Post by krw Post by Penny
He's 85 today - does he have a life tenancy in the farm bungalow?
I can remember an agreement that he could occupy the bungalow until he died.
I have a similar vague memory. I think it was at a point where
David-and-Ruth were feeling well-disposed and/or sympathetic towards
Bert: either he'd just done something very good to/for them, or it was
when he was somewhat lost after the sudden and unpleasant death of
Freda. (Not that many deaths are pleasant, but didn't she die in the
flood?) I think that _was_ the occasion for D&R to tell him he was OK.
Post by krw
Post by Penny
We have not heard guiding work at LL lately - not much demand I suppose.
Like me, I think he's more or less broken (not working).
Post by krw Post by Penny
Are Rex and whatshisface still living there with him?
As far as we know Toby and Rex are still sub-tenants - although Toby is
presumably co-parenting and not using a bed at the cottage whilst Rex
would like to be in bed with Pip?
Though neither of those would count for Brookfield, I thought the
following might be of interest:
Where accommodation is needed for an agricultural worker who needs to
live on-site or nearby (e. g. to be close to look after livestock), and
no nearby accommodation exists, planning permission may be granted for
temporary (removable) accommodation, even in an area where such would
not normally be permitted (outside an area scheduled for dwellings,
AONB. etc.), provided it remains for the use of the agricultural worker
only - usually the period is for a given reason, such as to see whether
a proposed agricultural business becomes viable. If it is granted, it's
usually for a temporary period (e. g. three years), i. e. a condition is
applied that by a given date it is removed and the site returned to as
before the dwelling was present.
It's not unusual for a subsequent application (e. g. if the business
_does_ prove viable, or look likely to become so soon) to be made -
before the stated date, of course - to extend the temporary period
(though _repeated_ such extensions are discouraged), or to have the
remove-by-given-date condition removed; it's not unknown for a planning
authority to allow this, but replacing the "remove by date X" by "remove
should in the future no longer be required for ag. worker" (and
retaining the "only _for_ use _by_ ag. worker" condition).
Such applications, like most planning applications, are usually made by
the person who owns the land; though I _think_ anyone can apply for
planning permission for anything anywhere (if you want to waste your
money [fees plus architect costs] doing so, they're not going to stop
you - or you might even get it; having planning permission doesn't allow
you to actually build something on someone else's land! [In fact there
are a lot of cases where you can get PP for something but still not be
able to go ahead with it.]). So I can't see potential-pig-baron applying
- he probably doesn't have the cash to do it, and I can't see either
David or Elizabeth _wanting_ to; they might if _they_ were proposing the
business and thinking of _employing_ what's-his-name to _run_ it, but
AFAICS he's wanting to own _and_ operate it.
(As you can probably guess, we have such an application in my area. I
can't give any details as it hasn't been decided yet, but I thought the
situation is of interest/relevance to UMRA. The temporary accommodation
doesn't have to be a grotty caravan or even a mobile home - it can be a
nice home, provided it is of a type that _can_ be removed without actual
demolition [at least, such is more likely to be given temporary
permission in the first place].)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited (***@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998