reohn2 wrote:If at the planning meeting the council decide that the land must be restored to original by next spring no one will know it ever existed
Is such a condition possible?
I've idea,but if not it should be.
Is it feasible or will the operator just cease trading and leave the council to clean up and consider an expensive legal process to recover the costs?
If the operator has made a profit,any restoration should be taken from that.Of course if not then the operator should be pursued through the courts.Of course shrewd capitalists will hide behind LTD company laws,etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
[XAP]Bob wrote:Hence the concept of an emergency meeting - allowing for actual public engagement, only one plan being discussed. Not a "normal" process. This would of course cost the applicant more money, but then again it's only needed once in a blue moon.
It would be much simpler to work that way,and set certain conditions at such a meeting,I agree.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2 wrote:If at the planning meeting the council decide that the land must be restored to original by next spring no one will know it ever existed
Is such a condition possible?
I've idea,but if not it should be.
It is possible to put restoration as a condition of planning approval. This is often done on a much longer term basis for quarrying and extraction sites.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
If someone were to construct such a road with a view to it being permanent then I'd agree with all your points,but it's temporary,I think all parties recognise that fact.
the problem is that the road might be temporary, but the damage may be permanent. For instance, if construction of that road has destroyed archaeology then abandoning the road will not put that archaeology back.
I take your point but there are archaeological sites being destroyed without anyone ever knowing it,if there was evidence of such I'd agree but (and I sympathise with you) society can't check for archaeological evidence every time a spade is put in the ground.
With major developments like this it is up to the developer to get the archaeological assessment done before development (polluter pays), thus it costs us nothing as tax payers, and the developer will have factored in the pre-con work to their plans. If people follow planning guidelines then this is always done. In this case the planning guidelines have not been followed and any archaeology may have been lost for ever.
(1)If any person executes or causes or permits to be executed any works to which this section applies he shall be guilty of an offence unless the works are authorised under this Part of this Act.
(8) In any proceedings for an offence under this section in relation to works within subsection (2)(a) or (c) above it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the monument was within the area affected by the works or (as the case may be) that it was a scheduled monument.
A bit off-topic (sorry) but I've noticed that these days with a lot of planning issues people are increasingly going for "retrospective" planning permission (for a license after the unapproved development has been in use for 4 ? years).
It seems that planning officers have to give consideration to planning applications, whereas planning enforcement is at the authorities discretion. And when cut need to be made "discretionary" activities are easier to cut.
And planners are far less likely to require somebody to know down a house built without approval (given the likely court hearings, costs, etc.); so where a development would probably be refused through a planning application prior to development, it is more likely to be approved when submitted retrospectively.
So the system becomes rather abused and as others have pointed out, damage is done (archaeological, environmental, etc.).
"If I rules the world", other than accidental planning violations (e.g. thinking you had Permitted Development Rights when your property had such rights withdrawn many years ago), enforcement would be a matter of "demolish and restore then we talk"; or at least manager in a far far stricter manner.
I think that that is superseded by PPG15 (and the new one which I can't remember the name of as it was after my time). For instance, the bloke who destroyed part of the priddy circles with the "best of intentions" has found himself around £50k out of pocket.
[XAP]Bob wrote:There maybe is a need for a mechanism to call "emergency" planning meetings - public attendance being the mechanism for complaints to be raised.
One problem with that is that only one member of the public is allowed to speak against any application at most current planning authority planning committee meetings - but as a way around that, I've seen a parish council hold its planning committee meeting hearing the same application (which usually allows multiple public contributions) just before the planning authority one.
That should mean that the parish council response to the planning authority reflects the public will... and I think the planning authority has to explain its reasons more fully if it disagrees with the parish council. I feel this is actually a pretty useful function of parish councils.
Hence the concept of an emergency meeting - allowing for actual public engagement, only one plan being discussed. Not a "normal" process. This would of course cost the applicant more money, but then again it's only needed once in a blue moon.
But before giving permission the council word have to have ensured all the necessary assessments of the site had been done. That would have basically stopped him in his tracks even with emergency planning.
broadway wrote:But before giving permission the council word have to have ensured all the necessary assessments of the site had been done. That would have basically stopped him in his tracks even with emergency planning.
He'd have just needed to do those assessments - and paid for them to get done
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Here's a thought. What would the local reaction have been, if a group of gypsies or other travellers had taken it upon themselves to construct this 'road' and toll booth? (Without Planning Permission, naturally). Judging by our local experience, travelling communities are very adept at creating ex tempore roads out of nowhere, and then using them to get their caravans into fields...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
The A431 has opened today, about a month earlier than expected, leaving him with a £10k-15k loss, seems it was very expensive to run.
BaNES found money to finish the roadworks early, originally it was scheduled to finish at Christmas which would have left the toll road in profit, just.
The A431 has opened today, about a month earlier than expected, leaving him with a £10k-15k loss, seems it was very expensive to run.
BaNES found money to finish the roadworks early, originally it was scheduled to finish at Christmas which would have left the toll road in profit, just.
So will the guy now be seeking compensation from the council for their failure to meet their own schedules (properly); for misleading him over the duration of the works; etc. And in our compensation culture I would not be surprised if he did (and then won).
Or was it part of a bigger scheme whereby land gets accepted as "change of use" without formal consideration, making it e.g "brown field" and thus suitable for a housing development ...