[diggers350] Re: retrospective planning permission
deb at beccott.com
Mon Feb 22 20:19:33 GMT 2010
The whole planning issue really needs attention. Planning law has not kept up with policy (which is getting better- more about sustainable communities etc) but then you come a cropper when you try to implement the policy ....
I am part of a community woodland group and we were told we have to get planning permission to use one of the woods for forestry and conservation activities with young people for more than 28 days per year. So we investigated having educational use and were told we would have to pull down half the wood to install a car park - exactly the same specifications as would be expected of a new build school on a 60 mile an hour road. I got nowhere trying to explain that it is a conservation project (not a school) and our ethos is focused on raising environmental responsibility. We encourage people to walk, cycle and car share and have the use of a parish car park 10 minutes walk up the road. I was quite shocked to realize that sustainability for planners = enough car parking for vehicle dependent consumers. How did this happen???
We are at the end of our tether....
We aren't even trying to live in the wood!
If anyone has any bright ideas..
From: David Bangs
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:56 AM
To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com ; Dave S
Subject: [diggers350] Re: retrospective planning permission
I worry about how the Tory change may affect travellers and some other groups, but welcome further control on much covert not-so-low-impact development. Such developments need to be under proper democratic control.
There's another side to this issue which is not to do with the strategies of poor people. On my local Downs a farm converted a long barn into homes for sale without planning permission, which it sought - and got - retrospectively. Not so far away a spanking new golf course built its new club house on a site footprint different from that for which they had obtained planning permission. They then obtained it retrospectively.
I don't think that anyone except the desperate have the right to subvert wider democratic consideration (however inadequate) of their developments, which may impact on areas where public resources (particularly in landscape, biodiversity, cultural heritage) are sensitive and vulnerable,
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave S
To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [diggers350] Tories planning to make squatting a criminal offence
On Saturday 20 Feb 2010, Marky B wrote:
> Squatting under threat...
> Ref: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/02/446259.html?c=on#c242964
Anyone got any idea how this...
"Curtail the ability to apply for retrospective planning permission. This will
stop the practice of people laying down concrete on weekends or bank holidays
and then putting in a planning application (currently, planning enforcement
cannot commence whilst an application is pending).
Our promise to limit the concept of retrospective planning permission will
also ensure that another route by which the planning system has been abused by
those seeking to use unauthorised sites will be curtailed."
... is likely to affect retrospective planning applications for low-impact
residential permaculture projects?
Are those also likely to be targeted? Or are the Tories now "greened up"
enough (pah!) that they are only likely to target this kind of thing at
travellers, and will overlook genuine low-impact development?
Perhaps a silly question really (what with all politicians being self-serving
bastards anyway), but as someone who will be going the self-build low-impact
retrospective route in the next year or two, it concerns me greatly.
(Not that the rest of it doesn't concern me greatly as well, mind!)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Diggers350