Author Topic: Honister Zip Wire proposal  (Read 14032 times)

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6554
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #120 on: 14:30:38, 01/12/18 »

email and website of the Secretary of State

[email protected]


www.jamesbrokenshire.com
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

April

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6537
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #121 on: 13:42:21, 03/12/18 »
Lets just hope this gets called in.  Fingers are crossed.

Mine too

email and website of the Secretary of State

[email protected]


www.jamesbrokenshire.com

Thanks Ridge for the contact details  O0

"Who would've thought...... you are light and darkness coming through" words by Tim Armstrong

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3483
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #122 on: 19:34:31, 05/12/18 »
Readers will remember that I mentioned  that once planning permission has been granted an applicant can apply to vary the conditions attached to that permission to their advantage without the need to involve the planning committee again.  I have just come across a planning application that illustrates this neatly.  A company applied to build a solar farm in 2015.  This application was refused by the planning committee but approved on appeal in 2017. One of the conditions attached to the approval was that the site should only produce electricity for 30 years and after then the site was to be returned to its original condition within 6 months.  Now the company has submitted an application to vary the condition to extend the period to 40 years.  This application does not have to go before the planning committee.
Please keep an eye on the Honister application and be prepared to scream blue murder if the applicant tries the same trick - say adding an extra line - you still have the right to object but you may not be told of such an application but it must be published on the authority website.
Solvitur Ambulando

April

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6537
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #123 on: 12:23:36, 06/12/18 »
We are hoping it may not happen at all.

See the updates from Friends of the Lake District below
(from their website https://www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/Pages/FAQs/Category/current-planning-applications)

"Update 4th December 2018

We have been assured by the National Planning Casework Unit that the Lake District National Park Authority has agreed not to issue their decision notice on the Honister Zip Wire until the Secretary of State has confirmed whether or not he will call-in the application.

15th November 2018

Friends of the Lake District is concerned about the basis for the decision to approve an application for a Dual Purpose Aerial Wire at Honister Slate Mine, and has requested that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government “calls in” this application. This means we have asked that the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) is prevented from granting permission and for the application to be determined instead by the Secretary of State.

We have done this because we believe the decision was contrary to legislation relating to National Parks and to national and local planning policy. The Sandford Principle requires that in National Parks, where there is a conflict between economic and landscape interests, the requirement to conserve and enhance the landscape must be given greater weight. In coming to their decision, the LDNPA gave significant weight to the economic benefits of the proposal, but limited value was placed on the non-visual aspects of landscape character.

The decision was contrary to both the Authority’s own officer recommendations and Natural England’s objection on landscape impact grounds. The application has also been determined before a legally required assessment of the proposal’s impact on sites of international biodiversity importance has been concluded.

We await the Secretary of State’s decision on whether or not the application will be called-in. If he agrees to call-in the case, he will also confirm that an inquiry will be held and the decision will be reviewed by a Planning Inspector. If he decides not to call it in, we will work with other interested organisations to consider whether any other action can be taken.

Cumbria Wildlife Trust, ZipOff, the Open Spaces Society and CPRE all support our view and have also asked for the decision to be called in"
"Who would've thought...... you are light and darkness coming through" words by Tim Armstrong

pdstsp

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 965
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #124 on: 12:41:16, 06/12/18 »
A glimmer of light there, April, thanks for posting.


Paul

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6554
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #125 on: 09:18:48, 16/12/18 »
I don't suppose this very sensible and well read American judge could be persuaded to move here.


https://twitter.com/i/moments/1074003491255914497?cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&refsrc=email

Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

April

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6537
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #126 on: 13:27:58, 17/12/18 »
It might be an idea to send a copy to Richard Leafe  :)
"Who would've thought...... you are light and darkness coming through" words by Tim Armstrong

happyhiker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #127 on: 13:51:19, 17/12/18 »
Apart from any other issues, think what the extra traffic caused by zip riders and voyeurs will cause. It's not exactly the M6 up there!

richardh1905

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #128 on: 13:53:12, 17/12/18 »
That is my primary concern, happyhiker.

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3483
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #129 on: 14:53:17, 17/12/18 »
Apart from any other issues, think what the extra traffic caused by zip riders and voyeurs will cause. It's not exactly the M6 up there!
Too late for that approach I'm afraid.  As part of the initial approval process Highways would have been asked to comment.
Solvitur Ambulando

dave_p

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #130 on: 15:06:09, 17/12/18 »
Readers will remember that I mentioned  that once planning permission has been granted an applicant can apply to vary the conditions attached to that permission to their advantage without the need to involve the planning committee again.  I have just come across a planning application that illustrates this neatly.  A company applied to build a solar farm in 2015.  This application was refused by the planning committee but approved on appeal in 2017. One of the conditions attached to the approval was that the site should only produce electricity for 30 years and after then the site was to be returned to its original condition within 6 months.  Now the company has submitted an application to vary the condition to extend the period to 40 years.  This application does not have to go before the planning committee.
Please keep an eye on the Honister application and be prepared to scream blue murder if the applicant tries the same trick - say adding an extra line - you still have the right to object but you may not be told of such an application but it must be published on the authority website.
Don't assume that planning committee councillors are any more likely to refuse applications than planning officers.  Planning Officers tend to determine applications based on straightforward facts and hard truths, backed up by national and local policies.  Councillors are far more influenced by local politics and lobbying.  That lobbying can come from both sides.  It might be that they are persuaded by an avalanche of objections but they can also be persuaded by business interests who want development.  In that respect, councillors are far more likely to ignore policy issues and that's why many of their decisions are subsequently overturned at appeal.

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3483
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #131 on: 15:20:18, 17/12/18 »
Don't assume that planning committee councillors are any more likely to refuse applications than planning officers.  Planning Officers tend to determine applications based on straightforward facts and hard truths, backed up by national and local policies.  Councillors are far more influenced by local politics and lobbying.  That lobbying can come from both sides.  It might be that they are persuaded by an avalanche of objections but they can also be persuaded by business interests who want development.  In that respect, councillors are far more likely to ignore policy issues and that's why many of their decisions are subsequently overturned at appeal.
All that is true but the application has to come before the Planning Committee.  Many, if not most planning applications are “Delegated” which means they are decided by the Planning Department without ever going before the Committee. The Committee only get to see potentially contentious applications. Thus once an application is approved, variations to that application are usually Delegated.
Solvitur Ambulando

dave_p

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #132 on: 15:34:34, 17/12/18 »
All that is true but the application has to come before the Planning Committee.  Many, if not most planning applications are “Delegated” which means they are decided by the Planning Department without ever going before the Committee. The Committee only get to see potentially contentious applications. Thus once an application is approved, variations to that application are usually Delegated.
It's not that simple.  Delegated agreements vary from Council to Council and include all sorts of different things, so it's not just contentious things.  From personal experience, I would expect a VOC application relating to an earlier permission which was contentious and was heard by committee to be sent back to committee to determine.  If a VOC came in with Honister, that's what I'd expect to happen.  To make sure that happened, it would be quite straitforward to ensure it did go back to committee.  One way would be to send in a load of objections.  Another would be to lobby Councillors directly and request that they make sure it goes to committee.  In most (all) delegated agreements, Councillors have the authority to request any application (including VOC) to go to committee.
But I'd say again, it's unwise to assume a committee is less likely to approve things.  I'm aware of situations where an officer intends to refuse an application.  A pile of objections arrive, triggering a committee hearing, and then the committee approve it!  No appeal possible there!

dave_p

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #133 on: 15:35:14, 17/12/18 »
ignore this.  I clicked the wrong button!

ninthace

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3483
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #134 on: 15:57:27, 17/12/18 »
It's not that simple.  Delegated agreements vary from Council to Council and include all sorts of different things, so it's not just contentious things.  From personal experience, I would expect a VOC application relating to an earlier permission which was contentious and was heard by committee to be sent back to committee to determine.  If a VOC came in with Honister, that's what I'd expect to happen.  To make sure that happened, it would be quite straitforward to ensure it did go back to committee.  One way would be to send in a load of objections.  Another would be to lobby Councillors directly and request that they make sure it goes to committee.  In most (all) delegated agreements, Councillors have the authority to request any application (including VOC) to go to committee.
But I'd say again, it's unwise to assume a committee is less likely to approve things.  I'm aware of situations where an officer intends to refuse an application.  A pile of objections arrive, triggering a committee hearing, and then the committee approve it!  No appeal possible there!
  You are of course right.  I was simplifying things and drawing from my experience of watching a neighbouring council in Cumbria in action.  In particular, I have seen on more than one occasion a delegated VOC which, had it been part of the original application, may well have resulted in a different outcome or at least different conditions attached to the approval.  As to lobbying, I once approached my District Councillor over a planning application to be told planning was "nothing to do with him" - an interesting reply given that he held the planning portfolio at the time.  It made me so angry I stood against him at the next election - I didn't win but I frightened him.  In my opinion, the outcome of Planning Committee can be something of a lottery but the system is very much skewed in favour of the developer.
Solvitur Ambulando