BA In Planning Dispute

[CambridgeCabby]

17 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

 

I believe what the BA deem as unacceptable is the abuse of the planning process by use of retrospective planning applications.

In both instances ??

ie Irstead and also my example .

 

also please correct me if I’m wrong but I was led to believe that the concrete product used is a by product of the cement industry utilising what would have been a waste product , again please correct me if I’m mistaken

[batrabill]

So man says he will use wood, in process of making loads of money for himself - doesn’t - runs to papers to complain. 

I can see why people think the BA is at fault. * 

 

 

 

 

*This is sarcasm, the lowest form of wit, but I’d rather be sarcastic than someone who believes everything the BA does is wrong. That’s called lunacy. 

[Meantime]

7 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

In both instances ??

ie Irstead and also my example .

 

also please correct me if I’m wrong but I was led to believe that the concrete product used is a by product of the cement industry utilising what would have been a waste product , again please correct me if I’m mistaken

The concrete board I know about Hardie planking does not use any by products. It is made from Portland cement, sand, cellulose pulp and water. Hardie's green credentials are that at least 75% of the raw materials used at each of its manufacturing plants is sourced locally. Another part of It's green credentials are that it is warranted for 50 years, and can possibly last even longer than that if painted and properly maintained. Hardie board is porous and is not entirely maintenance free in the long term, low maintenance would be a better term.

To answer your first question, yes in both case it is an abuse of the planning process to use retrospective planning applications. However to use the first as a reason to let this retrospective application through is flawed because then someone else will push the boundaries even further and use Mr Lodges retrospective planning as a reason why their application should be passed.

Like it or not each application needs to be considered on its merits, not the merits of who has got away with the most so far.

[CambridgeCabby]

I stand corrected sir 

[rightsaidfred]

While I have no problem with the visual aspect of this property retrospective planning is a tool far to often used and abused to undermine the planning process nationwide, with regard to BA planning it is clearly stated within each application upon approval which materials are or are not acceptable in the construction and you ignore that at your peril, no sympathy I am afraid regardless of the perceived merits of particular materials.

Fred

[Mouldy]

No axe to grind with the BA and I don't want to discuss the issues of the boarding and relevant  planning permissions,  but as the building in question is not by the river's edge and in no way 'iconic,' why all the fuss?  To my eyes (at least), the visual abomination that is Hunsett Mill is much more worthy of comment.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

but as the building in question is not by the river's edge and in no way 'iconic,' why all the fuss? 

So are you suggesting that if someone wanted to build a three bedroom extension to their property that effectively doubled the size of their house, as long as it's not near the water, or "iconic" they don't need planning? or perhaps they do need planning, but have an extra amount of leeway to use materials that weren't specified in the original application? At what point does a building become "iconic" enough, or "close" enough to the water to be deemed worthy of proper planning control?

I guess you could ask 100 people those questions and get a fair range of responses, therefore perhaps the way forward is to  ensure that people actually build what they have applied for and received planning permission for. Retrospective planning permission should be a tool for genuine oversights that actually make very little difference to the end result, not a way to abuse the planning process. All Mr Lodge had to do was pick up the phone and speak to the planning department and ask if he could substitute one material for another, or apply for an amendment before using the material.

Planning departments, contrary to popular belief, are quite helpful when asked for advice either before a planning application has been made, or after with a view to direction on what can be altered. They like the rest of us, get upset when someone abuses the system or plays it to their own ends.

[marshman]

Some people are viewing certain aspects through rose coloured specs and I would check quite seriously whether concrete is green!! My understanding is that it is far from it! ( Something to do with the power used to make it methinks! )

BUT you are all missing the point and indeed that in most if not all planning matters - do what you say you are going to do, and you cannot be criticised. Go outside the guidelines and you stand the risk of someone jumping on you. It was ever thus!!!

If you don't want that, comply with what you said and was agreed!!!! Fred has said it all!!!!

[dnks34]

This kind of thing isnt unique to the BA planning department and Im not bashing them for it.  Local Authority planners tend to have bigger budgets to back up the enforcement.  When push comes to shove at BA plaza who ends up paying?

Given whats gone on in Wroxham the BA department ought to be defunct anyway but they clearly pick their battles. 

I have no sympathy for this man but then at the same time some common sense ought to be used to prevent unecessary spending, it looks like wood, if it was aluminium chequer plate panels I might just see an argument. 

[Vaughan]

I am just going on what I read in the EDP article :

Mr Bill Dickson says he can tell the difference when he goes past in a boat. We are told that this building is 75m (225yds) from the river. I don't reckon I could tell the difference between varnished concrete boarding or varnished timber at that distance.

Haydyn Thirtle, BA Chairman, says : "If we allow this, it would get to the stage where it would be perceived that we would allow anything - which is unacceptable".

Those words may well come back to haunt him at Acle Bridge.

[vanessan]

38 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

We are told that this building is 75m (225yds) from the river.

75metres = 225yards - have you got that right Vaughan?

[Paul]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

75metres = 225yards - have you got that right Vaughan?

no! 75m is 82 yards

[VetChugger]

Totally agree with Fred. I had experience of unscrupulous planners doing just this. They treat planning regulation with total disdain. Add to this the money that is then needed enforcing decisions and departures. Who's money is this that is being taken away from more worthy causes??

[Vaughan]

9 hours ago, vanessan said:

75metres = 225yards - have you got that right Vaughan?

Oops! A slip of the decimal point, excuse me.

I used to be in the Army, you know. Luckily, I wasn't in the Artillery!

Anyway, I'm not sure I could tell the difference at 82 yds either.

[MauriceMynah]

Great thread, loads of debatable points. and it appears that without Peters help, the BA have managed to put themselves into a no win situation.

If they force their issue then how come Barnes Brinkcraft got away with blue murder? If they do not force their issue, then why are they involved in the planning dept in the first place? If they say that the materials are not in keeping how come Hunset mill got through. Same applies to the building style itself. (Let's not start on Acle as we don't know where that is going yet)

So! Where does that leave BA (apart from in the poo) and what should be done, or even could be done about it? 

[Meantime]

32 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Great thread, loads of debatable points. and it appears that without Peters help, the BA have managed to put themselves into a no win situation.

If they force their issue then how come Barnes Brinkcraft got away with blue murder? If they do not force their issue, then why are they involved in the planning dept in the first place? If they say that the materials are not in keeping how come Hunset mill got through. Same applies to the building style itself. (Let's not start on Acle as we don't know where that is going yet)

So! Where does that leave BA (apart from in the poo) and what should be done, or even could be done about it? 

Whilst I can understand the point you're making, I still view this as a standalone issue. In football there are many poor or bad decisions by referees, does that mean that all future matches have to be refereed to a similar or more lenient standard? The same with motorsport, especially in F1 these days the decisions of the stewards can seem inconsistent, however each new incident has to be judged on its merits and should not be given any leniency based upon past decisions.

I see this as the same for the BA. They need to judge this case on its merits, on whether it breaks the conditions of the application and whether enforcement action is required. What they should not consider is whether there should be leniency based upon previous poor decisions or interpretation of the rules. They need to be allowed to learn from their mistakes, not asked to keep making the same mistakes.

[Paul]

47 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

it appears that without Peters help, the BA have managed to put themselves into a no win situation

Personally I think that's back to front. I think it is the applicant that has put the Authority into a no win situation and I doubt that it was accidental. Anyone who has spent more than three and a half seconds reading this forum will know that I am no supporter of "the Blessed Authority", but on this occasion it appears to me that they have been backed into a corner quite deliberately.

Just to clarify. Cement bonded boards are not environmentally freindly. They take great amounts of power to produce, they are not maintenance free and they are very difficult to dispose of when there not infinite life comes to an end. Add to that they they look as much like real timber as a B&Q "Oak Effect" kitchen and I think the BA are right to stick to their guns. 

[JennyMorgan]

What can be done about it? Well, back off would seem to me as the wisest move. If I believe what I have been told then Building Control has signed off the cladding as being suitable for the job. Apparently the BA don't enforce building regulations, that's farmed out to convenient local authorities. I can't help feeling that the BA has been lapse on this one as it doesn't appear to be the case that this cladding went up yesterday so to speak. As MM has written, the Authority has managed, once again. to put itself into a no win situation. I agree with folk who have written here there and everywhere that the developer should have abided by the detail of his planning application. On the other hand, I think, he has made a reasonable substitution of material that, having gained agreement over the windows should not be a problem. As with the Barnes Brinkcraft abuse, it wouldn't have happened had the Authority kept a close eye on what was going on in it's own backyard. Best close the door before the horse bolts from the stable so to speak. However, it appears that Building Control and the Planning Department are not working hand in hand and this doesn't appear to be a one off.

[Paul]

I too share the concerns regarding "retrospective" planning applications voiced by many others on this forum. They exist to correct genuine oversights where no significant effect on the original decision is made. All too often they are used to by unsrupulous developers to obtain what they intended from the outset but knew would not be approved.

IMHO all such breaches should be required to be made correct to the original grant and only then should a retrospective application be permitted. It would stop such "oversights" instantly. 

[Meantime]

8 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I think, he has made a reasonable substitution of material that, having gained agreement over the windows should not be a problem.

The problem is that the two different materials are well materially different. Cement board being made from cement and upvc windows being made from plastic. Just because he was lucky and got retrospective planning for the substitution of one material for the windows, doesn't give him the automatic right to go substituting other materials. Perhaps he should have saved more money by substituting the roof tiles for corrugated iron sheets, where do you stop?

12 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

If I believe what I have been told then Building Control has signed off the cladding as being suitable for the job.

Building control and planning are totally different. Something can be safe to use, but not pass planning due to conservation issues or planning restrictions.

The BA is not in a no win situation. It just has to go ahead and enforce the planning application that it passed. It will then just have to deal with any flak that comes its way regarding previous dubious or poor decisions. That alone is no reason for not doing its job properly now, because the next person will only push the boundaries even further until you end up with a free for all.

[MauriceMynah]

ECIPA   Would that not leave the BA open to fairly justified accusations of corruption, given that Barnes has more money available to them than this fellow? 

[JennyMorgan]

All very true, East Coast, but as far as pushing boundaries there are no greater experts than the BA itself, witness the faux national park furour! Anyway, that's not a planning issue but boundary pushing has long been the name of the game at Thorpe House.

Regarding being in a no win situation, I stand by that, the BA will be criticised if it does and it will be criticised if it doesn't. 

Should this one go to appeal then I can see the Authority losing, hardly going to help their credibility!

[Meantime]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

ECIPA   Would that not leave the BA open to fairly justified accusations of corruption, given that Barnes has more money available to them than this fellow? 

No, because it is my understanding that the BA have dealt with Barnes and come to a compromise. It may not please everyone here, but Barnes did not entirely get their own way. There was additional signage applied to the pontoon and limits have been applied to the lengths of boat that can be moored there. Does that please and satisfy everyone, well personally not me, but there has been a process, some compromise and a solution. That case is now dealt with and so the BA move onto this case. The applicant has already received a compromise over the windows, does that mean he should get everything his own way? Again this case needs to be judged on its merits. Just because this person has been able to substitute wooden windows for plastic, would you expect him to be able to do the same in The Ice House which is right on the river front? Yet he could argue that he was allowed to in the other house just behind ice house. I think we would all support the BA in standing firm and not allowing plastic windows in ice house!

[Paul]

14 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

next person will only push the boundaries even further until you end up with a free for all.

I couldn't agree more. What's next? So I buy my house by the river, and obtain planning permission to build a single story garage to store my nice new soft top out of the weather. 8m by 4.5m should suffice. It will be timber framed with larch clapboard cladding and thatched roof in keeping with the house.

So I build my garage, but I make it a metre and a half bigger all around for a bit of extra space, and decide to build a granny flat in the roof space for when the kids come to visit. What's the problem. I built it out of the meterials stated, it looks like a garage and I keep my car in it. Would that be acceptable?

[dnks34]

I think any criticism the BA comes in for might ultimately stem from its own inconsistencies.

The difference I can see with Barnes is their planning indiscretion has impacted on river users by virtue of narrowing the navigation.  What impact does imitation wood cladding have on anyone else?