Those questions should be properly addressed by the planning permission application before any action is taken. Restrospective planning permission should be granted as rarely as possible to make sure everybody gets permission first, to prevent undue damage to the environment being done and save a boatload of legal fees.
www.bbc.com
A brief feature/update on the infilled Great Musgrave bridge in Cumbria was featured on the BBC1 local news (North West region) at 6.30 p.m. last night.
Great Musgrave bridge: Concrete infill refused must be removed
Hundreds objected to the Victorian bridge being buried in concrete, calling it "cultural vandalism".
Anyone able to add a link to the broadcast?
www.bbc.co.uk
The advantage is it stops people just ignoring the planning process, which exists to stop things like this. If there was nothing but a slap on the wrist for doing things without planning permission, nobody would bother getting permission.
precisely this - if the law is not upheld, and no meaningful financial consequence for the offender (in terms of costs of putting back what they did wrong) - it would not be just these bridges that would be at issue - and bear in mind the responsibility for that is the govt so they must be seen to be obeying the law - well at least that is the theory - it would be every householder on your street who fancies a weird and wonderful extension into their front garden, or a takeaway 24 hour cafe operating from their car port, or an unsightly shop in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (which seems to be what Jeremy Clarkson is being pulled up over according to the media this week).
www.theguardian.com
This is exactly why we need to hold these agencies to account. There's an argument that it just costs even more taxpayer's money to undo these breaches, but we can't have a "well it's done now *shrug*" attitude to it. The message must be sent out that government departments can't ignore the rules. Ideally there should be some sort of penalty for the individuals who gave the go-ahead to these illegal schemes- and perhaps a p45. Especially given the deliberate choice to do these things during lockdown in the hopes of sneaking under the radar.
I have sympathy with that line of thinking (ie the opposite of the 'reward for failure' that seems all too common) - but the difference here IIRC is that the council initially advised that the work did not need planning permission. So if this is true I am note sure how it came about that it did, or that the council do not have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the balls up. Unless I am mistaking this. After all it may be that I read that and the source I read on the council's initial response about needing planning permission was mis informed or simply wrong.
I think it’s to do with the claimed emergency nature of the work. Once that was found to be wrong, the clock was reset, quite correctly IMHO.
Ah yes, thanks - I bet that is correct. I had forgotten about that claim that is was an 'emergency' - and it is a credit to the campaigners on that for calling that out - since it is IMHO an abuse of the planning process to claim such a thing when it wasn't an emergency - tho I suppose the staff responsible would claim that they believed to the best of their knowledge (or their consultants reports), that is was an emergency. That then removed the right of citizens to make comments on the process - which is an important democratic right that obv goes well beyond cases like this bridge.
Even if it was, presumably part of the requirements for the temporary support are that it is capable of being removed at a later date if no longer required?
Why was the builder who illegally knocked down the grade II listed engine shed in Maldon not forced to rebuild it?precisely this - if the law is not upheld, and no meaningful financial consequence for the offender (in terms of costs of putting back what they did wrong) - it would not be just these bridges that would be at issue - and bear in mind the responsibility for that is the govt so they must be seen to be obeying the law - well at least that is the theory - it would be every householder on your street who fancies a weird and wonderful extension into their front garden, or a takeaway 24 hour cafe operating from their car port, or an unsightly shop in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (which seems to be what Jeremy Clarkson is being pulled up over according to the media this week).
I suppose the difference is that in such cases the costs of doing it wrong are born by the householder or private business, when it is a govt department the penalty falls on the taxpayer, or on services not provided with the money that might otherwise have been carried out (eg a small road safety scheme on a highway near me lets say).
an extreme, but welcome example of the principle here - which must have cost a few quid...
Rising from the rubble: London pub rebuilt brick by brick after illegal bulldozing
Carlton Tavern reopens six years after planning ruling that campaigners hope will prevent developers demolishing other sites
Rising from the rubble: London pub rebuilt brick by brick after illegal bulldozing
They very much should have been I would think (tho I know no detail of the case, can you share more info) and IMO if the local planning authority were not prepared to step in and force that to happen, given listing is a national govt status, I would have thought Historic England might have stepped in. so a question there for them as to why not.
www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk
I'd argue that it is not really how these sorts of things can and should work.
No, otherwise public bodies would be able to ride roughshod over the planning process by just rotationg people around the department.
The infill should be removed to demonstrate the planning system has teeth. Bad publicity is not an impediment to a public body under pressure from Whitehall to control costs.
I agree it was - but suspect that is the campaigners looking for a 'hook' to get decent media coverage as it's easy for people/general public/journalists to latch on to that idea - for which the wider issue then gets aired.
A "camping group"...?
Is hardly justification for maintaining a bridge at public expense that serves no purpose. if it matters that much the Campaigners can raise the funds to move the bridge and put it in one of their gardens.
There's also the fact that NH are flagrantly misusing powers that are only intended to allow temporary measures in an emergency situation, for locations where there is no emergency, and they are obviously intending the infill to be permanent.