Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Marre Dafforn
Posted on 28 Oct 2005 12:16 pm

The loopholes in the current planning system are numerous, and "milked" on regular occasions. Why consult , why have a Code if operators ignour the comments made?

It is very frustrating to see the same application for telcom equipment appear time and time again for the same site; it may be a slightly alterred application, followed with appeals if refused, and if this appeal is dismissed, the operators can and do just built the equipment anyway, knowing they can "use" the system and enforcement proceedings can be delayed for years: by issueing slightly alterred applications, or try retrospective application, or temporary permission year in year out, and if refused, appeal again which all means years of using what is unlawful development.

Surely no developer should be able to financially benefit for years from unlawful development, no matter what the development/ industry is?
Then after 4 years other issues restricting enforcement actions will be valid.

The current planning system does nothing to discourage developers to just use the system, until the proposed development has authorisation some-how. Or it is just build and commercially used even as "unlawful" development.

The Change to planning regulations SI 2005 2935,Written Ministerial Statements, Thursday 27 October 2005, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm20050...

"The amended permitted development regulations will subject all antennas, whether satellite dishes or any other type, to the same rules."

Seems to me that this just means more and larger antennas will be permitted on certain buildings. Less consultation and more antennas.


Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.