Clarkson’s Farm
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
surveyor said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
surveyor said:
An AONB does not mean no development. Policy should dictate what is and is not permitted, and it should be consistent in application.
...and because it was appealed to the planning inspector we know that it *was* consistent.What made you think it wasn't consistent? Are you aware of any other Amazon Prime blockbusters that have opened attractions with massive footfall in AONBs?
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Monday 6th May 20:12
Its story had come to a conclusion, I suspect it failed to meet some non planning related rules and there was no reason to keep it so they just didn't bother to rectify whatever needed sorting.
WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
As the local councillor said in the Telegraph interview linked to above, had Clarkson put the restaurant on the other side of the road, which is outside of the AONB, the Council would have rubber stamped the application and he would have had his restaurant. But that doesn't make good telly.
48k said:
Clarkson believed the restaurant was Permitted Development under the Town and Country Planning Act.
WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
As the local councillor said in the Telegraph interview linked to above, had Clarkson put the restaurant on the other side of the road, which is outside of the AONB, the Council would have rubber stamped the application and he would have had his restaurant. But that doesn't make good telly.
Does he have a derelict building the other side of the road? WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
As the local councillor said in the Telegraph interview linked to above, had Clarkson put the restaurant on the other side of the road, which is outside of the AONB, the Council would have rubber stamped the application and he would have had his restaurant. But that doesn't make good telly.
Sway said:
48k said:
Clarkson believed the restaurant was Permitted Development under the Town and Country Planning Act.
WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
As the local councillor said in the Telegraph interview linked to above, had Clarkson put the restaurant on the other side of the road, which is outside of the AONB, the Council would have rubber stamped the application and he would have had his restaurant. But that doesn't make good telly.
Does he have a derelict building the other side of the road? WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
As the local councillor said in the Telegraph interview linked to above, had Clarkson put the restaurant on the other side of the road, which is outside of the AONB, the Council would have rubber stamped the application and he would have had his restaurant. But that doesn't make good telly.
48k said:
Clarkson believed the restaurant was Permitted Development under the Town and Country Planning Act.
WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
Thanks, that's clear.WODC believed the PD was trumped by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act which regulates Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Both sides believed they were in the right, both sides could point to a law which supported their position.
A planning inspector had to decide who was actually right and decided it was the Council.
BikeBikeBIke said:
paulw123 said:
Still feel the unnecessary swearing is forced/scripted and adds nothing whatsoever. Clarksons 'for f
ks sake' just get dropped in pretty much at random.
Agree re the swearing. Its classic family viewing why thy need the swearing is beyond me. As you say its not accidental, it's scripted in.ks sake' just get dropped in pretty much at random. Mind you for my 8yo being allowed to watch a show with profanity is part of the magic. He can't believe his luck.
Clarkson's a bloody genius.
It's great TV. I went back and started watching the second series again too. For me Clarkson became a bit of a parody of himself in the motoring shows over the years and wasn't as keen-whether that was planned and played upon has probably been discussed at length. In Clarksons Farm IMO he's back to what I enjoyed on Top Gear many moons ago.
Went on a school trip with my lad to a farm and had a good chat with the farmer and the show came up in conversation. Despite the two farms being at opposite ends of the country the local farmer said he and others categorically said the raising of the profile it's given farming in generally is great.
Went on a school trip with my lad to a farm and had a good chat with the farmer and the show came up in conversation. Despite the two farms being at opposite ends of the country the local farmer said he and others categorically said the raising of the profile it's given farming in generally is great.
I've found it interesting to observe the contrasting reactions to the show, and its depiction of farming life, among my Devon in-laws who farm beef cattle and sheep.
The younger family members (who've mostly taken over the farm now) love the show and are very much onboard with how it raises public awareness and appreciation of many of the trials and tribulations of farming life, while accepting some parts of it are more confected for entertainment value. While slightly curmudgeonly father-in-law, who's theoretically retired but in the same way all old farmers are, watched the first season and hated it because he just saw it as a rich bloke playing around at what him and his dad spent their whole lives grinding for.
The younger family members (who've mostly taken over the farm now) love the show and are very much onboard with how it raises public awareness and appreciation of many of the trials and tribulations of farming life, while accepting some parts of it are more confected for entertainment value. While slightly curmudgeonly father-in-law, who's theoretically retired but in the same way all old farmers are, watched the first season and hated it because he just saw it as a rich bloke playing around at what him and his dad spent their whole lives grinding for.
paulw123 said:
Still feel the unnecessary swearing is forced/scripted and adds nothing whatsoever. Clarksons 'for fks sake' just get dropped in pretty much at random.
Pretty sure it’s not scripted. Clarkson has said as much. There is no script editor or anything listed like there was for Top Gear. ks sake' just get dropped in pretty much at random. I certainly swear probably more than him in daily life without thinking.
p1stonhead said:
paulw123 said:
Still feel the unnecessary swearing is forced/scripted and adds nothing whatsoever. Clarksons 'for fks sake' just get dropped in pretty much at random.
Pretty sure it’s not scripted. Clarkson has said as much. There is no script editor or anything listed like there was for Top Gear. ks sake' just get dropped in pretty much at random. I certainly swear probably more than him in daily life without thinking.
romft123 said:
what makes me laugh is that some on here think that all farming is like this.....
Without the comedy I would say more farming is closer to the agony and hardworking of this programme than the other usual "Ive made my millions in the city and have now bought a farm and everything is Alpaccas and prancing lambs"BikeBikeBIke said:
romft123 said:
what makes me laugh is that some on here think that all farming is like this.....
What makes me laugh is that some on here think that some on here think that all farming is like this.....p1stonhead said:
Pretty sure it’s not scripted. Clarkson has said as much. There is no script editor or anything listed like there was for Top Gear.
I certainly swear probably more than him in daily life without thinking.
It might not be scripted but I would suggest that some scenes are 'made for TV'. Such as dragging the bramble picking machine along the wall or the nonsense with the hovercraft.I certainly swear probably more than him in daily life without thinking.
okgo said:
Exactly.
I also note Clarkson swears a lot in his Instagram stories/beer posts. I don’t think it’s inserted at all.
I think Clarkson's language has always been quite blue, it's only because we were used to seeing him on the BBC for so many years where it wasn't broadcast that people maybe assumed he wasn't a potty mouth I also note Clarkson swears a lot in his Instagram stories/beer posts. I don’t think it’s inserted at all.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff