inboard engine, revising the cockpit, and increasing the deadrise to 14 degrees (due to an anticipated greater displacement).  An inboard would have that authentic runabout aura; the deep rumbling exhaust; the weight and power to knife through waves, but I cant forget the many advantages of an outboard.

We will be busy this summer on some significant boating trips: the Grand Tetons in Wyoming, Glacier National Park in Montana, and Coeur dAlene, Idaho.  Our current boat is well-suited for the trip.  The ample freeboard and raised foredeck provide weather protection.  A newer boat is only a dream for now; however, I hope to build a scaled model this winter.

Do you find information about Boat Plans Wooden are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Wooden. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Dinghy Boat Plans | Monster Arapaima in the Deep Jungle of Guyana

Dinghy Boat Plans

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"

Do you find information about Dinghy Boat Plans are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Dinghy Boat Plans. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..

Boat Plans Canada | Organization How To Make Boatbuilding Not Suck

Boat Plans Canada

Boats are made of lots and lots of funny precision parts that all look more or less the same but are subtle different.  A bow skeg stringer end accidentally exchanged for a stern skeg stringer end and its all over.

The previous build day, in my excitement I threw together the dead simple building form, and assembled it wrong.  The building form is just made of 2x4s nailed together, but the boat members will be screwed and epoxied.  Theres no going back on wood parts epoxied together.  A serious error could mean having to start completely over on that member. 

 

So the previous build day was a lesson in the need for precision.  Before going further, I created labels for every piece of every member of the hull.  As I ripped pieces and then cut them to length, I stapled my sturdy cardboard labels directly on to the boards.

This way, when it came time to assemble, say, the starboard skeg stringer, I would only have to gather up all the pieces that said SKEG STRGR 1 (top, bottom, fore post, aft post, fore end, aft end) and bring them into the barn for assembly.

I also got a quad-ruled comp book and started taking detailed notes.  All the things youd normally scribble down on scratch paper as you were calculating angles and measurements and offsets went into the notebook.  All my little sketches of what pieces should look like before I cut them, lists of procedures, materials I needed to get, and a detailed journal of each day of work went into the comp book.

Along with a place in the barnyard to build the boat, Lawrence let us use an unused horse stall in the barn.  This made a perfect build office, a place to layout the plans, organize all our tools, and most importantly keep snacks and beer.

Having the right tool at hand when you need it, is not only convenient but can be critical during the stressful build process, especially when you are dealing with epoxy.  We spent time making sure that every tool had its own place.  This also had the benefit of making daily clean up more fun.  It felt good to do a lot of hard work and then have everything all neat and tidy at the end of the day.

Here Kai, one of my co-builders, in a goofy moment, models the first photo for our Little Shantyboat Pinup Calendar.  This also helps make boatbuilding not suck.

Do you find information about Boat Plans Canada are you looking for? If not, below may help you find more information about the Boat Plans Canada. Thank you for visiting, have a great day.

Read More..