Topic ID 4015
Mudlarks offers adults with learning disabilities the chance to be involved, basically, in running an allotment. following is a resume of the meeting for a request for a shed Sadly last night the planning officer's recommendation that we be granted permission to erect our shed was overturned by the councillors. Beryl Wrangles, a town councillor who has been on the sub committee of the town council working with Mudlarks, has led the opposition and stood in the meeting last night to object to us. Her grounds for objection are We are inappropriate on greenbelt. (The planning officer disagreed with this as we are an agricultural style building intended for use associated with agriculture.) There is a demand from local residents for allotments. (Our trainees are local residents and have as much right to allotments as any able bodied person.) While we are a 'worthy' cause, we should find another site. (The planning officer pointed out that the planning issues should be the same wherever the site as we will always need a green site, and that in his opinion we are an appropriate activity.) Our in-shed 'manufacturing' activities are inappropriate. (The planning officer stated that word work is entirely appropriate and carried out in all allotment sheds. Also that councillors should not speculate as to our activities but make a decision based on the merits of the planning application.)
Reply ID 58295
Thats a big shame. Maybe if you build it without permission anyway and then sell coffee from it you'll be OK. Hope you will be ensuring the Mercury runs the story.
Reply ID 58304
Does seem a shame. Where is this shed site? Were you proposing a shoddy erection within Beryl's view?
Reply ID 58309
if memory serves Wrangles lives in one of the streets up from Hertford East..
Reply ID 58310
quote:She certainly does (unfortunately).....................
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading
if memory serves Wrangles lives in one of the streets up from Hertford East..
Reply ID 58328
Are you going to appeal the decision? Relatively straightforward process by written reps... Written reps is cheapest option (you just fill in the forms, no hearing, etc), and PINS are actually turning decisions around quicker now due to downturn in applications! You have 6 months from decision date to make an appeal and it would seem that you have good grounds, especially as planning officer recommended for approval on sound grounds. More information on how to appeal is available here: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/genpub/en/1018892034763.html With more advice here: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/genpub/en/1018892034763.html Costs escape my maternity leave addled brain, but sure it is in there somewhere. Good luck - it sounds like an excellent scheme.
Reply ID 58330
I can't see why the Mudlarks shouldn't have an area; especially in the proposed area there is a lot of unutilised space. I don't know what sort of shed Mudlarks wanted to have, but could the problem be that allotment holders are allowed to have a shed up to 6 feet by 4 feet and Mudlarks wanted a larger one? Hence they would set a precedent that other allotment holders would follow?
Reply ID 58332
It sounds like you have a valid case by what the Planning Officer says. I don't know much about the planning process, but surely an appeal and a bit of good publicity for you (and a bit of bad publicity for the appropriately named Mrs Wrangles) in The Mercury should do the trick. I hope so anyway as we need more community projects like this in this selfish age. Good luck!
Reply ID 58347
Try asking for advice on: http://www.allotments4all.com They are very useful and friendly forum with all sorts of members with all sorts of experience. They also know all about the laws of allotments, how to manage them, how to get the coucil to provide land for allotments (which councils have to do under a particular law when there is a certain number of allotment-less people who want an allotment). Sorry for promoting another forum, Admin, but I think this would help Mudlarks in their work.
Reply ID 58500
All we're talking about is a shelter for vulnerable people with disabilities and somewhere to have a cup of tea on bleak afternoons! Two fingers seems to have been shown to the spirit of christmas! Whoever opposed this shame on you - we will remember come election time!
Reply ID 58502
The single reason for refusal was on the green belt issue, specifically: "The application site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the East Hertfordshire Local Plan wherein permission will not be given except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those required for mineral extraction, agriculture, small scale facilities for participatory sport and recreation or other uses appropriate to a rural area. In this case although the allotment use is appropriate in the Green Belt the buildings are considered to be excessive in scale and therefore detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy GBC1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007." I haven't seen the plans for the proposed building so can't comment on the size or materials used for construction. I know other posts have refered to it as a "shed" and "shelter", but how big is it exactly?
Reply ID 58504
20ft by 9ft. The plans were online. Large shed with a glazed area on the roof and front to allow light. I think the feeling was that this was out of keeping with the surroundings and too large, specially when you consider they were proposing an additional covered area of the same size attached to the building. In total the footprint would have been 40ft by 18ft.
Reply ID 59567
I have received the following message, via email from a friend who is heavily involved in the Mudlarks cause and has helped to raise money for them. "Having scuppered their planning application for a hut, the Council is now intending to withdraw their lease saying that, without the hut, they don't need the land! There is a full council meeting at the Castle in Hertford at 7pm this Monday 19th (tonight)." I thought I would post this as I am sure there are some people, like myself, who would like to attend this meeting, but did not know about it.
Reply ID 59575
Nice one Lemonjelly. The council's position is ridiculous and I will be there to support the Mudlarks cause!
Reply ID 59673
quote:The size of the shed can seem a little misleading, while 20ft by 9ft is considerable bigger than a standard shed, the Mudlarks shed has to be large enough to allow wheelchair access and have adequate space for several people to work and rest in. When you consider the above 20ft by 9ft doesn’t seem half so big! Also I think its worth pointing out the shed will never be 40ft by 18ft, the open sided workshop area increases the footprint to 20ft by18ft. My personal view is that an architect designed shed with a sedum roof can only enhance the area rather than detract from it.
Originally posted by Turnip77
20ft by 9ft. The plans were online. Large shed with a glazed area on the roof and front to allow light. I think the feeling was that this was out of keeping with the surroundings and too large, specially when you consider they were proposing an additional covered area of the same size attached to the building. In total the footprint would have been 40ft by 18ft.
Reply ID 59674
quote:Its true that the precedent argument has been used by are ‘honourable’ councillors in refusing planning permission. Cllr Wrangles stated reason for opposing planning permission (East Herts council planning committee meeting, December 17th 2008) was that the shed would set a precedent, now she knows as well as anyone else that’s simply not true, the Town Clerk at Hertford Town council and the planning officer at East Herts council have both stated this is a special case and therefore does not set a precedent. In fact if such a building did then the shipping container on the North Road allotment would have already set that precedent, which clearly it hasn’t! The only difference I can see is that the users of the Mudlarks shed have a disability, but surely that can’t be the Councillors reason for objecting…
Originally posted by Rabbit Rabbit
I can't see why the Mudlarks shouldn't have an area; especially in the proposed area there is a lot of unutilised space. I don't know what sort of shed Mudlarks wanted to have, but could the problem be that allotment holders are allowed to have a shed up to 6 feet by 4 feet and Mudlarks wanted a larger one? Hence they would set a precedent that other allotment holders would follow?
Reply ID 59689
The main objections at last Tuesday's (20th Jan) meeting seemed to be that the shed was too big and would attract vandalism and this was put forward by someone who said that his garden backs on to the Mudlarks site. Also, according to information on this website, Cllr Wrangles lives in Tamworth Road, which is very near to Mudlarks. I trust that these people would still object to the plans if this was on an allotment site that was not near their homes.
Reply ID 59692
So the meeting was not about "intending to withdraw their lease saying that, without the hut, they don't need the land!"?
Reply ID 59726
Well, it didn't seem to be. That piece of information was 'third-hand' news, it's just what I was told. By the way, I made an error in my previous post; the meeting was on Monday night, not Tuesday.
Reply ID 59738
Well Steve it was and it wasn’t! had the Town Council decided to withdraw its support then they could have kicked Mudlarks off the site. What they did do was support the project in principle but not the planning application. The facts on the planning issue are as follows: The Town Council agreed on Monday night that Mudlarks plan to build suitable shelter for its vulnerable clients was contrary to section GBC1 – Appropriate Development in the Green Belt - of East Herts Local Plan, Second Review April 2007, and that they would therefore not be challenging the decision of the Development Control Committee of East Herts District Council to disallow it. The real question is how both bodies came up with this decision? GBC1, (a) states that development for agricultural purposes is appropriate: according to EHDC’s own planning department report, “horticulture is considered to fall within the definition of agriculture. The development is considered to be horticulture as the proposal is for the tending of allotments and no material change of use of the land is proposed” (7.2) Section (b) states that the construction of “essential small scale facilities for...outdoor recreation” is appropriate: surely the building of ecologically friendly toilet facilities providing shelter and warmth in order that people with disabilities may access the recreational facility of allotments is precisely that? None of the other criteria listed in this section apply to this development; the stumbling block, and key subjective phrase would appear to be the ‘small scale’. Some councillors clearly felt that the scale of the large shed/garden building was too big – but on what grounds? The controversial building is no larger in scale than one that already exists on the North Road allotment site. The EHDC’s planning officers’ report concluded that “bearing in mind the siting of the building against the western boundary, it is not felt that this impact (on the openness of the area) would be so significant as to warrant the refusal of planning permission.” (7.6) – in other words, the council’s professional advisers don’t think it’s too big, and they do consider it a legitimate development; which is why they recommended planning permission be granted. They also addressed issues of vehicular access, and the impact on nearby resident amenity, (not directly concerned with in GBC 1) and found that the development was not dangerous or detrimental in these respects. Councillors need verifiable grounds to contest projects which do not contravene planning regulations - personal doubt and lack of conviction, however deeply and conscientiously felt, should not be enough. More fundamentally, according to the same Local Plan cited by councillors, “the Council’s overall approach...is to promote greater accessibility and to enhance the independence and quality of life of disabled people.’ (8.7.1) The Council wishes to ensure that disabled people are not prevented from playing a full role in the life of a community due to the design of the environment...the Council will have regard to their needs in consideration of ...planning applications for new development.” (8.7.2). It does not seem as if either Council has paid due regard to this aspiration from the document which is supposed to guide and inform development and direction in this region, which they should defer to – its statements for Disabled Access are surely due as much weight and consideration as its boundaries for development in the Green Belt, which in any case this development would not infringe.
Reply ID 59752
Hi Quartermass, I had not previously heard of Mudlarks, but assume it is independent of Hertford Town Council? If that's true, then it's not HTC's place to appeal a planning refusal, Mudlarks should do it themselves. They have 6 months from the date of refusal, and from what I have seen in this thread, the original planning officer has already written most of the case in the committee report that was in support of the application. It gave many policies that the application supported. Has the decision been appealed? Wingnut?? However, looking on the Mudlarks website, they are currently looking for sheds to place on the allotment. The individual sheds don't require planning permission and will actually have a greater footprint than the rejected application.
Reply ID 59755
The Town Council has no authority to challenge the decision of the district council on planning matters. As SMT states, Mudlarks must do that themselves. The Town Council has a say as landlords and I think the key message was that they do support the project but they just felt that this building was too big and of an inappropriate appearance for a large green open space. From what I can gather, an architect did not design this building, it was salvaged from elsewhere. As one of the councillors stated at the meeting, there are loads of disabled people, including himself, using allotments at the moment. 'Reasonable Adjustment' is what is required by legislation and it could be argued that a shed this size is not reasonable for the current number of people using it (about 4) none of whom are in wheelchairs. Also, any allotment holder knows that permission must be sought from the council before erecting any sheds, so just because they are asking or sheds, doesnt mean they will get them.
Reply ID 59766
Perhaps I should not have used the words ‘not be challenging the decision of the Development Control Committee of East Herts District Council’ clearly Mudlarks will be the ones appealing the East Herts District Councils decision. It was hoped that Hertford Town Council would have given the shed its backing but that’s seems not to be the case. To answer some of Turnip77 points, the shed has been designed by an architect for the specific purpose that has been proposed in the planning application, namely to allow people with disabilities access to the allotments. The shed is bespoke to the Ware road site, It will be made from reclaimed materials but it is categorically NOT an ‘off the shelf’ salvaged shed. The argument that, as no Mudlarks trainees currently use a wheelchair then a wheelchair accessible shed is not required, is frankly ridiculous. Mudlarks can’t have people in wheelchairs at the present time as it doesn’t have the facilities, namely the shed! Also it can’t expand the number of trainees on site as again the facilities aren’t available. it’s a catch 22 argument that your making Turnip77, not enough people to justify a shed, no shed means you can’t have more people to justify that shed! Its also perhaps worth pointing out that the wheelchair ramp that the Town Council has erected at the ware road allotments is unfit for purpose and is having to be replaced at council tax payers expense.
Reply ID 59924
The ramp was only ever fitted, at tax payers expense, to try and support the Mudlarks project. The fact that it was wrongly installed and is being corrected has not, I am assured, incurred any additional cost to the tax payer at all. I feel Mudlarks are trying to run before they can walk. I think some wheelchair users might actually feel upset by the suggestion that they need such fundementally different provision to enjoy allotments. My husband is regisered disabled and loves his gardening. He accepts that getting cold and wet is part of the experience and for him, access would be a greater barrier than the lack of a shed. How would he physically get a wheelchair around a grassed, uneven surface to get to his flower beds? Raised beds do not currently exist on the site. I agree that those with learning difficulties may need additional support to keep warm etc but please do not assume all disabled people expect or require such radically different provision to the able bodied. This can be almost as disabling as the disability!
Reply ID 59940
I agree that disability is such a ‘catch all’ term that can cover almost anything. The people who use Mudlarks have disabilities that vary from person to person (as you would expect) but it is true to say many of the trainees have a mobility impairment and have trouble keeping warm in severe weather. I would hope I’ve never assumed that all disabled people are the same, but I’ve also never assumed that people with disabilities shouldn’t be supported to enjoy the same possibilities as the rest of the population. You criticize Mudlarks for ‘running before they can walk’ but then argue that they haven’t yet built any raised beds. I can assure you they are planned (along with wheelchair friendly paths and toilet) but Mudlarks has been at Ware road for less than a year and can’t do all that they want immediately. I believe the ramp was built, not expressly for Mudlarks, but because the old concrete steps were condemned as dangerous. Would Turnip77 be happy to allow Mudlarks a shed if its footprint was no bigger than other sheds on the Ware road allotments?
Reply ID 59959
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree but in answer to your question, no, I wouldnt, because I feel that there are too many sheds and greenhouses, not to mention cars on the sites as it is. I personally feel that allotments are allotments, not car parks or building sites. I accept that storage space is needed but feel that should be kept to an absolute minimum. I also think there is a certain amount of emotional blackmail going on by stressing over and over again that the shed is for disabled people essentially accusing people of discrimination when, from what I can see, people do actually want to help. This sort of thing really does upset some disabled people who, as I mentioned above, find it insulting and patronising. Has there been any attempt at compromise with the council? Or are you saying its this shed or nothing? Perhaps a smaller shed could be used to start with and expanded as the project grows? Dont get me wrong, I am not a fan of local authorities and my husband has had his 'run ins' with various councils on disability issues. However, I do try to see both sides of the coin and the feel this project has huge scope for sucess if a slightly more concilitary approach was taken.
Reply ID 59969
Its not emotional blackmail to point out the facts, Mudlarks is a project for people with leaning difficulties, how can it be wrong to explain why a shed is necessary? I would suggest it’s discriminatory to object to Mudlarks shed when there are larger sheds already on this and other allotments in the town. Equal opportunities is all about levelling the playing field, giving disabled people the same opportunities by changing practise, policy or procedure, by providing auxiliary aids or services to allow disabled people to make use of services. That’s not emotional blackmail, it’s the law. The Mudlarks shed is a special case. You suggest that Mudlarks should be more conciliatory, would it be acceptable to compromise and say to wheelchair users that they can’t come? Not great equal opportunities is it? I’d hope Turnip77 that your husband doesn’t find it ’insulting and patronising’ to find shops have replaced steps with ramps or lifts, that buses are now wheelchair (and pushchair) accessible or that there are purpose designed car parking spaces for wheelchair users? I’m guessing he doesn’t and for the same reason you shouldn’t be offended because Mudlarks is doing all it can in supporting people to use their allotments.