On Fri, 07 Mar 2008, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>
> The demolition of the original, brand new, cycle parking facility
> appears to be a breach of the planning permission,
You keep saying this, but planning permission does not imply
obligation unless there is a specific condition. That is, you can
obtain permission to build three buildings X Y Z, and there's not any
obligation that you _do_ build X, Y, Z - unless there are specific
conditions, you could build nothing at all, or just build X and Y.
Further, there's nothing to stop you building X Y and Z and then
demolishing Z (though you would need another permission to demolish Z,
it would not be a breach of the original permission).
So it's only if there was a condition saying that n bicycle rack
spaces be maintained at location such-and-such that this would have
been a breach. I had not seen such, but I stopped reading the thread
when it turned into a slanging match in the middle. I might be
re-doing something already done, therefore.
I've then ploughed through Lewisham's planning records. They have
a relatively complete online system, but it is sloooooooowwwwwwww.
You need to start at:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/lewis-xslpagesDC/acolnetcgi.exe
You want advanced search, then I've done the hard bit by finding
application numbers, which you can put into the search to see the
details. Searching for location 'academy' or applicant 'Matthew' in
ward Blackheath is also productive.
I think the first / key application is DC/04/57340/X, which is for
demolition of this and that and construction of a new academy "...
together with associated landscaping and playing fields, provision of
232 bicycle and 42 car parking spaces ..."
There is a condition which refers to the cycle spaces:
"25) The development hereby permitted shall include secure parking
provision for cycles, in accordance with details shown on the
submitted drawings. Such provision shall be provided before the
buildings hereby permitted are occupied and retained permanently
thereafter."
So, removing the spaces shown on the approved drawings would breach
that condition and thereby the permission. Note that the condition is
not specific to any old cycle spaces, nor even any old 232 spaces, it
is specifically as detailed on eth drawings. I think that this will
actually be the drawings as permitted, which might have changes since
as first submitted. Sadly, the drawings are not available online.
For interest, the reason for the condition was "In order to ensure
adequate provision for cycle parking and to comply with Policies TRN
14 Cycle Parking and TRN 15 Provision for Cyclists and Walkers in the
adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)."
However, it's not necessarily that straightforward - a subsequent
permission may vary the condition.
There are various logged subsequent applications which are satisfying
conditions of the first (eg DC/05/60812/FT, DC/05/60813/FT,
DC/05/60814/FT).
I found one variation of the conditions - DC/05/61166/X - but it does
not affect the cycle parking.
So, it looks to me that yes, it is a breach of the planning
permission. It's possible there's a variation or deletion of the
condition that I didn't find, but having found some such, I'd expect
to have found the others (if they exist). Maybe the head will advise
the permission which deleted or revised the condition?
Caveat: I am not a planning system professional, though I do have some
exposure to the processes. None of this should be taken as
constituting advice.
> "Nasty cynicism" was not my intent. Drawing attention to a
> scandalous waste of public money, by the construction and immediate
> demolition of a cycle park, was my intent.
As scandals with public money go, it's pretty small, however.
Regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
