Banning of Pigeons in North Yorkshire

[Guest]

Please look under Racing Pigeons' todays post by Bruno under the lofts thread and my response

 

I think some of you may have missed this, that is why I am starting a new thread to bring this matter to everyone's attention

[Guest]

I would suggest your thread be deleted, Hyacinth.  

 

I've already received a very irate PM about the UNC which I really didn't understand until I saw your post.

 

I didn't say anything about banning pigeons in north yorkshire, I referred to an article on planning permission which inferred at least two councils were using planning controls to stop people keeping pigeons.

 

The article appears on page 65 of BHW 16/12, I didn't write it, nor am I responsible for its content.

 

[Guest]

I'm sorry Bruno I am not going to delete this thread.

 

YOU put the posting on the forum in the first place and YOU mentioned the Up North Combine.

 

I responded from experience of what is going on in the states as of now as a warning of what could happen by virtue of a snowball effect if Councils passed legislation regarding pigeon keeping.

 

If you had not wanted any responses you should not have put the information on the forum

 

If The Webmaster wishes to delete this thread so be it, but until he makes this decision I feel the subject should be open for comment

[Guest]

I do not recall posting anything like 'banning pigeons in North Yorkshire'. Nor would I, because the heading can be taken to mean absolutely anything you want it to. The relevance in the previous thread of lofts in gardens and allotments was directed at (1) an earlier reference in the thread (of mine) to Ronald Shirley's articles on obtaining planning permissions to keep pigeons   and (2) another earlier post of mine in a relevant thread of Gez's in which he had specifically asked about pigeons overflying neighbours properties, and the conflict between Ronald Shirley's article inferring private domain of the 'sky', and what I'd posted inferring public domain of the 'sky'. The reference to the UNC was also relevant because the councils who had adopted this policy were within a racing pigeon hotbed... their attitude surprised (even) Ronald Shirley.

 

I do intend to contact Ronald Shirley through the BHW letters page to find out what precedents there are in planning law which gives householders ownership of the unlimited space above their homes & gardens and how that sits with common sense knowledge that wild birds have free access to that space, and cannot really be controlled 'out of it', so how could pigeons be treated differently?

 

 

 

 

[Guest Doostalker]

Bruno, I remember some years ago a fancier in Scotland being taken to court by a neighbour who among a whole series of issues with the man's pigeons, also complained that the "whooshing" sound made by the birds as they flew over her house, caused her concern and upset.

 

This was not dealt with as a "Planning" matter but as a nuisance. The argument being that this noise caused her alarm and also that it disturbed her legal right to enjoyment of her own property.

 

I would suspect that Planners would react to a complaint like this on the basis that it was a nuisance and that the activity (keeping pigeons) was not a "good neighbour" activity. A mate of mine had a similar experience with his dog kennels recently which he had been using for over 15 years. He built new ones to replace the older ones and a new neighbour lodged a complaint with the Planners. He had a nightmare of a time getting it resolved to his satisfaction. At one point he was threatened with having them removed. I work in local government and know that Planning Legislation can be a quagmire, but if you add nuisance aspects to it, then it is a lot worse.

 

The planners tend to deal with things on a subjective basis, and usually the best option is to keep them, your neighbour and your local councillor onside. If you get faced with a neighbour who lodges a complaint, then it is best to keep your cool and seek expert advice to help your case.

 

On the point of local authorities not letting people keep pigeons, I think that if you check with any big housing developer, they will have a covenant that you must agree with when you buy their house, which usually excludes the keeping of dogs, cats, poultry, pigeons etc. This means that they can use it as an umbrella if at some time in the future a neighbour dispute about such things should arise. You hardly ever see pigeon lofts on one of these big estates as a result of this.

[Guest]

Bruno,

 

(1) A fancier in Scotland taken to court by a neighbour who complained of the "whooshing" sound made by the birds as they flew over her house. Dealt with as  nuisance as the noise caused her alarm and disturbed her legal right to enjoyment of her own property.

 

 

(2) Planners would react on the basis that it was a nuisance and that the activity (keeping pigeons) was not a "good neighbour" activity. Planners tend to deal with things on a subjective basis, and best to keep them, your neighbour and your local councillor onside.

 

(3) If a neighbour lodges a complaint, best keep your cool and seek expert advice.

 

(4) Big housing developers will have a covenant which excludes the keeping of dogs, cats, poultry, pigeons etc.

 

 

We are caught between two threads, Doostalker. The original appears under 'Lofts' and you will see extracts from both planning appeal cases there. Your comments are very important, given your background, and I'd like to raise issues from the extract above, numbered for clarity.

 

 

(1) Legal right to 'peaceful' enjoyment of property: it appears the pigeon fancier is at greatest risk of losing that right, perhaps unfairly on Proportionality alone. Planes are much noisier than birds, are much more intrusive, have free access to the skies often only 50 feet or so above house roofs... and normally cannot be 'appealed' against in Law. (I lived under Glasgow Airport Flighpath for 13 years).

 

(2) Keeping Pigeons not seen as a "good neighbour" activity. The BHW writer said the Councils had inferred this from the Government's Planning Policy Statement 1(PPS1). Neither council offered evidence which supports this assumption. Further, I cannot see anything in PPS1 which infers that councils should rid its communities of pigeon fanciers, i.e. a form of social exclusion , indeed PPS1 calls for quite the opposite:

 

 

Social Cohesion and Inclusion

 

14. The Government is committed to developing strong, vibrant and sustainable communities and to promoting community cohesion in both urban and rural areas. This means meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity for all citizens.

 

 

26. In preparing development plans, planning authorities should:

 

(vi) Ensure that plans and policies are properly based on analysis and evidence.

 

(viii) Recognise that the impact of proposed development may adversely affect people who do not benefit directly. Local planning authorities can use planning conditions or obligations to ameliorate such impacts.

 

Community Involvement

 

42. Planning authorities should build a clear understanding of the make-up, interests and needs of the communities in their areas. Communities will be made up of many different interest groups, for example, relating to a particular place, issues (such as access for the disabled, local environmental quality, or support for small businesses), values or religion. An inclusive approach should be taken to ensure that different groups have the opportunity to participate and are not disadvantaged in the process.

 

 

So as you infer Doostalker, planners are taking a subjective view which by its very nature will lead to a biased decision. They are surely required to reach decisions objectively, having regard to all evidence....

 

 

 

(3)  Does a householder have the right to keep pigeons or is is there a positive obligation to seek permission to keep pigeons on their own property? Which areas of law for expert guidance?

 

(4) My understanding of the covenant in Scotland is that it is legally binding on the first owner only. But like everything else of this nature, check it out first! I checked out the need for planning permission to keep pigeons in a garage, and was informed by the local council, in writing, that no planning permission was needed to keep pigeons within an existing building.

 

 

[T_T]

I remember in 1966 when I first bought my brand new Bungalow, I had to apply through the BUILDING COMPANY to keep pigeons.   They then did a survey of the surrounding properties asking each owner what they thought about the prospect of me keeping pigeons.  ONE of the people asked, objected and I was refused.  I couldn't accept that so complained on the grounds of a majority decision, that one vote against me wasn't and shouldn't be enough to stop me pursuing my hobby.   They came back to me about a month later giving me the go ahead.

I think now more than ever before, we are up against it.