IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WBC breaks the planning rules
blackdog
post May 11 2012, 10:14 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



WBC breaks the planning rules:
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/exclusi...on-sports-field

Which makes me wonder if they consulted the right people when they agreed to the St Barts' redevelopment and building of houses on part of their sports grounds?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dodgys smarter b...
post May 11 2012, 10:31 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



I wonder if we'll hear from W.B.C's usual acolytes, apologists and catomites on this one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Grumpy
post May 11 2012, 10:35 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 5-April 12
Member No.: 8,689



West Berkshire Council have a nasty habit of just doing things to suit their own aims and objectives, and then totally ignoring any flack that is raised against them after the event.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post May 11 2012, 11:42 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



With this one I think it was Newbury Rugby Club who were desperate to sell off a sliver of their ground in order to stay a going concern for a few more months and pay the ever present HMRC officers with their fines, and the enormous electricity bills....and the water bills... and....and..and...(the bills and debt at the club is mind-numbing)

Newbury RFC are suffering death by a thousand cuts but I didn't see or hear mention of Sport England stepping in at the last AGM to save the club from HAVING to sell land.....

Sport England may think this is terrible that they weren't consulted but perhaps they could rustle up some spare cash from their vaste wealth to help clubs in similar positions to Newbury rather than grumbling about lack of consultation.... (some) Sports clubs are absolutely skint and are selling up anything they can lay their hands on to keep afloat......

Wouldn't be too surprised (given the bad luck and bad financial management of the club so far) if Sport England don't issue some financial penalty on the club - just to REALLY ensure the club folds. rolleyes.gif

The land that was sold for the care home was never used as a rugby pitch. I can't remember it ever being used even when the Newbury Mini Rugby Festivals were held and space was at a premium... Partly due to it being away from the clubhouse and the ground being very stoney over there so not good playing surface and certainly no good for kids to play rugby on.............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 11:56 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



It seems that this was an anti-Sandlford initiative.

I don't think the land sell will impact on sports facilities in the area, but West Berkshire Council have ducked their responsibilities here and not for the first time. I like the human error statement; at the end of the day, any mistake the council make will be 'human'.

Just let this be a timely reminder never to trust anyone to get things right. If it is important to you, do your own homework. Just because the Newbury Town Council or the West Berkshire Council say something is OK, doesn't mean it is.


Blackdog's point above is an interesting one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 11 2012, 12:13 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (spartacus @ May 11 2012, 12:42 PM) *
With this one I think it was Newbury Rugby Club who were desperate to sell off a sliver of their ground in order to stay a going concern for a few more months and pay the ever present HMRC officers with their fines, and the enormous electricity bills....and the water bills... and....and..and...(the bills and debt at the club is mind-numbing)

Newbury RFC are suffering death by a thousand cuts but I didn't see or hear mention of Sport England stepping in at the last AGM to save the club from HAVING to sell land.....

Sport England may think this is terrible that they weren't consulted but perhaps they could rustle up some spare cash from their vaste wealth to help clubs in similar positions to Newbury rather than grumbling about lack of consultation.... (some) Sports clubs are absolutely skint and are selling up anything they can lay their hands on to keep afloat......

Wouldn't be too surprised (given the bad luck and bad financial management of the club so far) if Sport England don't issue some financial penalty on the club - just to REALLY ensure the club folds. rolleyes.gif

The land that was sold for the care home was never used as a rugby pitch. I can't remember it ever being used even when the Newbury Mini Rugby Festivals were held and space was at a premium... Partly due to it being away from the clubhouse and the ground being very stoney over there so not good playing surface and certainly no good for kids to play rugby on.............


Funny how a story can sound so different when you get the fuller picture......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John C
post May 11 2012, 12:39 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 27-October 11
Member No.: 8,022



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 01:13 PM) *
Funny how a story can sound so different when you get the fuller picture......


Its says Sports England should have been consulted before planing permission was given. They did not do that so they seem to have broken the rules. I also wonder if the have been given the right information regards to St Barts or going further back what about Turnpike school
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 12:43 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 01:13 PM) *
Funny how a story can sound so different when you get the fuller picture......

Like I said, this looks to be an anti-Sandleford initiative. That is clear from the original story. West Berkshire Council admit to making a 'human error', so are conceding that they should have consulted.

In my view it is a technical breach that shouldn't get in the way of the development, if all other criteria are sound.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 11 2012, 12:48 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (John C @ May 11 2012, 01:39 PM) *
Its says Sports England should have been consulted before planing permission was given. They did not do that so they seem to have broken the rules. I also wonder if the have been given the right information regards to St Barts or going further back what about Turnpike school

Or, for that matter, Winchcombe School.

Of course it may be a new rule that they have broken and their practise of turning school playing fields into housing estates did not require the same consultation.


However, it seems wrong to me that anyone can break the law and get away with it - it's time that financial penalties were imposed for breaches of planning law. And to get rid of the much abused system of retrospective planning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 12:50 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (blackdog @ May 11 2012, 01:48 PM) *
Or, for that matter, Winchcombe School.

Of course it may be a new rule that they have broken and their practise of turning school playing fields into housing estates did not require the same consultation.


However, it seems wrong to me that anyone can break the law and get away with it - it's time that financial penalties were imposed for breaches of planning law. And to get rid of the much abused system of retrospective planning.

... or John Rankin. And those were sports fields.

I suspect this is a fairly recent diktat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post May 11 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (John C @ May 11 2012, 01:39 PM) *
Its says Sports England should have been consulted before planing permission was given. They did not do that so they seem to have broken the rules. I also wonder if the have been given the right information regards to St Barts or going further back what about Turnpike school

Anti Sandleford no doubt...... Or is it that the locals didn't want a home for the elderly and mentally ill on their backdoor step? rolleyes.gif

Presumably the same complaint about lack of consultation with the mighty Sport England could have been raised when the planning application for the surgery and pharmacy went through on the FIRST tranche of Newbury RFC having to flog the family silver (land) to pay off the Tax bills..... (and presumably this consultation didn't take palce then either...)

Or are the locals quite happy to have a chemist and surgery but a bit more sniffy about an old folks home and the smell of talcum powder and wee that might result....... ? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 11 2012, 01:03 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 11 2012, 01:43 PM) *
Like I said, this looks to be an anti-Sandleford initiative.



Of course. Very similar to the allotment saga.

You get someone with a passion over some council desicion/action. They then scrutinise everything either of the councils has done pertaining to the issue over which they are fired up until they find a error. Then they try & score as many points over the matter as possible.

Luckily for the council there are not many who are so fired up over council business - if there were I wonder what other errors & gaffs would be exposed.

Problem is - no-one really cares. Look at the CCTV 'saga'. Who even remembers that now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 01:52 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 02:03 PM) *
Of course. Very similar to the allotment saga.

Yes. Both involved council errors. The big difference is that West Berkshire Council are bang to rights.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 02:03 PM) *
You get someone with a passion over some council desicion/action. They then scrutinise everything either of the councils has done pertaining to the issue over which they are fired up until they find a error. Then they try & score as many points over the matter as possible.

It's called standing up for your rights.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 02:03 PM) *
Luckily for the council there are not many who are so fired up over council business

Equally, it is lucky for all of us, they are kept on their toes by the fear of those that do.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 02:03 PM) *
LProblem is - no-one really cares. Look at the CCTV 'saga'. Who even remembers that now?

Me. And that is all that matters to me come 'vote scrounging' time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 01:56 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (spartacus @ May 11 2012, 01:54 PM) *
Anti Sandleford no doubt...... Or is it that the locals didn't want a home for the elderly and mentally ill on their backdoor step? rolleyes.gif ... Or are the locals quite happy to have a chemist and surgery but a bit more sniffy about an old folks home and the smell of talcum powder and wee that might result....... ? blink.gif

Or like the application to convert the USAF school in to an 'old people's home, which morphed into a secured home for the mentally ill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 11 2012, 01:57 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 11 2012, 02:52 PM) *
Yes. Both involved council errors. The big difference is that West Berkshire Council are bang to rights.


It's called standing up for your rights.

trying to get your own way by creating a right song & dance about something morelike

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 11 2012, 02:52 PM) *
Equally, it is lucky for all of us, they are kept on their toes by the fear of those that do.


Me. And that is all that matters to me come 'vote scrounging' time.

you bother to vote?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 01:59 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 02:57 PM) *
trying to get your own way by creating a right song & dance about something morelike

A cynical way to describe the history of democracy in this country. In my view, Simon had a greater issue with his cause than a specious attempt to frustrate the inevitable Sandleford development.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 02:57 PM) *
you bother to vote?

Yes and I tell others who and why as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brewmaster
post May 11 2012, 02:42 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 17-July 09
Member No.: 201



QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ May 11 2012, 11:31 AM) *
I wonder if we'll hear from W.B.C's usual acolytes, apologists and catomites on this one?

There is no such thing as a catomite, but a catamite is a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man.

I didn't think that sort of thing went on at WBC!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 11 2012, 02:44 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 11 2012, 02:59 PM) *
A cynical way to describe the history of democracy in this country. In my view, Simon had a greater issue with his cause than a specious attempt to frustrate the inevitable Sandleford development.


Yes and I tell others who and why as well.

Surely democracy lies within doing what the majority wish - even if it is a silent one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 11 2012, 03:03 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2012, 03:44 PM) *
Surely democracy lies within doing what the majority wish - even if it is a silent one?

Did the majority support women's suffrage?

I think the majority would want the council and its members to behave fairly and with dignity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PhilW
post May 11 2012, 04:35 PM
Post #20


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 23-April 12
Member No.: 8,707



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 11 2012, 04:03 PM) *
I think the majority would want the council and its members to behave fairly and with dignity.

Quite rightly too.

The issue here is nothing to do with the Sandleford plans - it's too late for the decision to be changes and, let's face it, Sports England would probably offered no objection anyway.

The issue is that the body empowered to make sure we all stick to the planning rules has broken the planning rules.

A good number of WBC employees are professional planning control officers - all of whom should keep up to date with changes to the rules and should have known about the need to consult Sports England. In this case at least one officer clearly didn't know and none of his/her colleagues spotted the omission. How long have they been breaking the rules? What other applications should have gone to Sports England for an opinion? Are there any other rules have they been overlooking?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 29th March 2024 - 12:07 PM