Planning regs/permission for river bridge?

[Flummoxed]

I haven't found anything about this, so sorry if it's been asked before.

We live near a river, and one of our neighbours has built a wooden bridge across the river from his garden that backs onto it, across to the other side.

Would he have needed planning permission to do this? The river is not deep but is navigable by small craft and has been used by canoeists in the past (although I admit I've not seen any for a few months) and I wonder if this would obstruct the canoeists (it goes straight across, not far above water level, so there would be no room for a canoe or boat to get under it.)

The reason I ask is because we're not all that happy about him doing it as we think it looks ugly (it's a bit of a cowboy job to look at, made of various old bits of wood), and it spoils our view of the river. I don't want to be a b******d, but I wondered what the legal position is, before I say anything to him. If it's OK to do this, I guess there's nothing we can do and we'll just have to get used to it. It's a shame, because the river view was what attracted us to live here in the first place (the house is nothing special but we liked the location/view).

Any idea how to find out, who to contact etc.? I'm not sure what the legalities are, but I believe there are certain responsibilities associated with living next to a river, keeping it free from obstruction, etc.

Any advice on this would be appreciated.

Cheers

Flummoxed

[Kosmo]

Might be worth posting this in uk.legal if not already posted there. The Building Control department at your local council deals with planning permission and building regulations, so it is worth asking them.

[The Medway Handyman]

The Environment Agency are responsible for rivers

he has blocked off the navigation I reckon they might have something to say about it.

What's the name of the river?

[Terry W.]

"Flummoxed" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Who owns the land the other end of the bridge rests on? Has the owner of the land on the other side given his permission for a bridge to "sit" on it?

I am sure that it is a trespass to sit an end of a bridge on land, but only if the owner of that land decides to take action can/will anything be done.

Further questions: Who owns the river? Does the boundary of adjacent land run down the middle of the river? Does anyone have a right-of-way along the river?

All in all a legal nighmare !

Terry W.

[AJH]

We needed planning permission and environment agency consent to do this for a footbridge. It must depend on the status of the river.

In our case the pp was relatively easy, even though it needed approval from two councils as the river was a parish boundary.

The EA consent was tricky as it also straddled an EA boundary and different officers dealt with it from both sides plus did not liaise and made conflicting requirements.

In the end we went for the one that seemed most sensible, the other chap then challenged the pp but we haven't needed to take it down yet ;-).

Chief requirements were to do with not interfering with flow when in spate (meant the bottom of the bridge beams needed to be 1metre above the bank, of a flat meadow) and not affecting migration paths (meant the abutments had to be set back a couple of metres from the bank increasing span and expense considerably).

AJH

[Peter Crosland]

The bridge does require planning permission and you can check with your local planning authority to see if there is permission. He would also need permission from the EA. If he does not own the land on the other side then he would need permission from the landowner as well.

Peter Crosland

[Flummoxed]

Thanks for the replies so far. The person concerned owns the land on both sides, as far as we know, so they wouldn't have had to get permission from another landowner.

Looking into it further, I understand that probably means he owns the riverbed too. So maybe he's allowed to do it.

I believe he has a responsibility not to block the river flow or anything like that, but this bridge wouldn't affect the river flow.

(I'd rather not say where it is because of the possibility of him seeing this and guessing it's me!)

Looks as if the Environment Agency might be worth contacting.

Unfortunately I doubt we will have much of a case, because it's just our view that's affected, and these days that doesn't seem to count for much with the authorities :-(

Cheers

Flummoxed

[Peter Crosland]

Far from it. The rules on development in the countryside are quite strict. It is certainly worth talking to the local planning authority. Likewise the EA are very strict and AFAIK have a policy against granting permission retrospectively.

Peter Crosland

[Chris Hodges]

Canoeists have no rights over the water whatsoever - I am one! Unless there's a historic right of navigation that is, and in practice that normally seems to mean the sort of thing you could get a narrowboat along. Basically (small) watercourses don't exist under the law in England and Wales - they're just flooded land.

(see

if you want more info)

Chris

[Chris Hodges]

Flummoxed wrote: I don't suppose you feel like mentioning what the river is do you? It would be worth mentioning to other paddlers if a new obstruction has appeared. Chris

[zikkimalambo]

Ring the relevant agencies, and tell them you are thinking of putting a bridge across the river, and ask them what's involved. I'm sure you could let slip that there is one next door without meaning too :=))

[Nick]

Was the first bridge put in because the guy didn't like canoeists ?

Nick