SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 668 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,958 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
.
This seems like a very worthwhile idea for a thread . . .

I've recently been thinking that we should maybe think about commenting on planning applications (individually, not as a group). It struck me how much we talk about the merits and faults of different applications, writing paragraph after paragraph, but don't do anything with these views. I think you can submit comments on applications by email, meaning that anyone that cares about an application one way or another could easily add weight for/against an application by doing a similar amount of typing, just not on this website. It's a basic right that everyone in this country has.

All we'd need would be the application address whenever an application was lodged, which seems to happen in some cases already. Maybe these could go on the thread involving that application, or a central "applications" thread?

For example . . .
Here's the Hunters Moor Hospital, new school planning application, it's still pending consideration if anyone wants to comment:

http://planningapplications.newcastle.gov.uk/online-applications/caseDetails.do?keyVal=KZFJ66BS08B00&caseType=Application

Please comment, as there's only one public comment and that's about parking. I'm putting something together now.

A further example . . .
I don't know the full ins and outs of all of this, but on the face of it the proposals look pretty reasonable. I think Johnny's right, this supermarket would have brought Tynemouth residents back into the centre when they'll have been doing their shopping at the big supermarkets closer to/on the Coast Rd. Architecturally I actually quite like the proposals - they're sympathetic whilst still being contemporary and would have enlivened a currently quite quiet station.

However I think that this highlights something that I've noticed recently - the idea of the silent majority. If more people had written to the council to back this scheme it could have passed. You can't really blame the council - if lots of people write to oppose an application and no one writes to support it, then they will quite fairly assume that the public don't want it. Equally, when a poor application comes in, lots of people whinge about it but don't make the effort to formally email to oppose it.

As a result, leading on from Andrew's point about Hunters Moor Hospital, why don't we start to make comments on applications? We all churn out thousands of words about how great/awful applications are on here and then sit back and passively wait to see what happens. I'm as guilty as anyone, but if we simply bashed out a quick email about any application we feel strongly about, we'd at least have a small impact upon whether it passes or not.

SO,

We could use this thread as a 'heads up' from now on, to post any planning applications that we become aware of, that perhaps others amongst us (who might have an interest in it) are not currently aware of.

Then, we will all have the opportunity to consider submitting comments . . .

ALSO,

This dedicated 'Planning Applications' thread would be a useful place to record (for possible discussions) the outcomes and results of interesting Planning Applications.

I know that Greg (amongst others) often obtains such information (lists of planning application results/outcomes) so HERE in this thread, would seem the logical place to post them, unless it is (say) an outcome of just one specific application, that already has its own 'Project Thread' on here.

.
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
Cheers for putting this up Historian.

I agree that we should be discussing designs on the individual pages, however it'd be good to know when a design has been submitted for planning and where to submit comments, which this thread could be used for. Alternatively that could be done on the individual threads, it just depends what people think..?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,958 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
This thread should not impact at all on any individual Project threads, it takes nothing away from them, it is simply 'in addition' to them.

It should become a useful 'heads up / awareness' thread, helping to draw our attention to specific planning applications, giving us a greater opportunity (likelihood) to comment on them, as whoever the "given interested person amongst us" that posts the application on here will have had the opportunity to tell us WHY he/she has posted it - then leaving us to form our own conclusions . . .

It is self evident that we have largely NOT done this before (posted our comments on planning applications) via the pre-existing individual project threads, hence the idea in the first place (by Anger) to suggest having this one.

There appears to be a genuine need for it, for the above reason.

It's value will be shown if we use it, and it will not be shown if we don't, so it is up to us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
I agree with NH's proposal (no offence Chris) - I think it would be a good thing to have all major or contentious proposals highlighted and linked.

Can I suggest that the scope of the thread be widened slightly to include not just comments on statutory planning applications, but all public undertakings that invite comments - for example the current Nexus consultation on bus/pt services in Tyne & Wear? Title to read something like 'Planning Applications and Public Consultations - would you like to comment?'
 

·
The Legend
Joined
·
13,105 Posts
I agree with NH's proposal (no offence Chris) - I think it would be a good thing to have all major or contentious proposals highlighted and linked.
No offense taken, and I don't see how I could of taken offense. It's just my personal opinion, and so far it seems that most of you are in favour of it, it would be unfair if you never had this thread because I didn't want this thread.

Don't forget me and NH gained this Sub-Forum for you to create whatever thread you wish (within reason), which reminds me that I need to send another message to a mod about yet another god damn dead thread being created.
 

·
cogito ergo sum
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
Does anyone have any applications that they know are currently in the planning process?
There were some quite damning comments on here a couple of weeks ago following this post on the Ouseburn Developments thread, about the quality of design of the Byker Bridge Housing Association application for 42 dwellings in the Ouseburn Valley.

2010/0351/01/DET
Deadline for responses is tomorrow (16th April)
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
There were some quite damning comments on here a couple of weeks ago following this post on the Ouseburn Developments thread, about the quality of design of the Byker Bridge Housing Association application for 42 dwellings in the Ouseburn Valley.

2010/0351/01/DET
Deadline for responses is tomorrow (16th April)
Tomorrow?! Crap...

Surely this is worth commenting on, it's awful! I think I'll submit something anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,676 Posts
Wow that is really a bad situation on Market Street. Surely- with now all of the units empty there could be something a bit different Are all of the units owned by different owners? I dunno it is a crying shame that the best architectural retail area has suffered the worst and the 1970's indoor shopping mall came out the best. Does the blame lie at NCC?
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
To be honest, it might not be such a bad thing for the Grainger Town to be converted towards more leisurely uses, such as restaurants etc. It attracts tourists to the city and may make the area a little more lively. Plus the layout of the buildings, which are said to be a little restrictive for retail, may suit restarants, up market bars etc a bit more.

The trick I guess is to ensure that the right class of tenants get in and we don't see the area splashed with gaudy signage.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
21,958 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Just a reminder that this thread is here.

A useful tool, if one of us becomes aware of a planning application that they consider others (on here) might be "interested in" . . . for whatever reason!
 

·
cogito ergo sum
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
Houses of Multiple Occupation

Under new(-ish) legislation, Planning Applications must be submitted and approved if a residential home is to be converted into a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).

On 6 April 2010 the planning regime for new HMOs was changed when planning permission became required for the conversion of family homes to HMOs with 3 or more tenants. Previously planning permission had only been required for 7 or more tenants.

There have been a handful in Jesmond already.
Notably, the first was approved, though being above a retail ground floor, it was not typical; there have been five that I know of since then - one has been decided and refused, went to Appeal and lost again.
I could post details of each of these as they come up if (and only if) others on here think its helpful?

Here's some recent explanatory info from the Department for Communities and Local Government.http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/housing/1617158
17 June 2010

Housing Minister Grant Shapps is handing over more power to councils so they can manage high concentrations of shared housing in their area, without putting off landlords from renting the homes people need.

Power to tackle problem areas
Areas with lots of shared homes, known as Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), have often created problems for local communities. Neighbourhoods with too many properties let to short term tenants often attract crime and have problems with litter and anti social behaviour.

Mr Shapps is giving councils more flexibility so they can focus on controlling the unplanned spread of shared homes in problem areas, but avoid tying landlords in unnecessary red tape.

"Local people know the local problems they face - they don't need top-down diktats from Whitehall telling them how to solve them"

Changes to legislation will give councils the freedom to choose areas where landlords must submit a planning application to rent their properties to unrelated tenants - known as Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).

Grant Shapps said:
"Local people know the local problems they face - they don't need top-down diktats from Whitehall telling them how to solve them, or indeed telling them to solve problems that don't exist in their area in the first place.

"I'm not going to create unnecessary costs for landlords that could damage the rental sector and limit the number of properties available for rent, particularly when so many young people working in our towns and cities rely on sharing with friends for an affordable home.

"That's why I want to give councils the flexibility they need so they can use planning rules to control the spread of shared housing in neighbourhoods where they cause problems, without tying local landlords in red tape where shared housing causes few, if any, problems at all."

Landlord fears
The problems that arise from concentrations of HMOs are not widespread and current rules impose an unnecessary burden on landlords and councils in those areas where HMOs are not a problem.

It also runs the risk of reducing supply if landlords choose to move out of the sector rather than face the costs and delays of applying for planning permission.

It is estimated that as many as 8,500 planning applications could be submitted each year if every landlord looking to turn their property into a HMO is first required to seek permission - instead, councils will be able to focus their efforts in particular neighbourhoods where HMOs present a problem, while landlords of HMOs in other areas will not be tied up in red tape.
Note that houses which are already in use as HMO's do not require retrospective Planning Permission
 

·
Architect
Joined
·
3,725 Posts
I could post details of each of these as they come up if (and only if) others on here think its helpful?
You could do, but I think people will be mostly interested in some of the larger applications that come in. Ideally, every application would end up on here, although I have no idea how realistic that is!
 

·
cogito ergo sum
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
You could do, but I think people will be mostly interested in some of the larger applications that come in.
That's pretty much what I expect too. I don't want to fill this forum with unwanted clutter !

However, I thought it was worth posting the general principles that have been adopted for designated areas, and a little about how it works. I know its a contentious issue (both residents grumbling about "too many students" and enjoying the pressure to keep their property value high, and students grumbling about "dreadful halls" and grumpy locals)!
 
1 - 20 of 668 Posts
Top