Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 That is not true though is it... Is it not the case that a local authority only have to deal with a certain percentage of applications in a 13 week time frame ? It would be infeasible for the council to deal with EVERY application within the 13 week period ? The target was that they should deal with it in 13 weeks. There can be exceptional circumstances whereby additional time is required and the LA should write to the applicant requesting extra time to deal with the appropriate matters. I do not believe they did in this case. If the application has not been dealt with within the target timescale, the applicant has the right of appeal to the secretary of state for non determination. However, few follow this route as it can take several months and it is usually quicker to follow that natural process. Smaller developments have a reduced timescale of 8 weeks. It is only the more involved schemes that have the 13 weeks target so the Council have little excuse. The Council do have targets to hit to comply with the 8/13 week deadlines, but the target is a high percentage and they should not miss it by more than 2/4 weeks depending on when the planning committee meetings fall. In any event taking 32 weeks instead of the 13 is totally not acceptable. Cheers, Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Apparently not... Well, I know Harry, I don't know if I know Chaim, although given how many of my best friends are Jews it wouldn't surprise me if I did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 In any event taking 32 weeks instead of the 13 is totally not acceptable. In your opinion... I can appreciate considering the size of the development taking more than 13 weeks to deal with...we are not talking about a local take away shop here... I do not think the council can be attacked much...they rejected it once...many other clubs have had bigger fights... It certainly IS NOT THE CASE that the council HAD TO deal with in WITHIN 13 WEEKs... So I think its unfair to attack them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego_Sideburns Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 It was not only a 1 month delay. The planning application was submitted in the April and the planning process requires that they should make a decision within 13 weeks. (If you don't believe me on this, then consult with Diego who I am sure will be happy to confirm) Therefore we should have had an answer by the end of July AT THE LATEST. Instead we had to wait until mid December, a delay of four and a half crucial months. But for the delay, it is highly likely that a sale of the land around BP would have been completed. Cheers, Harry Happy to confirm Harry. There were three Planning Committee meetings and TTA were so disillusioned by the Council after the second one, they were all for throwing in the towel. There were also three highway studies. The first study was late, due to no fault of the Applicant, and therefore delayed consideration of the planning application, and the other two confirmed and reconfirmed what the Councillors were refusing to accept on the first study. It was the fans' march that convinced TTA to take on the Council. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I am sure an accountant would give a dam... I doubt me and ed care... Thanks for your arseyness though... Stop being a big girl. You give it out but you don't like anything at all back - no matter how light a touch. You've tried to rip in to people yourself, and what I've tossed at you is a mere feather by comparison. If you don't know the difference, than it's not my problem, but hey, lots of people lease their homes and have mortgages on them - anyone paying ground rent? It's also known as "long-leasehold". It sits on the assets side of the Statement of Financial Position, rather than renting which is just an expense. Leases are saleable, whereas "renting" is nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 and therefore delayed consideration of the planning application So we start to see why 13 weeks increased ? also 13 weeks was not a deadline...more of an advised timeframe ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Stop being a big girl. You give it out but you don't like anything at all back - no matter how light a touch. Thats not fair to say at all You've tried to rip in to people yourself, and what I've tossed at you is a mere feather by comparison. Just felt you was nit picking...anyway... Lets move on... If you don't know the difference, than it's not my problem, but hey, lots of people lease their homes and have mortgages on them - anyone paying ground rent? It's also known as "long-leasehold". It sits on the assets side of the Statement of Financial Position, rather than renting which is just an expense. Leases are saleable, whereas "renting" is nothing at all. I do actually but I just do not think the whole thing is a big deal in the grand scheme either way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 So we start to see why 13 weeks increased ? also 13 weeks was not a deadline...more of an advised timeframe ? Erm - it was delayed because Cllr Bashforth and co twice refused to believe the expert evidence of their own panel. Possibly the sort of behaviour the guidelines are there to prevent, like Councillors throwing a spanner into the works of things they don't like in their own wards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 In your opinion... I can appreciate considering the size of the development taking more than 13 weeks to deal with...we are not talking about a local take away shop here... I do not think the council can be attacked much...they rejected it once...many other clubs have had bigger fights... It certainly IS NOT THE CASE that the council HAD TO deal with in WITHIN 13 WEEKs... So I think its unfair to attack them... You seem very sure of your imagination. I for one got the impression that he knew what he was talking about.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) Erm - it was delayed because Cllr Bashforth and co twice refused to believe the expert evidence of their own panel. Possibly the sort of behaviour the guidelines are there to prevent, like Councillors throwing a spanner into the works of things they don't like in their own wards? I don't think so... I think the traffic report is just a advice the councillors can ignore if they choose to.. ? The request for a second report was in the rules wasnt it? Are people really suggesting the council acted outside of the rules? Its quite a big claim that is not being back up I think... Could they done it in 13 weeks ? Probably... Was that realistic ? No... Edited November 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You seem very sure of your imagination. I for one got the impression that he knew what he was talking about.... Well if I am wrong then show me I am wrong... I provided a link to back up my thinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I do actually but I just do not think the whole thing is a big deal in the grand scheme either way... Hence why you posted: "Apparently we will be renting the land... " Nothing else, just that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Hence why you posted: "Apparently we will be renting the land... " Nothing else, just that. I also mix up lending / borrowing when I am not giving it some thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You know, ever since oafc0000 adopted his new avatar I keep (momentarily) thinking that leeslover is responsible for his posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I don't think so... I think the traffic report is just a advice the councillors can ignore if they choose to.. ? The request for a second report was in the rules wasnt it? Are people really suggesting the council acted outside of the rules? Its quite a big claim that is not being back up I think... Could they done it in 13 weeks ? Probably... Was that realistic ? No... Well, I think anyone who suggests they acted properly would have a struggle as to why some of them rejected a traffic report in favour of their own badly "thought" out ideas. But if people want to support a councillor that has so little ability and judgement, then "the public get what the public want". They should have passed it that time around. That they didn't has everything to do with what is wrong with democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You know, ever since oafc0000 adopted his new avatar I keep (momentarily) thinking that leeslover is responsible for his posts. Dont mix up your bacon and sausage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I also mix up lending / borrowing when I am not giving it some thought... Good, where do you work, I need you to borrow me some money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Well, I think anyone who suggests they acted properly would have a struggle as to why some of them rejected a traffic report in favour of their own badly "thought" out ideas. But if people want to support a councillor that has so little ability and judgement, then "the public get what the public want". They should have passed it that time around. That they didn't has everything to do with what is wrong with democracy. While I might agree that it should of been passed first time... For me there is a difference between due process and then an actual rejection which causes a unnecessary delay.. I think a lot of the "four and half months" was clearly due process... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Good, where do you work, I need you to borrow me some money. Look real... It is REAL easy to sit back and nit pick at posts... I do mix up words sometimes feel free to point it out but dont beat me over the head with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Dowds Green Shirt Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 In your opinion... I can appreciate considering the size of the development taking more than 13 weeks to deal with...we are not talking about a local take away shop here... I do not think the council can be attacked much...they rejected it once...many other clubs have had bigger fights... It certainly IS NOT THE CASE that the council HAD TO deal with in WITHIN 13 WEEKs... So I think its unfair to attack them... I see what you are saying, however, 2 things are important here. Firstly, the Council had it in their power to deal with the application within the 13 weeks timescale, as they have done with several other major developments in the town. The Architects acting for the Council on that application spent several months piecing the application together to ensure that the Council had sufficient information to be able to deal with it within the 13 week time frame. The documents submitted included a comprehensive traffic impact survey, the details of which would have been agreed between the architect and the planners at a pre submission meeting, which the Council chose not to accept and insisted that a further survey was done, which, would you believe, gave the same conclusion as the original survey. The second survey took several weeks to compile and proved unnecessary. Secondly, as everyone is aware, there ended up being a delay from the November to December meeting before planning was finally granted. Therefore take out the 2 delays that they had control over and you could have knocked off at least 12 weeks and they would then have dealt with it in around 20 weeks. Whilst that is still not acceptable, it would probably have still allowed the club to complete a deal on the sale of the surrounding land and the BP redevelopment would have been under way and we would now be using the new Broadway stand with all its facilities. However, I would add a note of caution to this in that would we have been able to let the 60,000 sqaure foot of office space in the new stand in view of the current economic climate and that was a crucial part of seeing us self sufficient whilst staying at BP. The delay may in the long run turn out to be a blessing in disguise at least for us the supporters if not TTA. It will be very interesting to see the detailed Failsworth proposals, particularly the income generating aspects, which I believe will be incorporated. Cheers, Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edhunteruk Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I don't think so... I think the traffic report is just a advice the councillors can ignore if they choose to.. ? The request for a second report was in the rules wasnt it? Are people really suggesting the council acted outside of the rules? Its quite a big claim that is not being back up I think... Could they done it in 13 weeks ? Probably... Was that realistic ? No... these are supposed to be proffessional bodies representing the people of oldham and alike etc etc... to suggest they didnt throw a spanner in the works is wrong....they clearly did otherwise things would have gone through a lot quicker and there wouldnt of been the need for an enmasse public packing of the planning comittee when it was in session..and also there wouldnt of been the need to march through the streets to cleary make our point heard. of course the council delayed things,for whatever reason i have no idea,the club can also be accused of being shortsighted in the timescale for planning etc etc,and perhaps could of acted quicker in submitting plans,apparently the first time they were wrong(hearsay) which delayed things. at the end of the day the new proposed site is being driven through at quite a pace this time,and council is fully backing of it...why???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I see what you are saying, however, 2 things are important here. Firstly, the Council had it in their power to deal with the application within the 13 weeks timescale, as they have done with several other major developments in the town. The Architects acting for the Council on that application spent several months piecing the application together to ensure that the Council had sufficient information to be able to deal with it within the 13 week time frame. The documents submitted included a comprehensive traffic impact survey, the details of which would have been agreed between the architect and the planners at a pre submission meeting, which the Council chose not to accept and insisted that a further survey was done, which, would you believe, gave the same conclusion as the original survey. The second survey took several weeks to compile and proved unnecessary. Yeah but that is due process... This stuff happens all the time.. Secondly, as everyone is aware, there ended up being a delay from the November to December meeting before planning was finally granted. Therefore take out the 2 delays that they had control over and you could have knocked off at least 12 weeks and they would then have dealt with it in around 20 weeks. Whilst that is still not acceptable, it would probably have still allowed the club to complete a deal on the sale of the surrounding land and the BP redevelopment would have been under way and we would now be using the new Broadway stand with all its facilities. Why is not acceptable ? The club went through the same process everyone goes through... The club deserve no special right to be awarded planning permission on a massive development... Annoying maybe, frustrating defiantly.... Unacceptable ? Not even nearly... Did the council actual break any rules? It will be very interesting to see the detailed Failsworth proposals, particularly the income generating aspects, which I believe will be incorporated. Looking forward to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) these are supposed to be proffessional bodies representing the people of oldham and alike etc etc... to suggest they didnt throw a spanner in the works is wrong....they clearly did otherwise things would have gone through a lot quicker and there wouldnt of been the need for an enmasse public packing of the planning comittee when it was in session..and also there wouldnt of been the need to march through the streets to cleary make our point heard. of course the council delayed things,for whatever reason i have no idea,the club can also be accused of being shortsighted in the timescale for planning etc etc,and perhaps could of acted quicker in submitting plans,apparently the first time they were wrong(hearsay) which delayed things. at the end of the day the new proposed site is being driven through at quite a pace this time,and council is fully backing of it...why???? Ed, its more opinion all that then fact though... The council have responsibility to the whole town to go through due process and not rush stuff.. If the council had broken a rule we would have a point... I have not seen any proof they did... I am no fan of the council or the crap process, but it has to be the same for everyone and we deserve no special rights... Edited November 11, 2009 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Dont mix up your bacon and sausage... I would have expect Stitch to be one of the first people to appreciate the difference between a sausage sandwich and a vertical bacon one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 of course the council delayed things,for whatever reason i have no idea,To appease voters I'd guess, possily a lot of self interest thrown in too the club can also be accused of being shortsighted in the timescale for planning etc etc,and perhaps could of acted quicker in submitting plans,apparently the first time they were wrong(hearsay) which delayed things. at the end of the day the new proposed site is being driven through at quite a pace this time,and council is fully backing of it...why????Economic down turn - jobs in the offing - use of a bit of land with no other use and some business tax income from it / gains of 300 houses (BP) at royton prices to add to the council tax income when money is going to be tight in the public sector? Who knows. Politics and democracy is not always a good thing. Sausage AND Bacon are though - 'specially with egg, black pudding, mushrooms and beans. 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.