Did anyone see the story that Greenham Council have spent ~£60,000.00 on planning permission for the Greenham Control Tower when they already had it! 'LOL'

I saw the headline, but haven't read the article. It struck me as odd - it obviously isn't correct.

Planning permission expires after 3 years, so there was no planning permission. What there was was an approval of 'change of use' to that suitable for a cafe/visitor centre. I guess this is where some cash was wasted, but I'd want to see where the figure of £60k comes from? Does it include the architects fees for instance, which would have been needed in order to get the detailed planning permissions to convert a listed building, regardless of the change of use issue.

£60,000.00 is what Billy Drummond was reported to have said: "That decision cost us £60,000.00 and we needed every penny of that money".

It just goes to show the incompetence of those in power..

I would say it beggars belief, but of course it doesn't. Not anymore.

To be fair, it would seem that according to Julian Swift-Hook, it is a West Berkshire Council balls-up. Greenham Parish Council were not made aware of the change of use approval until recently and only after it had cost them 'tens of thousands of pounds'.

Probably one of their now famous Administrative errors, they have had five now I do believe in association with the Faraday Road Development, still no harm done no need for any one to be held to account as it has only wasted taxpayers money! As usual!

Meanwhile,,
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16...decided-on.html

Anyone spot the irony?

Why is anyone surprised about this?

Of course, blame 'the staff', nice easy target; especially as recent events clearly demonstrate they aren't lead or managed effectively.

Questions I'd like answered are such as, where is effective monitoring and regulation of parish spending, why are the main stream parties so short of competent candidates that they need to double or triple hat Councillors - rendering them overburdened, over wrought and ineffective. what gave Greenham Parish the view that it had the financial and project management competence to do the job, when clearly it's far bigger peer didn't, where are the Regulators when we need them?

This whole thing yet again simply demonstrates parish level Councils are an massively expensive and wholly ineffective luxury.

Julian Swift Hook no doubt. Something of an empire builder perhaps and an "I can do anything" belief in his own ability.

For the life of me I cannot see why a figure of £60k is being quoted for a planning application. How much does WBC charge for an application, just a few quid even on a large application. Who has pocketed this amount. Solicitors perhaps following the lead of their bigger brother Newbury Town Council or perhaps planning consultants but that can't be the case as that was done ages ago prior to work starting. Was there some forfeit that had to be paid to the Berks Bucks and Oxon Wildlife trust as they seemed to be the major body with an axe to grind. I doubt we will ever know as secrecy is the forte of parish councils and JSH will be well versed in that as a councillor on both Greenham and NTC.

So what happens now?

Nothing.

The dogs will bark but the caravan keeps moving on.

It shows there is no point in voting. Same people elected back and still not saying anything. Glad I didn't waste my time at least.

Err, in this case it was allegedly an officer error, not a councillor one.

Yeah, that's right; nothing to see here, let's move on,.... fast as you can now.

unless of course you know for fact that isn't so?

...and therein lies the rub; why bother with facts, no one else seems to.

The provision of an environmental impact assessment - to counter opposition by BBOWT to the change of use - would (I am guessing) have cost a tidy sum. Plus legal advice, plus planning advice.

£60k still seems a lot though - I do wonder if it includes the architect's fees, which would have been incurred regardless.

Do you know whether WBC Issued an EIA screening opinion requiring a full EIA? If so, it does seem extraordinary that they didn't pass on the information that they had already granted permission for change of use. As has been said previously we are a little short of facts here. Has anybody tried to access the planning history online? Shouldn't it be publicly accessible?

The planning history back to the 1980s (perhaps earlier) is publicly accessible - but you have to go to the Council Offices as much of it is archived on fiche.

But wouldn't the planning records have been retrieved and passed over to Greenham Parish Council when they purchased the Tower? And if so couldn't they have been put online at that time?

As a byline it raises a question as to whether WBC have a policy/procedure for transferring fiched records on to the Planning Portal when new applications for a site/property are made, as Planning History is ( I think) something that officers are supposed to take into consideration.

It certainly seems extraordinary to me that Councillors, particularly those who have been on both Councils, who deal with planning matters on an every day basis, didn't check or realise. Particularly, when as mentioned on social media, external expertise was said to have been consulted. if a mere employee had made a slip, someone would have noticed, we employ a reasonable number of planning people and they are managed. As this was known to be a politically contentious issue, is it not unreasonable to have expected that management would have carefully checked the internal processes before the event?

No, the only people who would retrieve planning (and associated building regs) history is a curious buyer. Even conveyancing solicitors don't do it unless instructed by their client (who would then be billed a large sum for a job they could do themselves for nothing).

What is odd is that WBC put the control tower up for sale on the open market - when an extant change of use permission could help to sell the place. I would have thought they would have put it in the sales particulars (I guess they didn't).

No, the only people who would retrieve planning (and associated building regs) history is a curious buyer. Even conveyancing solicitors don't do it unless instructed by their client (who would then be billed a large sum for a job they could do themselves for nothing).

What is odd is that WBC put the control tower up for sale on the open market - when an extant change of use permission could help to sell the place. I would have thought they would have put it in the sales particulars (I guess they didn't).

Yes, its very odd indeed. Must be a great place to work WBC; no supervision and a hands free management culture....

Doesn't matter how much they have to cut there's always enough to pay consultants.

So, is it clear which council the officer worked for. I have to guess WBC but, does the whole process not have a project manager employed by Greenham who perhaps should have spent a few minutes at the council offices asking questions. For instance,

"You sold this property to us knowing that is was to be a visitor centre and a small café, why were the purchasers not made aware at the time of purchase that this change of use would be required.?"

If, as suggested, there would be a need for an environmental wildlife assessment for the area as required by the BBOWT, I fail to see how have things changed as the common has been open to visitors for some years now and there is a large car park and road access from a roundabout provided by WBC who must have conducted a wildlife assessment for the area in the early days. There are gates provided for walkers and their dogs and they have been there from the start. I suspect, people who visit the tower for historical purposes may want to walk onto the common but most visitors to the car park will be the walkers who use the area on a regular basis and have no interest in the tower other than perhaps a cup of tea on the way out. Whilst I would agree that we do need to protect the birds, bees and bats, we also as humans have the right to go where we want on our common land and if BBOWT want a survey and want to make recommendations, let them get on and do it and not bother us.

A small parish council being led by the nose has, bravely and perhaps foolishly, embarked upon a project which obviously daunted the wbc budget planners from the outset.
The initial purchase cost, I understand, was government funded to the sum of £421k to Greenham council which was transferred to WBC as the purchase price. Was this a grant or a government funded loan. Can't find a mention of that anywhere.
There do not seem to be any minutes available for Nov and Dec but just a quick scan through the parish minutes May to Oct), excluding June minutes not available and Nov, Dec and January not on the website yet, at these meetings, the councillors have signed off cheques to the value of £69k.
I cannot see a budget forecast for the whole shooting match but asking for £18k for the forthcoming year and there is no confirmation that will be the last, has escalated the whole project and perhaps the tax payers of Greenham might be a little concerned that this vanity project has not been managed properly and has become a burden for the parish.
As the tower is part of the common, one would have thought that the industrial estate on the land might have tossed a few bob in the hat.
However, Mr Julian Swift Hook, the force behind the project assures the council that....: “The hope is the building will ‘wash its back’, which means it will be self-funding. That’s the hope and expectation."
Excellent news, sales of tea and sandwiches must be showing massive and perhaps unheard of turnover and profit figures. The thing is, most of the council believe him. Notice it does involve some "hope".

What with this and the proposed overlarge cafe in Vicky park I just really hope that all the new tenants of the vast amount of new development proposals are very partial to a sarnie and cuppa?
Still perhaps the vulnerable and needy could be revisited again to see if they can tighten their belts a tad more to ensure these types of vanity projects can proceed without all this aggravation?

I really do think it time that being a Councillor on two local different councils needs to be looked at seriously though!

Come on Cognosco, the Council staff had enough trouble counting at the last election, can't have any more candidates or they'd have to learn to read too.

Seriously though, you are right. What if actually shows is that the main local parties can't muster sufficient talent; that and the low turn out must be saying something.

A coffee shop in the tower... how original..... Soon the whole town will be covered in a thick brown smog from all the espresso coffee machines chugging away trying to keep up with demand and pumping out gallons of hot thick fluid to the addicted masses of this parish. Can't take more than 20 steps in town for all the coffee shops and now the drug of choice is creeping like a pervasive weed out onto Viccy Park and the Common....

Caffeine.... it's a gateway drug I'm telling ya...




I prefer mine with a couple of shots to keep me going...

The missing minutes I mentioned earlier seem to have now appeared although the PDF link to November seems to be a "File not found".
There seem to be overall, several large amounts for management and consultants. A bird ecology for a couple of £k appears as do regular payments to Rhonda Chilton ( project administrator) £6k to date and JT consulting £2.2k. Not sure if the consultants attend the Control Tower meetings as there do not appear to be published minutes of those.