View Full Version : planning applications
I'm confused. A local business man bought a plot of land on an industrial estate in Thurso, obtained planning permission to build on this land and started to do so. His building is approximately 1m higher than it should be and the neighbours objected, fair enough. But now the council seem to have passed the whole situation to the scottish executive to sort out and one local councillor is saying that he should not be allowed to build there at all as justice for the "good working people of the area". Now bearing in mind that this is a small local business (good working person?) and that he has probably spent a small fortune already, and he could just reduce the size of the building to make it conform with the existing planning permission - what is the problem? I do sympathise with the local residents who are losing their view, however sorry but no one is actually entitled to a view and this land is, as I said on an industrial estate, (planning permission to build houses on it was refused on the grounds that it is an industrial area). By the way we a re talking about a one story building to house 6 small industrial units. This is once again going to cost us, the rate payer a fortune. Does common sense ever prevail? By the way I am in no way involved with either party and have no involvement in the project!
cuddlepop
05-Dec-07, 12:40
Planning Application's confuse me.
Its as if there's an unwritten rule book somewhere that us "commeners" no nothing about.
Why else would Tesco get permission to build four stores in Inverness and Asda's has been refered to the Scottish Government :confused
There are houses that have been given permission to be built that stick out like a sore thumb and others who are of the traditional croft style refused.:confused
I will never understand the planners. Recently a friend of mine wanted to reroof his house with red coloured tiles. He approached planning (just in case) and was told it would have to be grey coloured tiles "to be in keeping with the area." When looking out his living room window grey, green and red tiles are visible on his neighbours roofs but so as not to rock the boat he reluctantly fitted grey ones.
Imagine his surprise a few months later when he passed the big new grey box (CHAP) being built next to the distillery to be greeted by 30 foot high bright yellow doors. Where is the planning continuity?
I'm confused. A local business man bought a plot of land on an industrial estate in Thurso, obtained planning permission to build on this land and started to do so. His building is approximately 1m higher than it should be and the neighbours objected, fair enough. But now the council seem to have passed the whole situation to the scottish executive to sort out and one local councillor is saying that he should not be allowed to build there at all as justice for the "good working people of the area". Now bearing in mind that this is a small local business (good working person?) and that he has probably spent a small fortune already, and he could just reduce the size of the building to make it conform with the existing planning permission - what is the problem? I do sympathise with the local residents who are losing their view, however sorry but no one is actually entitled to a view and this land is, as I said on an industrial estate, (planning permission to build houses on it was refused on the grounds that it is an industrial area). By the way we a re talking about a one story building to house 6 small industrial units. This is once again going to cost us, the rate payer a fortune. Does common sense ever prevail? By the way I am in no way involved with either party and have no involvement in the project!
I am afraid the dead beat councillors who were ousted in Thurso at the last election have been replaced by an equally dim lot lacking in any degree of common sense. The whole planning setup is anonsense and is not helped by councillor who break the rules as they please.
They vote for Tesco in Wick on ground not zoned for reail and vote against in Thurso because the ground is not zoned for retail!!
the smae "locla councillor" (who incidentally was not a councillor last time around) was very vocal in his comments about the sitting councillors objections to asda, he obviously thinks its okay to build a huge shop on green belt land in front of peoples houses but not a small block of industrial units in an industrial estate! logic?
changilass
05-Dec-07, 14:41
Had the businessman in the first post not been trying it on, building considerably different from the planns he submitted and got passed, then the situation would not have arisen, sorry no sympathy for him. He should have either stuck to the plans submitted or put in revised plans before making the changes.
No idea where or what building you are refering to but thats my two penneth worth.
Buttercup
05-Dec-07, 14:59
Totally agree with changilass on this one. Why didn't he stick to the plans? ~ He should be made to remedy the situation at his expense. No sympathy for him I'm afraid.
thebigman
05-Dec-07, 16:24
I am afraid the dead beat councillors who were ousted in Thurso at the last election have been replaced by an equally dim lot lacking in any degree of common sense. The whole planning setup is anonsense and is not helped by councillor who break the rules as they please.
They vote for Tesco in Wick on ground not zoned for reail and vote against in Thurso because the ground is not zoned for retail!!
I presume that you were unsuccesful in your attempt to get elected, or are you like the majority who gripe from the sidelines?
tenabowla
05-Dec-07, 16:29
I suspect that local councillors in general suffer from the old NIMBY.
Had the businessman in the first post not been trying it on, building considerably different from the planns he submitted and got passed, then the situation would not have arisen, sorry no sympathy for him. He should have either stuck to the plans submitted or put in revised plans before making the changes.
No idea where or what building you are refering to but thats my two penneth worth.
Too true, Chaniglass! I have had first hand experience of a neighbour manipulating planning rules by building something not quite the same as they had planning permission for. I don't blame councilors for this though. I think it is the fault of people within the Highland Planning Dept.
There would be all hell to pay if a windfarm developer proposed building a 12MW windfarm and then built a 70MW farm and the council was too spineless to do anything about it.
ywindythesecond
05-Dec-07, 20:28
There would be all hell to pay if a windfarm developer proposed building a 12MW windfarm and then built a 70MW farm and the council was too spineless to do anything about it.
I think you are just trying to wind me up reggy!
However, the test if someone builds something different from what has been approved is:
If it had been applied for in the first instance, would it been have been approved? If it would, it gets approved, if not, it gets rejected and should be taken down. And this should be applied fairly, not in any spirit of revenge.
That is what should happen, not saying it will.
Doesn't work for noisy windmills.
ywy2
I think you are just trying to wind me up reggy!
I didn't quote you or mention you!:confused
However, there have been instances where developers have sited turbines on the originally proposed sitings after the proposal had been amended and subsequently approved upon those ammendments. Before the advent of GPS, no one would have a means to check and they leave them where they are. It is the same thing, I doubt if it happens much these days.
I have actually seen the original plans and as far as I can see the only difference is that he's built if 1m higher than he should - the point I was making is that he can reduce the height of the building and go ahead under the original planning permission, so why can the council not make a decision on the new application without sending it to the scottish executive? all they have to say is no, stick to your original plan or yes you can have the extra height.
NickInTheNorth
06-Dec-07, 13:48
Jay
For someone with no involvement you seem pretty involved :)
Why is no-one entitled to a view?
They live there, someone wishes to build, the plans as passed (from your post I'm guessing that the original plans retain the view for residents?) maybe had he applied for permission for what is actually built there would have been far more and valid objections?
The planning process is far from perfect, but there is plenty of information in the public domain regarding planning guidelines etc if anyone chooses to look for it.
I agree that many decisions made by our elected representatives seem to be against all common sense, but anyone wishing to build anything is well advised to take the time to get the input / advice from the local planning team. They know the rules and in general are pretty approachable and helpful.
Anyone having received planning permission should stick to building what is granted, and not deviate from those plan without submitting an amended application. I hope the builder gets charged the full cost of process now to be gone through. He had permission he should of stuck to the plans!
any building built on that particular site would block the view. my point is that the council seem to be totally illogical . yes he should have stuck to the plan and yes he should meet the cost to remedy it but why is the decision going to the scottish executive? and why is a councillor now saying that industrial units should not be built on this industrial estate - what else can you build on an industrial estate?
Nick - sadly no-one is entitled to a view, at least it's not grounds for objection. The only way anyone can guarantee to keep their view is by buying all the land between them and whatever it is they want to look at. I was told that you can get round this to a certain extent if you can prove a new development will affect your quality of life. That's not the exact wording but it's the gist of it. But losing a view is just tough - it may ruin you life, it may devalue your home - they don't care.
Nick - sadly no-one is entitled to a view, at least it's not grounds for objection. The only way anyone can guarantee to keep their view is by buying all the land between them and whatever it is they want to look at. I was told that you can get round this to a certain extent if you can prove a new development will affect your quality of life.
That's correct Badger. Also, you are entitled to light. If something blocks your light, you have grounds for objection.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.