Oh! For Heaven's Sake.....

[julesapple]

The poor woman.

This is just ridiculous.....green belt or not.

What does she do about the protected newts in her garden?

[Bigmallly]

I'm not going to comment on the rights & wrongs but it is a terrible shame.

[Verinda]

Oohhh! Surely they cannot just bulldoze all the animals...frogs and newts are protected aren't they, so perhaps that would put the council in the wrong...maybe...hopefuly...

[PyreneesPlot]

Get it classified as an SSSI pdq

[veggiechicken]

Once again there is something missing in that Mail story. If the new pond is totally within her own garden land she can garden it as she likes without planning consent as that land would not form part of the green belt. From the aerial photo it looks as if the back boundary has been pushed out into the field and she has extended her garden into it. Does she own that field?
Also they are talking about a 10' strip of land - that pond is a lot bigger than 10'. But at worst, she would have to return the back 10' of "garden" to agricultural land.
When I bought some land at the back of my house, because it was an old orchard it was not considered to be agricultural land and could be used as garden. If I'd also bought the field behind, that would have been agricultural and could not have been turned into garden without "Change of use" planning approval.

[mrbadexample]

Well, with all those fish in the pond it's not likely to be an ideal site for amphibians breeding, is it?

Why should she be able to do what she likes on greenbelt land? Where do you draw the line?

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

[julesapple]

Once again there is something missing in that Mail story. If the new pond is totally within her own garden land she can garden it as she likes without planning consent as that land would not form part of the green belt. From the aerial photo it looks as if the back boundary has been pushed out into the field and she has extended her garden into it. Does she own that field?
Also they are talking about a 10' strip of land - that pond is a lot bigger than 10'. But at worst, she would have to return the back 10' of "garden" to agricultural land.
When I bought some land at the back of my house, because it was an old orchard it was not considered to be agricultural land and could be used as garden. If I'd also bought the field behind, that would have been agricultural and could not have been turned into garden without "Change of use" planning approval.

The DM have missed something? Actually, it'd be more of a surprise if they's reported the facts as they stand.

I understand about the greenbelt and change of use restrictions - of course I do. But her garden looks no different from the others you can see bits of in the aerial shot.

I wonder who reported her?

[bearded bloke]

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

And me even more so,from the pictures in that article I would say that the original "domestic use" boundary would have been between the end of the stone wall on the left & the tall box structure on the right,which would put the pond in what should be "agricultural use" land,that said I guess that the adjoining property will soon be receiving a similar notice (unless they already have "change of use") as from the aerial picture there looks to be a line of continuance through the lawn at the same distance from the building.

However I will temper the above by saying it truly is a shame to see all that thought & effort go to waste.

[alldigging]

Can she not say it's a fish farm?

[Seahorse]

From the ariel picture, it appears that they're talking about the bit of her garden that extends beyond her neighbours. That doesn't even include the pond! Sad as it is for her, if you let one person use greenbelt it creates a precedent, then everyone'll be at it, including developers who can site other occasions when it's been allowed.

I did have to smile at the 'before' picture though. The DM are well known for their campaign against foxes and what should be in the photo...

[bearded bloke]

If she screws her loaf this is actually not such a biggy,leave the pond & a single row of boulders around it,put a low picket fence in along the original boundary,move the shrubs to positions alongside the fence within the garden then flatten & turf the remaining area,hey presto a paddock with a drinking facility

[SarzWix]

The danger is that once something has been used as 'garden' for X number of years, it's much easier to get permission to build on it, and whilst this lady might never intend to do that, who knows what future owners might do? Surely though, this could be mitigated by insisting on a covenant or something similar?