Let down by Greenham Common Trust Options

[Iommi]

Greenham Common Trust, what a disgrace!!!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=10611

Surely the 'trust' should make sure from here on, before building starts, that at least outline permission is granted before bending over and allowing building on 'our' site!!! Mind you, they seem to have set a precedent now.

It seems we have an utterly inept administration... hopeless.

[dannyboy]

The Trust & Council are two separate bodies. The Trust rents out the industrial parts of the Common. They are not responsible for planning.

Also, the 'buildings' are temporary - a bit like the cranes at Parkway. Planning would have been a formality & the 'structures' will be gone once the A34 is resurfaced.

[Iommi]

The Trust & Council are two separate bodies. The Trust rents out the industrial parts of the Common. They are not responsible for planning.

I didn't say they were, but they should make planning a condition for using the land. These scenarios just make the council and trust look stupid. Also, the passage suggest planning wouldn't have been a formality.

Also, the 'buildings' are temporary - a bit like the cranes at Parkway. Planning would have been a formality & the 'structures' will be gone once the A34 is resurfaced.

But this could be just the thin end of the wedge. I'm mindful of the disgraceful decision by the council/Trust to allow land to be sold to build a massive depot there.

[T Flood]

Oh please, A34 is in urgent need of resurfacing, due to the number of vehicle driving around newbury and not thrue it.

the processing plant is hidden away in part of the commercial area of the base, which has been derlict for awhile.

Its a temporay structure.... i sure the Greenham parish will take offence to my comments but, be glad that this project is bring income into the local shops within the area.

I cant belive some people comments, about how it looks, the base look like a war zone, smashed cars / building / furniture.

If the airbase looked like a professional employment estate then i might agree, but it doesnt.

Even Greenham trust could not argue that fact but money is money these days

[dannyboy]

I didn't say they were, but they should make planning a condition for using the land. These scenarios just make the council and trust look stupid. Also, the passage suggest planning wouldn't have been a formality.


But this could be just the thin end of the wedge. I'm mindful of the disgraceful decision by the council/Trust to allow land to be sold to build a massive depot there.

planning is a condition -hence Lafarge's retrospective application. Planners return planning applications for all manner of reasons - incorrect plan scale, incomplete documents etc etc. It will still be a formality.
What is wrong with demolishing one old large building & replacing it with another? Only land inside the GCT development zone is available for building upon. The plans are for many more units up there, with all of the old USAF buildings replaced. Except the bunkers & the Venture West building. English Provender have built a huge factory up there.

[blackdog]

Seems to me that one issue is the production of asphalt - lots of hydrocarbon fumes - next to a food manufaturer. What are the chances of contaminated food?

Everything may be fine - but surely that is for the planning process to decide, not the asphalt manufacturer.

Seems that WBC doesn't really care.

[Iommi]

planning is a condition -hence Lafarge's retrospective application.

An application that was only submitted after a tip-off!!! I repeat, the GCT should make these processes mandatory so that they avoid looking stupid as they do in this case.

Planners return planning applications for all manner of reasons - incorrect plan scale, incomplete documents etc etc. It will still be a formality.

That is besides the point and is hearsay. The West Berkshire Council clearly are not powerful enough to execute their duties.

What is wrong with demolishing one old large building & replacing it with another?

Because the developer tried to bypass planning and didn't/don't seem inclined to seek the required approvals!!! Again, GCT should at least make submitted approval requests a prerequisite. This is not the first time time businesses have run rough shod over local authorities.

I assume GCT had no obligation to grant access to the land in question.

Only land inside the GCT development zone is available for building upon. The plans are for many more units up there, with all of the old USAF buildings replaced. Except the bunkers & the Venture West building. English Provender have built a huge factory up there.

And we can only hope they follow reasonable processes.

This is just another episode that makes the term 'local authority' seem almost like a contradiction of terms.

[dannyboy]

Why should GCT get involved in the planning applications of their tennants?

Of course WBC were acting on a tip off. If no planning application was submitted, how are the council supposed to know what is going on across their area? People flount the planning laws through ignorance / arrogance every day of the week. Councils only get to know about them when tipped off.

[Iommi]

Why should GCT get involved in the planning applications of their tennants?

Of course WBC were acting on a tip off. If no planning application was submitted, how are the council supposed to know what is going on across their area? People flount the planning laws through ignorance / arrogance every day of the week. Councils only get to know about them when tipped off.

Oh for heaven's sake, read what I wrote, will you. I SAID, THE GCT SHOULD MAKE IT A RULE THAT PLANNING PERMISSION SHOULD BE LODGED OR GRANTED BEFORE WORK STARTS ON THEIR (OUR) LAND.

You must work for a council!

[dannyboy]

Oh for heaven's sake, read what I wrote, will you. I SAID, THE GCT SHOULD MAKE IT A RULE THAT PLANNING PERMISSION SHOULD BE LODGED OR GRANTED BEFORE WORK STARTS ON THEIR (OUR) LAND.

You must work for a council!

Having once been a tennant at NGP, I'll dig out my contract. £1 will get you £10 that they'll have a clause stating that any tennant is required to adhere to all statutory regulations whilst a tennant.

[Iommi]

Having once been a tennant at NGP, I'll dig out my contract. £1 will get you £10 that they'll have a clause stating that any tennant is required to adhere to all statutory regulations whilst a tennant.

I'm not sure I understand your point.