A dog trainer accused of breaching neighbours’ human rights by using land to exercise her pets has bitten back — by claiming she is being filmed using the plot.Yes. And?
The 47-year-old, who runs Alrewasbased Capable Canines, insisted it was not she who was breaching article eight of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, but whoever was filming her.
“They are invading my privacy,” she told the Mail.
“How is it that somebody can video somebody every day on their private land?”Simples! They do it from public land. And there’s nothing you can do about that!
Beside, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Right?
Miss Motts spoke after her critics’ spokesman told the council’s planning committee she had let her dogs bark, left them ‘unsupervised or out of control’, flouted conditions and prompted the council to issue an enforcement notice, lit bonfires during unsocial hours, held barbecues and a party and thrown dog faeces into a farmer’s field.
“The residents feel very strongly about this and I’m sure if you contact Walton Parish Council they feel very strongly about it too,” he said.
“We’ve had a year of suffering and why should we have one more day? ”Well, indeed!
Miss Motts and her Stapenhill-based agent, Peter Diffey and Associates Limited, have written to the council to complain about the way the planning committee reached its decision.
Miss Motts wants the committee to reconsider and give her permission to continue using her land to exercise her 13 border collies and terriers for two years instead of one.
She claims three of her neighbours support her bid and that her opponents are ‘motivated by jealousy’ because her ownership of the plot prevents them from accessing part of a farmer’s field.And what does the council say?
The council declined to comment.Ah. Wise.
Am I missing something here? She's using HER land to exercise HER dogs and the council are sticking their oar in? Sounds like the curtain twitchers are taking over there.
ReplyDeleteRobert I think the point is she is complaining about being filmed doing whatever she is doing and Julia is pointing out the hypocrisy surrounding that issue.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of it she has as much right as anyone to do as she sees fit on her own land and the only issue is whether laws we ALL must abide by have been broken.
Seems there's plenty to choose from to properly address with this one though.
From what I can tell from info at hand, woman has field she uses to exercise dogs on right?
ReplyDeleteNeighbours have a strop on over access to a "farmers" field?? Are they connected in anyway to the "farmer"? This isn't made clear.
Sounds to me like sour grape over "farmer" having to go around to access his field via the top gate instead of crossing her land as he would prefer.
"There's dog shit on the "farmers" land", well OK, does the "farmer" not have a dog? That sounds fairly unlikely to me, but then again I suppose its possible.
"The dogs are barking". There would be a case if the dogs were howling all night long, this doesn't seem to be the case though. It appears to be when she's out "training" them.
If this is during the hours of daylight, and unless she has the place floodlit, why wouldn't it be? Then I'm sorry but neighbours can go fuck themselves afaic.
Not sure if this is a "townie in the country" thing, but these people have at one time been the bane of my life.
It's all "But the village shop doesn't do brioche, and it's never seen a decent chardonnay" or "The cow are mooing and they smell" and the immortal "I have the right not to be awakened at 5am by cockerals crowing". On and on it goes. That's before they want all the country lanes paving with fucking street lighting.
It's all in the planning application and appeal.
ReplyDeleteThe land was formerly agricultural behind the home. She wanted to use it for dog-training for up to 15 dogs. This inevitably means more noise and smell than the original use and therefore imposes a disbenefit on all the other neighbours who are not doing things which annoy other people.
None the less, the council upheld HER view of it, relaxing the limits on the dogs she could have walking at one time, and said she could use it for dog training subject to the very important condition: she had to supervise the dogs at all times they had access to the land.
It couldn't be used as an unsupervised run because the dogs still in the garden and those running free set up quite a barking party, making more noise than the neighbours could reasonably be expected to put up with.
Jackie Motts then failed to comply with this condition. She's no different to gypsies who buy agricultural land then insist they should be exempt from the planning restrictions or conditions. It's just another example of 'the law applies to everyone else but not to me'.
Go round and shoot some of Jackie's dogs and she'd suddenly be yelling about laws and how people should be expected to keep them.
See page 44. The planning manager did his best to get a good deal for her. All she had to do was keep her side of it.
http://cmis.south-derbys.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=13245
@Budvar
ReplyDeleteYou can see Bells End Road at DE12 8NF. It's a council estate in the interwar designs typical of the midlands, based on the cottage design of Beacontree but carried out in redbrick and without any softening features such as bays or porches.
This design can look terrible if it is stripped of surrounding greenery but in Bells End Road the properties are in very good condition and much of the original hedging, lawns and trees survive to make it look like a council-house version of Hobbiton. The typical worker in Walton on Trent was either agricultural, mining, or maybe going in to Burton to work in brewing and engineering.
The homes look to be mainly 3-bed family houses, many of which may now be in private hands under right-to-buy legislation.
It's just a question of getting on wiv yer neighbours.
Woar,
ReplyDeletePart of getting on with your neighbours is accepting that they are allowed to do things that annoy you, especially on their own land.
lit bonfires during unsocial hours
ReplyDeleteLOL.
Oh yes Jim, I've had that too. Complaints I've lit a fire to burn crap after 9pm because they still have their washing out on the line...
ReplyDeleteHas the UK gone so far down hill that it now requires council approval if you want to actually do something on YOUR land?
ReplyDeleteIn my day the only thing you needed permission for was a permanent building. We had 4 very large sheds (think of a 4 car garage for the largest) in the back yard and because they were of bolted construction we didn't require planning permission
@Noggin
ReplyDeleteTo clarify: Motts acquired a piece of agricultural land which was always subject to restrictions and an existing covenant, a fact reflected in the price. She knew that when she acquired it.
The planning officials relaxed those restrictions so that she could train dogs on the land. The condition was that the land could only be used when the dogs were supervised.
Motts then failed to comply with the restrictions on the land use. The neighbours then documented that she was not using the land as agreed, not using it for supervised training and exercise.
What Motts has under English landlaw is the right to exclude others from the land (subject to any wayleaves) but that does not imply she can do absolutely anything with it. For example, she can't build a mosque, or sink a mineshaft or use it to store hazardous waste.
Has the UK gone so far down hill that it now requires council approval if you want to actually do something on YOUR land?
ReplyDeleteDepending on what it is you want to do, for the last 50 years or so - yes.
Well spotted WOAR.
Reading between the lines, the planning permission to use the field for dog training/exercise expired on 2nd August 2012 and the filming was probably someone's attempt to prove she was still continuing the use. It looks as if an Enforcement Notice has been issued. Any bets on another appeal?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOriginal application and explanation, p.7-10
ReplyDeletehttp://cmis.south-derbys.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=9312
"Not sure if this is a "townie in the country" thing..."
ReplyDeleteThat could be a factor, for sure, but looking at WoaR's map ref, it's stretching it a bit to call it 'country'!
"See page 44. The planning manager did his best to get a good deal for her. All she had to do was keep her side of it. "
Some people are their own worst enemies!
"Part of getting on with your neighbours is accepting that they are allowed to do things that annoy you, especially on their own land."
Except they aren't. That's why we have ASBOs and noise abatement orders.
WoaR;
ReplyDeleteI thought these restrictive covenants were becoming unenforceable due to this very same 'human rights' issue. I know there was some ag in Northampton when I lived there, with the local builder.
Julia,
ReplyDeleteThe measures you mention are for extreme cases. People who buy a house next to a farmer's field and then complain that animals have shit in it are just stupid.
What is disturbing about this case is the validation of the faux authority that councils wield, usually entirely arbitrarily, by the neighbours, running off to tell mummy that the big boy stuck his tongue out.
They should grow up, and accept that what they would like others to do with their own land is very little of their business and none of the council's.
The alternative will lead to the council monitoring and regulating every aspect of everyday life.
Indeed, some would argue that it already has.
Julia,
ReplyDeleteThe measures you mention are for extreme cases. People who buy a house next to a farmer's field and then complain that animals have shit in it are just stupid.
What is disturbing about this case is the validation of the faux authority that councils wield, usually entirely arbitrarily, by the neighbours, running off to tell mummy that the big boy stuck his tongue out.
They should grow up, and accept that what they would like others to do with their own land is very little of their business and none of the council's.
The alternative will lead to the council monitoring and regulating every aspect of everyday life.
Indeed, some would argue that it already has.
"The measures you mention are for extreme cases. People who buy a house next to a farmer's field and then complain that animals have shit in it are just stupid."
ReplyDeleteCows and sheep, maybe. A pack of unruly barking dogs? Different matter.
"The alternative will lead to the council monitoring and regulating every aspect of everyday life."
Yes, they indeed already do!