P J Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 then perhaps best educate the birds not to eat the lead shot then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Depends what size it is according to google.......... one sourse re: how far does the 'shot' go says 'The old formula was to take the shot diameter in thousandths of an inch and multiply by 2.2 to get the maximum range in yards... so no. 7 shot at 0.100" diameter would fly 220yds max' Maybe Geoff knows...... Sorry after facing the appellants advocate I realise that I shouldn't give an opinion, especially at m appeal hearing, on such things without some sort of ballistic qualifications - 'So I'm out' on this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Fair enough Geoff Maybe they could use steel shot instead of lead though....sounds a bit dangerous thoughhttp://www.fourten.org.uk/lead_banned.pdfor perhaps they change it completely use laser guns so no mess or noise at all. No where near as much fun though PS... I didn't think you could appeal against an appeal decision made by the planning inspectorate ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 You can't it's game over I'm afraid - unless you wanted to ask Uncle Eric Pickles - I wonder who he would blame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 I knew you couldn't... I just wondered why you said "Sorry after facing the appellants advocate I realise that I shouldn't give an opinion, especially at m appeal hearing" as it sounded like you were....... my mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Fair enough Geoff Maybe they could use steel shot instead of lead though....sounds a bit dangerous though http://www.fourten.org.uk/lead_banned.pdf or perhaps they change it completely use laser guns so no mess or noise at all. No where near as much fun though PS... I didn't think you could appeal against an appeal decision made by the planning inspectorate ! You could seek judicial review, but that has cost implications for the Council (even if we won in the high court, they could go to appeal). But I wouldn't mind challenging the Inspector's interpretation of paragraph 81 of the NPPF. This government says we'll cut red tape and reduce planning guidance (built up over half a century of test cases and legal judgments) - then the wording of the new reduced guidance is so imprecise that it needs a whole series of new test cases to work out what it means. E.g. NPPF #81 says local authorities "should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt" (e.g. with sporting facilities) - but the Inspector turns "should" into a "duty" so that may be a legally dubious leap (he doesn't seem to cite any precedents). Why should the authority plan for a clay pigeon shoot when the Inspector himself says that need hasn't been quantified for "a specialist type of sport that would not appeal to the population at large"? He says "The provision of clay pigeon shooting facilities appears not to have been considered at all, albeit that I am not fully aware of whether such need was promoted by relevant bodies in the consultation stages of the two Plans" - in other words no-one has ever suggested that the Council should plan for clay pigeon shooting but we should have planned for it anyway, which to me sounds stupid. What else didn't we plan for in the Green Belt? A ski-slope, paintball, segway route, tree walks - you can't plan for every possible outdoor pursuit for which there's no proven demand just to satisfy some ill thought out wording off the back of Eric Pickles' fag packet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 You could seek judicial review, but that has cost implications for the Council (even if we won in the high court, they could go to appeal). But I wouldn't mind challenging the Inspector's interpretation of paragraph 81 of the NPPF. This government says we'll cut red tape and reduce planning guidance (built up over half a century of test cases and legal judgments) - then the wording of the new reduced guidance is so imprecise that it needs a whole series of new test cases to work out what it means. E.g. NPPF #81 says local authorities "should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt" (e.g. with sporting facilities) - but the Inspector turns "should" into a "duty" so that may be a legally dubious leap (he doesn't seem to cite any precedents). Why should the authority plan for a clay pigeon shoot when the Inspector himself says that need hasn't been quantified for "a specialist type of sport that would not appeal to the population at large"? He says "The provision of clay pigeon shooting facilities appears not to have been considered at all, albeit that I am not fully aware of whether such need was promoted by relevant bodies in the consultation stages of the two Plans" - in other words no-one has ever suggested that the Council should plan for clay pigeon shooting but we should have planned for it anyway, which to me sounds stupid. What else didn't we plan for in the Green Belt? A ski-slope, paintball, segway route, tree walks - you can't plan for every possible outdoor pursuit for which there's no proven demand just to satisfy some ill thought out wording off the back of Eric Pickles' fag packet. Well said Steve - many people are trying to protect the green belt surrounding the Town but with decisions like this nothing is safe - and what 'sporting activity' will the next application contain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 12, 2014 Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 Quad biking or off road motorcross maybe ? Just out of interest.... once the clay pigeon shoot place openes more, if lots of written complaints are received (by the council or whoever) about the noise etc etc could anything be done then? There's no way I could go anywhere near the nature reserve with my dog if there's a gun club there as the bangs would frighten her to death and she would probably slip her collar in a panic and do a runner. If we lived near it she would be too scared to go out in the garden too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted February 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 I think it depends on the complaints - if they aren't sticking to the agreement then that would be up to the enforcement officer. I always say to people if you think that you have a justified complaint then contact your local council/councillor ideally both and they will let you know if it is justified. If they don't respond then complain about them as well. The key word is EVIDENCE - record time/date/place/reference number and if possible a name of someone else who has also experienced/witnessed the issue/problem. If you do nothing then they won't and can't do anything - don't assume somebody else will complain on your behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.