Discover Hertford Online Forum

Reply ID 28603

Cafe Nero comes to mind !! As the town centre Planning Nazi seem so at odds with the real world why noy just do it anyway and we'll sort our permission later .

Reply ID 28625

The planners had no choice with the betting office application. The application was submitted to the magistrates court for the licence. Through legislation laid down by The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) the planning department don't have to grant permission for Change of Use in this circumstance. Therefore, no application was submitted. I am not sure what you mean by an empty shop? Are you referring to the old Thorntons site that was trading up until T mobile bought it? On the subject of the Caffe Nero shop, the application was received after the work had been done which, under current legislation, is within acceptable grounds. The planners could have refused it but it was deemed to be appropriate with the local street scene. More and more businesses seem to know how to 'filter' through the legislation to get to an achievable conclusion without flouting the law. Like you, I don't agree with it. An email to Mark Prisk and/or Two Jags would be a good idea for starters. Simply put - The local planning department are not responsible for what has happened. Good luck.

Reply ID 28639

I was actually refering to Serendipity Perhaps they should open a betting shop in the old going places shop. Obviously all 4 punters mean that there is a demand Perhaps a residents blockade of the premeses would be more effective than writing to 3 Jags

Reply ID 28640

I don't have any objection to the betting shop but I'm amazed that they can afford to run a shop. I would have thought that online betting would take away enough trade from them to make it barely profitable. Even more so now that you can be a bookie yourself and back horses to lose online.

Reply ID 28641

Does the ODPM legislation mean that if serendipity appled for a booze licence for the old going places shop, then they wouldn't need planning permission for a change of use then?[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]

Reply ID 28644

quote:

---

Originally posted by jez_p
Does the ODPM legislation mean that if serendipity appled for a booze licence for the old going places shop, then they wouldn't need planning permission for a change of use then?[}:)][}:)][}:)][}:)]

---

Reply ID 28653

At the risk of being a pedant.. Planning now falls under Ruth Kelly's remit, rather than 2 Jags, and the ODPM has been renamed the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). It's unlikely there will be any further (major) reform of planning legislation as it has just been changed as part of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which many reforms only just taking effect. As James has already stated changed within the same use classes do not need express planning permission; The Use Classes Order was last reformed in 2005, but the real changes occured in 1987 which vastly reduced the number of use changes needing permission. Although this reduced the volume of applications to local authorities, it also had the effect of restricting the local authorities' oportunity to impose planning conditions. If the change within a use class has a "material impact" then it could require planning permission. So the best bet is to write to Ruth Kelly's department, but chances of a result are limited. As for retrospective planning applications, they are not illegal. I wish they were, but there is nothing to stop anyone doing something (including say a householder extension) and then applying for planning permission. You just run the risk of enforcement action and possible removal of extension at your own cost. However, you have a right of appeal against (most) enforcement action and against refusals of planning permission and the Planning Inspectorate are taking up to 12 months to determine appeals, during which time the local authority has very limited powers to take any further action, even if the development is causing a nuisance (not a statutory nuisance, before anyone picks me up on that, as stat nuisances falls to Env. Health).

Reply ID 28654

quote:

---

Originally posted by SMT
At the risk of being a pedant.. Planning now falls under Ruth Kelly's remit, rather than 2 Jags, and the ODPM has been renamed the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). It's unlikely there will be any further (major) reform of planning legislation as it has just been changed as part of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which many reforms only just taking effect. As James has already stated changed within the same use classes do not need express planning permission; The Use Classes Order was last reformed in 2005, but the real changes occured in 1987 which vastly reduced the number of use changes needing permission. Although this reduced the volume of applications to local authorities, it also had the effect of restricting the local authorities' oportunity to impose planning conditions. If the change within a use class has a "material impact" then it could require planning permission. So the best bet is to write to Ruth Kelly's department, but chances of a result are limited. As for retrospective planning applications, they are not illegal. I wish they were, but there is nothing to stop anyone doing something (including say a householder extension) and then applying for planning permission. You just run the risk of enforcement action and possible removal of extension at your own cost. However, you have a right of appeal against (most) enforcement action and against refusals of planning permission and the Planning Inspectorate are taking up to 12 months to determine appeals, during which time the local authority has very limited powers to take any further action, even if the development is causing a nuisance (not a statutory nuisance, before anyone picks me up on that, as stat nuisances falls to Env. Health).

---