Comments on: When is a neighbour not a neighbour? http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/ A community website for the residents of Parwich, Alsop-en-le-Dale, Ballidon and Pikehall in the Derbyshire Peak District. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:04:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: parwich http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-336 Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:03:53 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-336 Thanks for the info, Adrian. I’ve just set myself up to receive automatic e-mail alerts from the site you recommend.

]]> By: Adrian McEwen http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-331 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:16:52 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-331 I know that working around the deficiencies in council planning notifications isn’t as good as fixing them, but http://www.planningalerts.com/ will send you emails of any planning alerts near to your postcode, and seems rather neat.

It might do as a standby until Peter has succeeded in making the council see sense… ;-)

]]> By: joe http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-322 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:36:04 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-322 hi nice post, i enjoyed it

]]> By: Bill http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-316 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:04:43 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-316 It can’t be policed, so baically they could say yeah we will live in it all the time but after a year or so the Peak Park would of forgotten the condition and only action would be taken if someone pointed out the breach of permission and why it was granted.

]]> By: pheadair http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-305 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:07:27 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-305 This lack of transpearancy is worrying. I certainly see now why some people record their conversations with the Planning Service.

]]> By: Peter T http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-304 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:21:31 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-304 I am also more or less sure the following is another retrospective change in the policy (see http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/index/news/news-display-page.htm?id=13856): “And site-notices will still be used in rural, or less built-up areas where there are no immediate neighbours.” This is a big improvement as under the policy when introduced, it would have been very hard for anyone outside the conservation areas to find out about planning applications (especially if they were not on-line).

]]> By: Peter T http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-303 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:40:10 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-303 I have just noticed that the Peak District National Park Authority news release on their website entitled “more neighbours contacted on planning applications” dated 27th February 2007 is now significantly different to the version previously on line in February of this year (2008). I did not keep a copy of the full news release, but did note the following two sentences: “The Peak District National Park Authority is to inform more people by letter about forthcoming planning applications on neighbouring properties. Until now, site notices have been the main method of letting people know about applications, with letters being sent only to the nearest neighbours.”

It is good to see that they have realised their neighbour notification is not achieving what they initially intended, and that they have reduced their claims for it. However is it appropriate for them to retrospectively alter a news release without making it clear that what is there was written or rewritten a year or so after the date shown?

I had understood unofficially they had been having problems with this scheme, and the current version of the news release no longer promises that neighbours will be informed, only that they may at the discretion of the Authority be informed. Having been told in writing that they did not see a problem with the scheme, will the Authority now be up front, admit they got it wrong and let us know what their current policy is?

Does the Planning Service not realise that they are perceived to be inconsistent and to frequently change the goal posts to suit their current position? If they are, as seems to be the case here trying to change a policy, whist pretending that the new policy was what was intended all along, surely this will only add to the lack of trust residents feel. They will not earn people’s respect if they do not own up to their mistakes.

However, if they are moving towards a new policy where neighbours are only notified at the officer’s discretion is this an improvement on the ludicrous consequences of their 10 metre rule?

]]> By: Graham http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-302 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:40:23 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-302 Not sure how you would police those kind of conditions, however desirable they may be from the perspective of preservation of the village “way of life”. The historical judgement on social engineering is not a positive one in my humble opinion, however, it would seem that in a land of too many people and not enough land/dwellings, a well considered policy that was more rigidly adhered to may help. i.e. there does appear to be a pernicious relaxation of planning permissions over time such that what cannot be achieved in one big step (for example the construction and sale of a dwelling at open market value) may be achieved in a number of smaller steps (development of a site for agricultural use leading to dwelling for agriculatural inhabitation/ holiday occupation then leading to a subsequent relaxation of conditions etc. etc.). It’s a thorny and emotive subject, and important enough to be worthy of informed and considered debate.

]]> By: Graham http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-301 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:31:02 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-301 My wife has just solved the riddle – 104 = 2 x 52. She’s much smarter than me.

]]> By: Graham http://parwich.org/2008/04/14/when-is-a-neighbour-not-a-neighbour/#comment-300 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:29:44 +0000 http://parwich.wordpress.com/?p=433#comment-300 Sorry for my obvious ignorance, – but what is the significance of 104 days?

]]>