IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Who decides if something needs planning permission?, another Newbury Town Council ****-up
Andy Capp
post Mar 10 2011, 02:36 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,876
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 10 2011, 05:35 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Mar 10 2011, 05:49 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 10 2011, 05:53 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,876
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



So the decision to require planning permission is up to the discretion of the Building Control and not to a predetermined process?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 10 2011, 05:56 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,876
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 10 2011, 06:00 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Mar 10 2011, 06:07 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



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...ingfrontgardens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...permission.html

http://www.stratford.gov.uk/planning/planning-477.cfm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Mar 10 2011, 06:16 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Mar 10 2011, 07:12 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



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? wink.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy1
post Mar 14 2011, 02:20 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 423
Joined: 2-June 09
Member No.: 121



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 15 2011, 11:12 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 15 2011, 11:28 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,876
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Is anyone able to help me with the OP's question?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Mar 17 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 17 2011, 06:55 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,876
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 17 2011, 07:08 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



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

I've tried to find it but without success, but I'm pretty sure there's a Regulation about deemed consent or permitted development which means councils can build stuff in their property if it is ancilliary to the use of the property. I'll try again.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 17 2011, 07:42 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,876
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Well that seems to make sense, that is, if it is on public land that the council are custodians, they need not apply for planning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th September 2019 - 12:05 PM