Lowestoft Online - More of Lowestofts heritage lost.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Lowestoft Online Forum

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Lowestoft Online > Community > Strictly Lowestoft > Debate Lowestoft Issues > Topic: More of Lowestofts heritage lost.

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this board.

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All] | Go Down

Author

Topic: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. (Read 2684 times)

Old Spice

Guest

More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Posted: 16 September 2011 at 07:45 AM »

When repairing the front of the building I removed some of the modern attachments of plastic and sheet wood.Underneath as I thought I found the original structure in a reasonable repairable state. I'd found an old picture of the road and originally all the buildings were covered in the criss cross wood over plaster as can be seen between the scaffolding stages.
As this is a conservation area and grants have been awarded in the past to buildings around me I spoke to the council and asked about leaving this original structure (the top floor is the same,covered by more sheet wood). I don't want a gran,I've never had one since I've been here so am used to paying my way..
I was told I'd have to get planning permission and payfor it..So the original woodwork (after being treated to ensure it doesn't rot any further)has been covered up yet again.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


	Logged

Boatbuilder

John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 4747

I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #1 Posted: 16 September 2011 at 03:22 PM »

OS, when you say "I'd have to get planning permission and payfor it" do you mean pay for the planning permission? If so did they tell you what it would cost? I don't know why you'd should have to have planning permission to return a building to it's original design.


	Logged

An Oyster 575

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #2 Posted: 17 September 2011 at 10:53 PM »

I was about to say the very same thing. Don't forget, you can dispute planning decisions which are very often one person's interpretation of the rules. The planning departments are under great pressure to hit targets and they will only oppose a dispute if they are guaranteed a win. I challenged their decision over an extension I was planning on my house and told them I would be disputing their decision and taking it up with my local councillor, the officer who had come to investigate my complaint dropped it on the spot and I got my way. you should stick to your guns as you are clearly in the right.


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #3 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 03:04 PM »

I would have to obtain planning permission which is around a couple of hundred quid. A few years back I was repainting the front door (in the same colour) and I was ordered to get planning permission to do so.I refused and nothing eventually happened,and that was the cost I was quoted then.
It seems ludicrous to pay to help preserve an older part of the building rather than simply cover up (again) whats there,it makes me wonder what on earth they're hoping to conserve.
Maybe the conservation rules apply more to some than others.


	Logged

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #4 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 05:27 PM »

I wonder what would have happened if you had said nothing


	Logged

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #5 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 06:01 PM »

Why not do it anyway - let it get really public when you refuse to pay.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #6 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 09:06 PM »

If you want to change the appearance of a property in a conservation area you need permission. The rule is there to prevent people making something look bad or inappropriate. In your case, it will probably make it look better. However, the rule isn't there only for making things better or stopping them looking worse - the rule is to make the person doing the change show in advance the changes, they get looked at by the council and the public and then if they are to the better, approved.

What you want is for the rule to not apply because it's for the best - but that's not your call, that's what planning permission is for.

If you want to change the appearance, you have to get permission. You can't really complain because you think you shouldn't have to go through planning because it will improve the look. It could be argued that if your changes make your building stand out, then that's not really an improvement - like painting doors weird colours? Rules that you like because they help you, and those that you don't because they stop you doing things are irrelevant - they're just rules?


	Logged

Paul Johnson

JollyJapes

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #7 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 09:09 PM »

Personally I would have thought that planning permission wasn't needed. You wouldn't be making any changes to the building, merely displaying old original parts of the building. They should/would have had planning permission when they were first placed, and so new planning permission should not be needed.


	Logged

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #8 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 09:43 PM »

but hes not changing it, the people who put the boarding up changed it he s returning it to how it should be


	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #9 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 10:03 PM »

Surely it's not that difficult to grasp is it?

If the appearance is different after the work to what it was before the work, then it's a change.
It's not relevant whether the features are original or not, not for the decision of whether a change is proposed. Once it's established that a change is proposed and that you need to apply for permission, then the detail of that change is looked at. And if deemed a change for the better, then it's approved.

OS, if you own the property, were you not told at the time of purchase that it's in a conservation area?


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

728

Hello world
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 3097

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #10 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 10:38 PM »

If WDC forced to get it covered up, couldnt you then appeal, because WDC would be defeating the object of it being a conservation area, if that makes sense icon_scratch


	Logged

Lowestoft town are a champion football club

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #11 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 10:57 PM »

No - you're missing the point. They would almost certainly grant it. The snag is that you have to pay for the permission process. The result isn't the issue here, it's the application process.


	Logged

Paul Johnson

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #12 Posted: 18 September 2011 at 11:35 PM »

Quote

And if deemed a change for the better, then it's approved.

So if we like red doors and a "planner" doesn't we're stuffed? Sounds like a money-making exercise to me. Does it go to a panel for a decision on whether a red door looks nice or not or is it one person who decides?


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #13 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 07:52 AM »

The area was made a 'conservation' area after I bought the building.
It's a point of principle,I would not pay WDC 50p to get 'permission' to turn parts of the building back into the condition it was and reverse the process of modernisation which surely is conserving whats there.
They turn a blind eye to PVC windows,gutters and doors,satellite dishes,signs sticking out and bright red buildings but I'm expected to pay them to reveal a bit of the original pre structure?. No way.
Yes I could just carry on and defy them and if it benefitted me I would.However simply uncovering the original woodwork and leaving it would probably do me no favours in the long run,there'd doubtless be further restrictions put in the way of running the shop.
The Tuttles eyesore is also in the conservation area (as amazingly is the ramshackle Suffolk Road and the awfull Bingo chrome and glass contraption) in terms of 'conservation' I'd have thought WDC could concentrate their efforts in other directions rather than trying to make a few quid out of my efforts to conserve something thats been covered over.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #14 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 08:53 AM »

For goodness sake - planning permission isn't exactly new and radical is it???

We have a planning PROCESS. If you want to change something you ask permission, and it's granted if there's no good reason not to. It isn't one person! Go on the WDC site and look at them, they're all there. People wanting extensions, changes of use, alterations in conservation areas - you can see the application, look at the details and even see the letters people have written in where they object. Sometimes the letters are really good and raise sensible objections, other times you just have to laugh - but that is the entire point, everyone gets a say - then they decide. If you don't agree, you can appeal upwards. They're just about to evict a load of people in Essex, aren't they? The ONLY reason is that they did things without planning permission. So the process is quite legit. The only problem is that you have to pay to fund the process.

While you have scaffolding up, I'd suggest the cost is quite reasonable if the idea is to improve the property. If a few hundred quid puts you off, then how much did you like the idea of showing the feature off?

You would be paying WDC to put into practice a law that has been around for a long time. If you want your property to look nicer, do it. If you really do have such strong principles and can't bear to pay WDC for what you feel is unfair (which it's not) then stick a bit of sheet back up and stop moaning. It's entirely up to you, but the reasons you have given seem to have little to do with a genuine desire to improve the look of the building. If that was your reason, then you'd put in for planning and do it.

It does seem a bit odd to blame a law, just because on this occasion, the law works against you. If next door wanted change of use to a business that would alter the value of your property, you'd be all in favour of the very same law, wouldn't you - when you put your complaint in?


	Logged

Paul Johnson

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #15 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 08:57 AM »

I ve got a feeling this is about principle with OS


	Logged

snowdrop

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 4710

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #16 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 10:42 AM »

what os feeling i should know..i knock down tuttles in bats eye but case of sense.i sure liverpool regret cavern .just a case what do an area bring to the people.i unable read all the post so not sure which building we talking about.


	Logged

Scorpio

Super Member

Posts: 188

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #17 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 11:20 AM »

Quote from: Old Spice on 19 September 2011 at 07:52 AM

Yes I could just carry on and defy them and if it benefitted me I would.However simply uncovering the original woodwork and leaving it would probably do me no favours in the long run,there'd doubtless be further restrictions put in the way of running the shop.

Your shop does seem to bring you a lot of problems, mainly with it's location making unloading & parking for customers very difficult. So how about buying (or renting) a new shop somewhere else?

For instance the Head Space (cannabis shop) on London Road South closed recently. If you ran your business from there people (delivering or buying) would have relatively few problems parking. And there are a number of similar sized shops empty in the main shopping thoroughfare.

These areas are designed to be shopping areas, whereas the road your shop is on has been turned into a major traffic thoroughfare for the town. You wouldn't have to leave the house, but maybe the extra business, if generated, would offset the cost of renting a separate premises to trade from.

Anyway good luck with the restorations. Do you still want passers by from Lowestoft Online to hoot you as they drive past?


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #18 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 01:16 PM »

Yes please give me a hoot as you go past (or get stuck in a jam).
Scorpio,I own the whole building and live above and renting a shop would be a waste of time as WDC wont allow me to convert the bottom to residential although they did allow next door,so I'd be paying rates etc on something that will be empty and I can't use.In mainly trade on the internet now so the loading/unloading issue isn't a problem.I haven't been provided with my own private loading/unloading area so had to change the way I trade.
Paul,you miss the pont totally,it's a matter of principle and if the property next door was changed to business use I'd be all in favour,at least I wouldn't have all the aggro with a load of junkies in it like I had a few years back.
Funkychick,you're dead right,it's the principle of the thing.


	Logged

728

Hello world
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 3097

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #19 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 01:21 PM »

How would the council go about this problem if a property was damaged by act of God? If the wood blew off on a windy day and exposed those beams, would WDC expect you to put scaffolding up and put the wood back over it or would they let you leave it as it is?


	Logged

Lowestoft town are a champion football club

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #20 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 02:49 PM »

Good point!
To be honest I' wish I'd thought of that. Grin


	Logged

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #21 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 03:04 PM »

I think if you d just done it 'in ignorance' no one would have said a thing. Your biggest mistake was asking if you needed permission cos now you can't really go anywhere without it


	Logged

728

Hello world
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 3097

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #22 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 06:55 PM »

Good point!
To be honest I' wish I'd thought of that.

Just dont put as many nails in this time evil6


	Logged

Lowestoft town are a champion football club

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #23 Posted: 19 September 2011 at 11:44 PM »

The point I was making Paul was that in these circumstances you are in the lap of the gods regarding whether your change is deemed to be an improvement or not. It depends upon who makes the decision and what their personal view is. The guy who built the first house in Broadland Close off Beccles Road wanted green tiles on his roof - he was told he couldn't because there were no other houses nearby with green tiles -so what? He pointed out that there were 60 holiday bungalows just behind him that all had green roofs - to no avail.

I recently decided to extend my link-detatched house sideways towards my neighbour and he wanted to do the same, I sent a sketch to planning to ask if this was permitted as it would make our houses semis. The response was no problem put your plans in, the guy also said that the best extension is one that looked like it had always been part of the original house. I had my plans drawn up only to have them rejected, they wanted the extension to be set back by 1 metre the reason given was that it didn't look enough like an extension - I rest my case.


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #24 Posted: 20 September 2011 at 08:01 AM »

When we scraped off paint on the outside of the ground floor we found at one time the woodwork had been brown,pretty much the colour I'm painting it now.
Some time ago we met an old lady who was actually born here when this was house.Her son came in yesterday and said they'd driven past and she loved how it was looking.
That made my day.


	Logged

snowdrop

Lowestoft Online Addict

Posts: 4710

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #25 Posted: 20 September 2011 at 11:34 AM »

i would imagine act of god the council insured for, and it have to be rebuilt as before act of god


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #26 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 01:02 PM »

Maybe thats was happening with the Tuttles eyesore,the owners waiting for it to fall down by a rather long winded 'act of God'.


	Logged

JollyJapes

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #27 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 01:07 PM »

Latest rumour about Tuttles building is that they are considering allowing to proceed a demolition order request. Doubt they would agree to it though. Previous rumour was that Weatherspoons had given u[p on moving into the station and were planning on taking over the entire ground floor of Tuttles - again, I doubt they would actually do that considering the cost involved.

I still think that restoring a property back to a previous look should be exempt from needing planning permission, due to this look already having been given permission in the past. Otherwise, it seems illogical.


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #28 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 01:11 PM »

If they leave it much longer it wont need a demolition order it will fall down on its own.
You were right incidentally about there being a flat above the Indian restaurant,apparently you are allowed to have a flat above commercial properties under 'allowed development'. Presumably you can then fill it wioth as many people as you like.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #29 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 06:54 PM »

There are sensible reasons why reversion needs permission. Changes of use to buildings in that area are also scrutinised as it's in the area denoted as having a flood risk. The other thing is that building regulations have developed to increase safety over the years, so things that have been removed could be a problem if changed back to how it was. Exit doors, corridor widths, stair treadway, that kind of thing.

Don't forget that the council don't have to like something, it just has to comply with the rules in force. A good example is the Wellington Pier in Great Yarmouth. The old pier theatre was riddled with asbestos, so the obvious thing was to fix it. It's not listed, so no problem there (the Wintergardens is, but that's closed anyway). The firm that run it, have piers up and down the Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex coastline - and as they have the Britannia, another theatre would not make them money - so they decided to demolish the thing. The planning rules were looked at and the end result was that they stripped it back to the Victorian steelwork, then rebuilt it to look exactly the same visually, but using modern materials complying with the safety rules. This worked well with the planning regulations. A new design would have been much more complicated to get through - but making an old dangerous building a safe new one, just looking like the old one was not a planning problem. The same thing could work with Tuttles, leaving the exterior looking the same, but having a new interior. If you read planning applications on the WDC site, you often read the phrase "No justification for refusal" - which I read as "we'd like to have said no, but couldn't".

I don't think we should have planning exemptions at all - but rubber stamping things is ok. Planning permission does expire, but isn't normally that hard to re-instate unless planning rules have changed.


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #30 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 07:17 PM »

The biggest factor in obtaining planning permission or even wether it's necessary to apply for it in the first place is not what you are doing or even where,but who you are.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #31 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 07:43 PM »

.... and that is simply paranoia! Complete and utter rubbish. If you actually bother to check out the planning applications you will find far more private individuals getting permission than big companies. Tesco are a good example. They get refused permission over and over again all over the country, while some private people who have just made cock-ups get special treatment, even if they're broken a minor rule. Big companies have to be letter perfect.

You obviously have some kind of mega chip on your shoulder against 'the system' - but what on earth gives you the view that civil servants (who are normal people) are somehow corrupt? This seems to be what you are stating - that preference in interpreting the law is down to who you are? I bet the offices at WDC are full of people with radical political views, taking huge backhanders from the developers and constantly looking over their shoulder ready to do a runner with a pile of cash in a Swiss bank account. There are views, opinions and sadly ...... paranoid delusions!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #32 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 07:46 PM »

I didn't mention big business,corruption or backhanders,I stand by what I said and don't feel any need to justify it to you or anybody else.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #33 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 08:06 PM »

Nope you didn't, and I don't want you to justify anything. You've made it clear you believe some people get special treatment, as in underhand and potential litigious actions. That's why I'm certain you are simply suffering from paranoia. If you are not, then perhaps you'd care to give examples we can look up in the records, then - and only then, will you be taken seriously. If this was the 1950s, you'd probably be certain that these council employees were probably communists, smuggled into the country at night who took the identities of council employees to gain an advantage. From my dealings with the planning people, they're a typical cross section of society, and I doubt any would put their jobs in danger by being biased in this way. So - as in cards, I call your bluff. provide the example of where planning permission depended on 'who' somebody was, and then we can all discuss it.

I expect your answer will be evasive, or cite privacy, or confidentiality .... or just plain unwillingness to answer. Fine with me, I'll draw my own conclusion.

Very best wishes (don't look behind you ..... they're coming for you!)


	Logged

Paul Johnson

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #34 Posted: 21 September 2011 at 11:40 PM »

I can see points in both your arguments. Maybe OS didn't state his point in the best way. If you want an example was it Gateways who got a new supermarket built against the odds by throwing in a multi-storey car park? Was the new police station part of the deal too? I think what OS is saying is that the ordinary bloke can't afford to do something like that. I think you'll find that many of Tescos developments follow that very line.


	Logged

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #35 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 06:48 AM »

You are right Frankie I remember big petitions against the KFC in Kirkley which was built on top of the tanks of the garage that was originally there. - but it was a deed done


	Logged

Meryl

Forum Moderator
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 8198

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #36 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 07:17 AM »

Originally WH Smith was only supposed to have the back part of the Odeon but decided that they wanted all of it so they played up until they got it all.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #37 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 07:41 AM »

I give up!
"Playing up" until they get it is NOT how it works. The process is similar to any other formal application process. Adoption, County Court, planning and the popular one at the moment eviction, are all extremely similar. If there are objections, they get heard, and somebody makes a decision. If you disagree you can appeal. Locally at first, but if you wish you can appeal to the highest court in the land - and that is what people do. Somebody will win, somebody will lose. That's how we do things. Very often people get this idea that somehow having money means they will win. Perhaps in a way it does. Tesco may be able to afford to take it further, because they can afford to - but in planning, it will be the council v Tesco, not the complainer v Tesco.

A petition simply informs the council there is opposition. However, not wanting something cannot prevent a LAWFUL application - like it or not.

If you really wish to upset residents of Southwold, anyone can make a planning application for a new MacDonalds - you don't even have to own the site. So somebody could legally put an application in to turn my house into a fast food restaurant, and there's nothing I could do to stop them applying as long as they pay. However, the zoning rules would prevent it. If for some strange reason, development of this kind was permitted, then the council would have to wait for objections. Then all my neighbours would stand up, one by one and say how dreadful the idea was and how their homes would be devalued, how noise and rubbish would spoil the area, and then based on EVIDENCE the council would decide. If I didn't agree, I'd appeal.

Nowadays people base their opinions, it seems to me, on what is printed in newspapers, or they hear on the grapevine. In the case of the KFC - the records, if I remember correctly, show detailed evidence that building control were satisfied construction was sound and met prescribed standards. Petitions mean zero. Proper formal complaints, with evidence that can be validated are the only thing the council can consider - not somebody stopped in the street and asked if they agree. Petitions show that large numbers of people object, but did they record the people who disagreed? Nope - that's why they are unreliable evidence.

WH Smith playing up is a lovely way of describing what happened - but my memory says they just followed the planning rules. Supposed means 'widely understood' not signed sealed and delivered - and being realistic, it's not the biggest shop in the development anyway, so kind of makes sense to me. I was one who was very sad to see the Odeon go, but it's money, not sentiment that matters in business.


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #38 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 07:44 AM »

Thanks,thats three examples for you Paul.Paranoia must be catching.
I had an e-mail from planning yesterday,they agreed that it seems ludicrous that planning permission is necessary to remove plastic covering original features but have no leeway to bend the rules.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #39 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 08:11 AM »

If you've read the rules and believe they don't apply - then appeal. If the rules seem black and white, the like it or not, it's probably not worth it. In your case the gamble would have been to do what you want and then fight retrospectively - which could have resulted in no action, but by asking first .........?

I don't agree with the system, and I'm certainly not against what you wanted to do at all - but the thing to me is simple, there is a process and we all have to use it. I looked into something similar (ish) myself and came to the conclusion that the real problem was I wanted planning to agree with me, not me follow the rules - and not a lot you can do about that.

I really suggest people register and read the planning section of the WDC site. It's a real eye opener because you get to read the complaints - they have scanned peoples documents and you see them. The bmx thing in Normanston park had quite a few complaints, but they came from people outside the area, and many were just complaining because they didn't like the idea - very few had real planning points. Visual impact, accident potential etc and even noise. The council had conducted their noise tests and the impact on local housing was discounted because this had already been solved when the road was built.


	Logged

Paul Johnson

frankiesays

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1587

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #40 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 09:27 PM »

Maybe things work that way in Lowestoft but......

In Sheringham although the proposed development was originally refused planning permission by an area planning committee, it was approved by the full committee in 2004, after Tesco threatened to go to appeal and claim costs from the council if the application was refused. As John Sweeney, leader of North Norfolk District Council put it,
'They are too big and powerful for us. If we try and deny them, they will appeal, and we cannot afford to fight a planning appeal and lose. If they got costs it could bankrupt us.'[64]

Planning gain – Legitimate bribery!
Planning legislation recognises 'planning gain', where supermarkets offer to build infrastructure or new amenities for local councils in return for planning permission, as a legitimate sweetener offered by the supermarkets. These 'section 106 agreements', mainly intended to ameliorate the effect of the development through the construction of new roads, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings as well as leisure facilities (such as the new cricket pavilion built by Tesco in Shaftesbury), are obviously very attractive to cash-strapped local authorities.
In Sheringham, North Norfolk, Tesco initially secured an agreement with the council to relocate a community centre, fire station and a block of flats used for social housing.[69] And its not just in Sheringham that local authorities are bending over backwards to accommodate the supermarkets' development proposals on town centre sites, local councils around the country have traded away community facilities, memorial gardens, allotments, social housing and an old soldiers' club in order to facilitate supermarket development. In Hadleigh, Suffolk, Babergh district council has altered the district plan so that Tesco can build on a flood plain - directly against national policy.[70]

Lots more on the subject here http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2357


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #41 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 10:19 PM »

I don't disagree with this, Tesco are doing a very similar thing in Fareham near Portsmouth, building next to a roundabout plagued with traffic problems, but Tesco have offered to pay, as in the example above.

If you investigate a little further and away from the rather biased sites that have axes to grind, this is actually quite common, and is usually done when a planning application is refused for a specific reason - poor access, flood plain, safety issues, congestion at nearby car parks. The crafty lawyers, on seeing that the only reason they didn't get permission was a physical problem, simply solve it. Build a new roundabout, design a building that has flood proof ground floor, provide extra free parking spaces for nearby shops. They instantly remove the obstacle - and then if the council try to find a new reason, revealing that they just didn't want it - then the big company will go to the High Court - where the council's flimsy defence could well cost lots of dosh.

I can't find it now, but a month or two ago there was a case where the council wanted to knock down a new house because the builders accidentally built it too high above ground level. The solution from a specialist lawyer they engaged was really simple. The planning permission cited 'above ground level' - but made no reference to what ground level was - so they simply brought in tonnes of soil and raised the ground - and the council gave in.

Our own council spent over a year getting a tree preservation order on some of the trees near me - but many are now going to be removed because the council now discover some are diseased, and diseased trees are not protected, even though they were included on the order.

I hate wind turbines - I think they're ugly intrusive things, yet if they can get through planning I'm not going to waste time complaining.

The Sheringham problem was because the sub-committe refused it in appropriately - when the legal problems were brought to the full committees attention, then the advice from the civil servants was that Tesco would have a successful appeal and claim costs as is legally correct. This means that the full council agreed that Tesco were probably on sound ground, and their refusal was contestable.

Either side, convinced of their case could take it further - but if advised to not pursue it by those trained in the law, I think us laymen would no doubt go along with it.

Changing a plan is pretty common - as necessity requires. Dangle a few jobs and away we go!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

JollyJapes

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #42 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 10:26 PM »

A classic example of planning permission that has been ignored would be Asda in Lowestoft. Planning permission was finally granted to develop the site and build the store as long as they did 'not' build a petrol station as this would be unfair competition to the BP garage across the road. A few years later, Asda built a petrol self-service station. And no complaints, no issues with the council.


	Logged

JustStu

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 1040

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #43 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 10:39 PM »

Asda had planning permission for a petrol station. Maybe not included in the original application for the supermarket, but certainly as a separate application more recently.


	Logged

I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'

JollyJapes

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #44 Posted: 22 September 2011 at 10:47 PM »

As I said at the time, seems that the original planning permission was ignored; logically I feel that it is like an if-then logic statement. If you want to build a petrol station then you cannot have permission to build a store. If you agree not to build a petrol station then you may have permission to build a store. It is illogical to simply ignore the prior application later on.


	Logged

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #45 Posted: 23 September 2011 at 08:03 AM »

Asda did exactly the same thing in Norwich years ago.I can remember they even had spokesmen coming on tele promising that they would 'never' apply for permission for a petrol station.
Incidentally thanks to anyone whos given me a toot as they've driven past.Its difficult to work out if they've been intended for me or just the normal 'get out of my way' toots etc and half the time I've been too busy hanging on (I don't like heights) to wave.


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #46 Posted: 23 September 2011 at 09:15 AM »

When you complete a planning application, there is no box where you can promise not to do something. To the best of my knowledge, there are no links to other applications past or present apart from where a planning approval has elapsed, where the granting of the previous one is taken into account.

It may be common knowledge that planning applications are subject to backhanders, approved my the Masons and local councillors persuaded not to attend the meetings - but the facts seem very different. Chinese whispers and recollections of TV interviews isn't reliable. The usual technique used for interviews is to say "I can categorically assure local residents that we have no intention of building a petrol station". Say it loud enough, and memory adds the word "ever" to the end. Ever watch Yes, Minister? These statements are quite normal, factual and totally disarming - which is what they are meant to be.

http://anitepublicaccess.waveney.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00082179.pdf
Have a look at the level of detail that is available when planning is refused - the one above is where somebody wanted to build a 2 storey extension and the planning department rejected it. This is the letter from the neighbour to the council setting out why it should be rejected. These are proper details - and you can also see when the council received it and who dealt with it. You can't get more open than that!

When ASDA wanted planning permission for an illuminated sign for the petrol station - 10 private residents and 4 business premises were contacted, and one objection was received - which seems to show the locals aren't particularly bothered! The objection was that the sign could put off other retailers using the site!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

morty1753

Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 933

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #47 Posted: 23 September 2011 at 10:01 AM »

Quote from: paulears on 23 September 2011 at 09:15 AM

http://anitepublicaccess.waveney.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00082179.pdf

Paul. I am getting "This page cannot found". Do you have the correct address for this?


	Logged

"I" before "E" except after "C"..... That's weird

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #48 Posted: 23 September 2011 at 02:03 PM »

Paul this is not a post for or against planing permission.after all it is something that is there and has to be adhered to, but in support of OS (whose posts, in fairness, dont often get my support) but I know of a situation where planning permission has been twice refused and I have seen these refusals on the gov website, the business however has continued without the planing permission for a number of years although I also know that a neighbour of the business did alert WDC to the fact, they thanked him, and absolutely nothing further happened.

I think what OS is saying is that some people (for whatever reasons, friends in the right places, bribes, old boys I dont know ) have a blind eye turned whilst others get a ton of bricks on their applicationan I don't think that is just down to OS s paranoia


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #49 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 10:27 AM »

Re: the link - my fault, you have to be registered, so you need to go to the
http://publicaccess.waveney.gov.uk/PASystem77/default.aspx
access page and then follow the planning links - the page I linked to times out, so I stuck Kirkley in the search box under 'ward' and then went through a few pages until I found one that was rejected - you can then read all the council minutes, see the plans, read the complains and see how the decision was arrived at. The document I listed was a scan of the real letter sent in, complete with the complainants full name and address - so it's very revealing - you'll find the ASDA sign in there too, plus lots of other interesting stuff. You cans search through by approved, or rejected or appealed - it's pretty comprehensive.
Paul

Quote

I think what OS is saying is that some people (for whatever reasons, friends in the right places, bribes, old boys I dont know ) have a blind eye turned whilst others get a ton of bricks on their applicationan I don't think that is just down to OS s paranoia

This is the bit that I feel is wrong. Everybody thinks that these are the reasons planning applications get rejected or accepted, but the evidence is very, very different. You can read exactly what people complained about, and see how their complaint was dealt with. Frequently, when you actually READ the letters, you realise that the complaint was poorly worded, or contained inaccurate information, or was severely biased - then you read the other info and discover that the number of people who took the time to actually complain is a tiny proportion, which rather makes you think that maybe the other people in the area don't mind. In one I was reading, the next door neighbours put together really good and detailed complaints - perhaps that between the hours of 2 and 5, there would not be enough light to read as the development was too close or too high. Really important details, with facts that can be checked. Simply not liking something is not grounds to say no!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Old Spice

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #50 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 11:41 AM »

My original post said that it seemed ludicrous that I would have to apply for and pay to get planning permission to return part of my building which is in a conservation area back to a state before modern plastic panels etc that would now not be allowed under the said conservation area status rules.Even the planners agreed but said they have to comply with the law as it stands.
I refuse,on principle,to spend money complying with such a silly law,which in effect penalises me for complying with it.
Given enough money and enough influence you can build just anything just about anywhere,no matter what those living next to it think..


	Logged

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #51 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 12:21 PM »

.......and in answer to you Paul the situation I was referring to was that the council had done nothing about people who were contiuing to trade after having been refused planning permission, nothing to do with people liking or not liking something, or letters being futile or poorly witten WDC had decided not to give planning permission BUt had failed to deal with it when no notice was taken of their decision


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #52 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 04:22 PM »

Sorry Funkychick - I misunderstood. If somebody does something in breach of planning, then as with the Essex situation, nothing gets done speedily. Planning contravention and enforcement may well take years and years, as with the gypsy site. I don't think these delays have much to do with selectivity, but more to do with manpower - or the lack of it!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Boatbuilder

John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 4747

I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #53 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 04:33 PM »

Paul. having followed this topic with great interest, I would like to ask you a question which you may choose not to answer. In view of your knowledge of the system, have you by any chance served on a planning committee?


	Logged

An Oyster 575

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #54 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 04:55 PM »

Me personally, no - but I have family members who used to work in the planning department, and another in a different department in the Town Hall. All now work elsewhere, but the planning dept post was quite recent. I have also experienced the process from the point of view of the applicant.

I suspect my viewpoint is really one of rejecting urban myths that always seem to be common knowledge, yet very often are far from it!


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Boatbuilder

John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 4747

I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #55 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 04:58 PM »

Thanks for answering my question, Paul. It's much appreciated.


	Logged

An Oyster 575

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #56 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 05:01 PM »

Paul with respect and understanding of your reasoning I can tell you that 3 or maybe 4 years down the line nothig has happened except for further expansion i do believe they have given up any kind of control in this particular case and we can only go by what we see not what should happen ideally


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #57 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 06:11 PM »

Maybe they simply forgot? These things have happened - but if you feel strongly, search the records and see what the status is. I don't think the on-line records go back that far, but you could call in and check. If they have forgotten, it would be embarrassing, but I suspect the permission may have just been granted and it's all done. There are quite a few retrospective permissions on file.


	Logged

Paul Johnson

funkychick

Lowestoft Online Addict

Gender:

Posts: 14388

You may leave, but you'll return

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #58 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 06:24 PM »

Thank you Paul I dont feel so strongly about it, it doesnt effect me,but I was trying to give you an illustation of how OS 's post wasnt all about paranoia ....... and no it hasnt been forgotten, as I said someone did bring it up to WDC, who visited, saw for themselves and choose ( I am convinced) to do nothing


	Logged

swingbridge

Guest

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #59 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 08:42 PM »

Planning applicattions in consevatoin areas are free where the need for permision is caused by it being a consevation area


	Logged

paulears

East Anglian Radio Services
Veteran Member

Gender:

Posts: 363

Website

Re: More of Lowestofts heritage lost. « Reply #60 Posted: 24 September 2011 at 10:04 PM »

well that neatly solves this entire topic - with no fee, then plan away!

Actually, Swingbridge, that's a really sensible rule. Nice one. P


	Logged

Paul Johnson

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All] | Go Up

Admin options

Jump to: