Newbury Today Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:36 PM

We already know about the relocation of the skate park 'in readiness for the pavilion', but I have now read how residents of the Middle Close/Elizabeth Ave were about to be subjected to a basket ball park on their doorstep without consultation. Like the skate park in Victoria park, It seems the park needed no planning permission.

The basket ball court was another Newbury Town Council ****-up. A case of every one else thought someone else knew.

Personally, I doubt it was a ****-up and am more inclined to think it was the council trying to do a sneaky one before the elections. The person that arbitrated between the residents and the council was Adrian Edwards (CON) of Falkland Ward.

Would anyone tell me who decides in cases like this, if planning permission is required?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 05:35 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 02:36 PM)

We already know about the relocation of the skate park 'in readiness for the pavilion', but I have now read how residents of the Middle Close/Elizabeth Ave were about to be subjected to a basket ball park on their doorstep without consultation. Like the skate park in Victoria park, It seems the park needed no planning permission.

The basket ball court was another Newbury Town Council ****-up. A case of every one else thought someone else knew.

Personally, I doubt it was a ****-up and am more inclined to think it was the council trying to do a sneaky one before the elections. The person that arbitrated between the residents and the council was Adrian Edwards (CON) of Falkland Ward.

Would anyone tell me who decides in cases like this, if planning permission is required?

I understand it's the planners. Even when there's deemed consent if the planners disagree I think the next higher authority is a judicial review.

If I can I'll dig out the Regulation made under the Town and Country Planning Act that gives councils deemed consent for ancilliary stuff in their parks.

The thing I don't understand about the Victoria Park snafu is that WBC and NTC are not the same council, and so NTC can only build on bits of the park that it rents from WBC, and WBC can only build on bits of the park that it doesn't lease to NTC. So this stuff about building the pavilion where the skate park was to go doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 10 2011, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 05:35 PM)

The thing I don't understand about the Victoria Park snafu is that WBC and NTC are not the same council, and so NTC can only build on bits of the park that it rents from WBC, and WBC can only build on bits of the park that it doesn't lease to NTC. So this stuff about building the pavilion where the skate park was to go doesn't make sense to me.

You would have thought so, but moving the skate park north followed by the play area would then have made room for the footprint of the pavilion which would have been too close or even covered part of the kiddies play area if they don't both shuffle along several metres. NTC just go along with whatever the WBC planners want. Toothless tigers I'm afaraid.
NTC have already lost one grant because of the uncertainty of what WBC were planning to do in the park. The lead up to getting the grant cost a bob or two. Money down the drain. Not even a 'sorry chaps' from WBC.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 05:53 PM

So the decision to require planning permission is up to the discretion of the Building Control and not to a predetermined process?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 10 2011, 05:49 PM)

You would have thought so, but moving the skate park north followed by the play area would then have made room for the footprint of the pavilion which would have been too close or even covered part of the kiddies play area if they don't both shuffle along several metres. NTC just go along with whatever the WBC planners want. Toothless tigers I'm afaraid.

I can't help think that the damage to the tree argument was a 'convenient' excuse.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 05:53 PM)

So the decision to require planning permission is up to the discretion of the Building Control and not to a predetermined process?

Planner: This development needs planning permission.
You: No, it's permitted development.
Planner: No, it needs permission.
You: Err, no, look, here's the regulations and it says what I've got has deemed consent.
Planner: Bite me.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 10 2011, 06:07 PM

As far as planning permission is concerned, here are a couple of links but I don't have the answer.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pavingfrontgardens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1065485/Now-PATIOS-need-planning-permission.html

http://www.stratford.gov.uk/planning/planning-477.cfm

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 10 2011, 06:16 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 10 2011, 05:56 PM)

I can't help think that the damage to the tree argument was a 'convenient' excuse.

Well, of course it was. On the pictures that have been touted around, the skate bowl was just that and appeared to be level at the top with the grass, so it would have required a dig down thus perhaps endangering a tree or two. But, there has been virtually no dig down, the bowl is elevated by a lot of hardcore up to almost level with the A339 so no trees are at risk. Either it was a trumped up reason to relocate or someone (project management or tree officer) hadn't done their homework.

Certainly there is no danger of anybody inebriated, confused or otherwise walking into it in the dark.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2011, 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 10 2011, 06:16 PM)

Well, of course it was. On the pictures that have been touted around, the skate bowl was just that and appeared to be level at the top with the grass, so it would have required a dig down thus perhaps endangering a tree or two. But, there has been virtually no dig down, the bowl is elevated by a lot of hardcore up to almost level with the A339 so no trees are at risk. Either it was a trumped up reason to relocate or someone (project management or tree officer) hadn't done their homework.

Certainly there is no danger of anybody inebriated, confused or otherwise walking into it in the dark.

Are you implying that you would like an explanation from NTC? Yes dream on?

Posted by: Andy1 Mar 14 2011, 02:20 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Mar 10 2011, 06:00 PM)

Planner: This development needs planning permission.
You: No, it's permitted development.
Planner: No, it needs permission.
You: Err, no, look, here's the regulations and it says what I've got has deemed consent.
Planner: Bite me.

That could almost e the conversation I had WBC Planning department

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 15 2011, 11:12 PM

QUOTE (Andy1 @ Mar 14 2011, 02:20 PM)

That could almost e the conversation I had WBC Planning department

Sometimes they'll say eat my shorts. They have discretion in these matters.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 15 2011, 11:28 PM

Is anyone able to help me with the OP's question?

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 17 2011, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 15 2011, 11:28 PM)

Is anyone able to help me with the OP's question?

I thought we did, see post 7 and 8. but if you want the definitive answer, then you need to correspond with the WBC planners.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2011, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (Exhausted @ Mar 17 2011, 05:59 PM)

I thought we did, see post 7 and 8. but if you want the definitive answer, then you need to correspond with the WBC planners.

I appreciate that you took the time to answer, so thank you for that, but it doesn't explain planning requirements for public open spaces. There have been a couple of stories where hard surface structures have been deemed to not require planning.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 17 2011, 07:08 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 17 2011, 06:55 PM)