fugtifino Posted February 4, 2013 Report Share Posted February 4, 2013 It'll be about this: http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/15007/1/Plans-chief-should-quit-says-MP/Page1.html Utterly disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 What's all the fuss about? Even with the normal process, the applicant would have the right to appeal against a Council refusal, thus it would finish up with the Planning Inspector anyway. Think perhaps someone's annoyed she will be denied the limelight at a Plannning meeting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 What's all the fuss about? Well, that's pretty much the response from the planning department. I'm peeved because, contrary to all the noises being made previously, and whether due to indolence, incompetence or anything else, the council (and thereby, objectors like me and my neighbours) haven't been seen to nail their colours to the mast. And now there's no mast, it might look to some like we're not bothered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 What's all the fuss about? Even with the normal process, the applicant would have the right to appeal against a Council refusal, thus it would finish up with the Planning Inspector anyway. Think perhaps someone's annoyed she will be denied the limelight at a Plannning meeting! I think someone is annoyed because a corrupt and unfit for purpose planning department is constantly ignoring and riding roughshod over her constituants like they are of no importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Blimey Obs... you ask 'whats all the fuss about?' Considering all the other cockups the planning department have made including the illegal distruction of planning records etc etc surely they should be more on the ball now and NOT making mistakes. Only last week re Aprley Tip decision the applicant hit out saying proper procedures had not been followed (again) and that the council had been ignoring requests for information since April last year and had also ignored freedom of information requests so that's now probably going to result in a long drawn out legal battle now. It's time that the planning department had a shake up and clear out starting at the very top as people have lost all faith and trust in them and their so called 'abilities'. Maybe Mr Farrell could follow in John Groves recent footsteps and get a job with Copeland Council too. Scarey thought that JG is now at the helm of their nuclear, energy and planning department though. Wish I'd have know he was sneaking off as I'd have bought him a long overdue leaving present after what he did around here !! Having said all that though I do wonder why all the councillors who are now pushing for Farrels resignation over this latest thing didn't actually notice themselves that time was ticking by and that it was about to exceed the statutory time limit as after all they have all been working hard in the fight to stop Satnam and the development so surely they must have realised or asked why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Think I'd be the last one to defend the Planning Dept - which I'm not. Just stating a reality IE: That the matter will be decided by a Planning Inspector - which would have been the case in any event, following an appeal against the probable refusal by the Council. All that's been ommitted is the local theatrical starring Mzzzz Vobe ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey_man Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Bit more to it than that though obs. A deadline for local decision making has passed - either by mistake or on purpose. We have to make the now standard choice of whether we think it's all a cock-up or a conspiracy. Personally, I think it happens way too often with the only beneficiaries being developers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 well look on the bright side.... if they build more houses; it will mean more council tax for the council to waste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Perhaps some new street names? Warsaw Ave; Krakow Cres; Gdansk Sq; Sophia St etc?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 A bit of context. The "Killian Pretty" review into planning process was set up in 2008 - Joanna Killian was a Council Chief Exec and David Pretty was from developer Barratts. Lots of recommendations were made to improve things - including scrapping the 8/13 week targets in favour of satisfaction surveys (though you'd expect applicants who got a yes to be more satisfied than those whose plans were refused). The planners' professional association (RTPI) said that "any system of targets that focuses on delivery speed, without a counterbalancing evaluation of outcome quality, has the potential to drive a mechanical culture of service delivery in which applications for planning permission can be refused on the basis of the need to achieve targets." Rather than miss the arbitrary targets (which affects grants) authorities could just refuse applications that, with a bit of negotiation, could be approved - or pass applications that needed more time and more information in order to justify refusal. Environmental groups tended to prefer the right decision to a quick one. The Labour government agreed. "The Government accepts the need to revise the current approach to targets. We will work closely with key stakeholders in identifying and testing options for measuring performance in a more holistic way." They said they'd sort it by April 2011 but things seem to have stalled. Most applicants don't appeal if their application isn't heard within the target times. It's a lot of effort, and by the time it gets anywhere near an inspector the chances are the planning authority will have determined it anyway. I imagine Satnam expect this application to be refused, in which case they'd appeal against refusal, so they might as well appeal now for non-determination. The planning inspectorate who handle appeals are clear about one thing, "Your appeal should be made only when all else has failed". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Isn't this one of the reasons why housing is so expensive in this country? The majority of the price of a house is the cost of the land, and the cost of the land is exaggerated by the difficulty of getting planning permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 The availability, in planning terms, of housing land; has been specified in the Unitary Local Plan. Whatever the Planning Policy is, should apply; and no attempt at political expediency by politicians or developers, should be allowed. Hopefully, the Inspector will be professional in his decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Amen to that. Anyway: Parr Hall 6.30pm Thursday 7th March 2013. If you have an interest in this, be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 3, 2013 Report Share Posted March 3, 2013 Good luck fugtifino! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Hmmm. One or two people I've spoken too feels that attending this meeting is a waste of time as the decision is already going to appeal. Fair point, but I'd like to think that most people would at least like to register their opposition (purely by attending), and it's a good opportunity for a practice run before the appeal hearing. So, as I said above, if you have an interest in this, please be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 Unanimous refusal. Well done all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 How many? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Parish Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 So it goes to where it was going anyway - to appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Yup. Spotter's badge to Mr Sharp of Sheffield there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 10? Big meeting with big interest then? Was it worth opening the doors for? Ok so it was 10 councillors present and voted. Got there in the end, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Full story and pictures here http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/15243/1/Cheers---as-Peel-Hall-homes-rejected/Page1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Still seems a lot of fuss about nothing.... The council don't really give a damn about green space and open areas because otherwise they would never have allowed Gullivers world to be built where it is, as well as countless developments around Westbrook, Callands etc. There must have been all manner of wildlife destroyed and displaced when Bewsey Farmland was developed and continues to be so....including a hotel near Gullivers. If highways really worried about traffic, they would have forced Gullivers to build a dual carriageway from the motorway to feed their park because in the summer you can't move around here....all smokescreens.... To me, we have people on here moaning about there not being enough houses and others saying there are too many already..... Is it not really a case that Winwick residents don't want to be finally joined up with Warrington via Orford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Nope. Try barking up a different tree, Baz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Nope. Try barking up a different tree, Baz. I have my opinions; you have yours... the town needs housing and here we have someone wanting to build houses.... don't see what the problem is to be honest. If population levels are to grow as predicted, we won't have to be so protective of a bit of green space in the future, that's for sure 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.