wahl Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 this is typical of the state of planning under this government. When the plan is rejected that should be the end but no, the applicant is allowed to repeatedly return to try again and again.Just like the fiasco at Parkside where the so called developer keeps coming back because there is so much money for him to make by having his destructive plans adopted. Keep Britain green and stop the developments on green belt land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 I'm not against development, provided that it has a "sense of place", and rules apply to all and equally. Think that the policy of retrospective planning applications for what are "major" developments needs to be looked into particularly where no attempt to gain planning permission through the normal process has been made. Interestingly I understand that if the Cartridge Lane applicants lose their Appeal, they can appeal against that decision and probably ad nauseam. [ 27.02.2008, 17:14: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 As many refusals (larger ones anyway) go to appeal after appeal until someone gives in and approves it makes the whole process rather one sided eh? Shame for little Mr Jones who's house private house extension gets refused as he probably hasn't got the backing, clout or funding to keep appealing As for the Grappenhall Site unless the council can come up with a suitable alternative I very much doubt that the travellers will ever actually be evicted from their 'homes' and their land..... human and also traveller rights spring to mind [ 27.02.2008, 19:18: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Just finished updating the website, additional pictures and lots of links: http://www.cartridgelane.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 A good post Dismayed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: Just finished updating the website, additional pictures and lots of links: http://www.cartridgelane.com/ Excellent web site and very informative PS Paul your home page 'update from planning 18.21' states that no appeal has yet been lodged. [ 27.02.2008, 20:25: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Thanks Dismayed. We just add update sections to the site rather than amend existing sections, in effect it is a rolling commentary of events. I'm really pleased with the Google maps picture....the tree canopy...and how beautiful it looked...won't look like that this Summer :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 Originally posted by Paul Kennedy: Thanks Dismayed. We just add update sections to the site rather than amend existing sections, in effect it is a rolling commentary of events. Most 'other' people will read the home page first to see if anything has changed etc and then decide whether they want to read on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 What sort of appeal have the pikey's lodged? Is it: a) written reps (cheap and quick) informal hearing (shouty and slow) c) public inquiry (legalistic and slow) I want to know because your ability to contribute is massively affected depending upon the route that is chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 The Cartridge Lane Web Site (link a frew posts back) says the following Assuming that Mr & Mrs Smith do Appeal, their appeal hearing can be dealt with by a Government appointed Planning Inspector ( a one with specialist knowledge of Travellers' Sites) in one of three ways: Written Representation Hearing Public Enquiry The latter looks the most likely because of the nature of the case. Possible timescale, 9 - 12 months. A Public Enquiry is quasi judicial, with the Planning Inspector being both "Judge and Jury". The 2 main parties would be the Council and the Appellant with both having professional representation. Residents would have the opportunity to be involved and be heard at the enquiry if they so wish, provided that it is relevant and appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBain Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Dis - that was speculation. I thought that an Appeal had been made, so we could get a definitive answer. In any event, have a read of this... Couple fined for illegal tree felling Huw Morris, Planning Resource, 27 February 2008 A couple who hired a tree surgeon to fell a protected oak tree have been ordered to pay fines and costs totalling ?25,500. Simon and Deborah Pooley, of York Road, Bury St Edmunds, were sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court after being convicted of felling a tree protected by a tree preservation order at Ipswich Crown Court last November. The Pooleys, who owned the development plot the tree stood on at Maltings Lane, Ingham, near Bury St Edmunds, were fined ?8,500 and ordered to pay ?17,000 costs for their part in the felling. Anthony Leek, the contractor who felled the tree, was fined ?1,500 and ordered to pay ?3,000 costs. The convictions come following lengthy prosecution proceedings brought by St Edmundsbury Borough Council. The tree was felled in January 2005, despite an exchange of correspondence with the council and shortly before a planning appeal site visit was due to take place. The owner claimed that the tree was dangerous. Helen Levack, chairman of St Edmundsbury Borough Council?s Development Control Committee, said: ?We are absolutely delighted with the sentence handed down by the court. The fact that the fines and costs total ?30,000 shows just how seriously these matters are taken. ?Protecting the natural heritage of our beautiful borough is equally as important as preserving our historic buildings. Preservation orders are placed on trees for a good reason and when the law is broken, we have to react robustly. ?We hope this sentence will send a firm message to anyone else who is considering taking similar action without permission.? The court ordered that the costs and fines should be paid within six months and that prison sentences should be served in default if the payments are not made. Makes you realise what a different story this could have been if the Council had possessed the ability to see that the tree would be chopped down and ought to have been made the subject of a TPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Originally posted by McBain: Dis - that was speculation. I thought that an Appeal had been made, so we could get a definitive answer. Sorry McB here's the but I should have quoted that was on another page of their web site. Wednesday, 27 February 2008 19:24 The Applicants have now lodged an Appeal with the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol. Subject to its verification, the Enforcement Notice will be suspended until the outcome of the Appeal. It is unlikely that an Appeal will be heard until later this year or early 2009. We anticipate that the details of the Appeal will be on the Planning Inspectorate's Web Portal (see links) in approximately one months time. Will read about yer tree stuff next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Thanks for that tree info McB...as you say "if only" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article952861.ece Not Warrington but should be interesting. [ 25.03.2008, 13:36: Message edited by: Wingnut ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Be interesting to see how long it takes Tessa Jowell to get the Gypsies evicted from near her country home?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Yup. Sure will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 25, 2008 Report Share Posted March 25, 2008 Think it is going to be a long time...if ever..they own the land and with regards to planning, they are deemed to be a "special case". Hope the local authority have issued the Council tax bills to the new residents....and the HMRC , DVLA etc are arranging a visit to ensure that all their financial matters are in order.....as I'm sure these "born again Christian" folk would want them to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 As a tax-payer, I'm worried about the security of Tessa's house and furnishings etc: after all we've paid for them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 And here's yet another traveller camp springing up out of no-where after they bought some land off a farmer. It's in Barnton ... not far away...and happened over the weekend I believe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Eh, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Ah but it is the Sun, Wolfie....and they do have a journalistic licence to how shall I say...gild the lily. Nevertheless it shows the extent of the problem. Maybe we should scrap all planning laws and allow people to build what they want, where they want...welcome to the world of anarchy. :redmad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 The farmer who sold the land should be evicted off his land and the camp should be nuked from orbit "it's the only way to be sure!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Why let a bit of Lily gilding get in the way of a good story? (-; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Originally posted by wolfie: Eh, I remember Gary Barlow (and/or his family) living near a lake close to Delamere Forest and Peter Waterman was round that way too. Isn't Barnton fairly close to there ? .. at the end of the day "it's not right on my door step anyway so why should I care as it wont affect me" Anyone know any cheap fields up for sale [ 26.03.2008, 22:14: Message edited by: Dismayed ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_b Posted March 27, 2008 Report Share Posted March 27, 2008 Eh, [Confused] Pete Waterman lives in Daresbury No,he left Daresbury quite a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.