Mostly ignored following complaint to planning office

abedegno

Hi,

Mostly out of curiosity, I thought I would make a complaint about a local Excel/VCS operated car park and see what kind of response I got from the planning department. I noticed they had erected new, prominent signage facing the main road but couldn't find any planning/advertising consent for this. I also noticed they failed a number of requirements on a previously approved planning application, and had significantly expanded the parking area beyond what had been approved.

Sadly this was the response from the local planning office about my concerns:
Thank you for your e-mail with concerns regarding the temporary car-park on “Land At East Of A61 Known As Chesterfield Waterside, Brimington Road, Tapton, Chesterfield”.

As you are aware conditional planning permission was originally granted on CHE/16/00188/FUL on 14th June 2016. Condition ‘09’ required the submission of a lighting scheme, for consideration and approval prior to being provided on site. Condition ‘10’ requires that the ‘use’ should cease by 13th June 2021.

Drawings submitted with this application on 22nd March 2016 show the boundary of the application site, a drawing showing the site divided into three sections; being an existing car park at area 1A, an area of rough land at 1B and the proposed new temporary car park, subject to the temporary development, at area 2 and a further drawing showing a parking layout for the new temporary car park.

Details were submitted on application reference CHE/17/00028/DOC which sought to satisfy the requirements of condition ‘09’. Specifications for the proposed lighting was submitted and approved and I will need to check to see whether the correct number of lighting columns have been installed.

The drawing labelled “Boundary Plan”, on the latter application and dated 17th January 2017 is slightly misleading as the red line does not include the area of the temporary car park. This drawing outlines the other two areas of the site, leaving out area 2. The drawing indicates the location of lighting columns, each with a black ‘X’.

I therefore confirm that the site has not been extended beyond the area identified in the original application. The lighting scheme has been approved and a check will be made to see if it has been implemented correctly.

The final element of your complaint refers to additional signage at the entrance to the site. The land has been a car park for a while and signage was in situ previously. I am not aware that an application for signage has been received or approved but I am not overly concerned with the current signage and do not consider it expedient to take formal action in this case.

I hope this helps to alleviate your concerns.

The one positive is they appear to be investigating the missing lighting. Should I try to press this further with them?

Thanks

Abe

Coupon-mad

I think you should press them on Advertising Consent. Not just 'Planning'.

Search the forum for those words. There are strict rules about size of advertising signs.

The_Deep

Councils, especially those controlled by Labour are dispensing with such niceties as enforcing planning and consumer protection laws and staffing libraries, and concentrating on the really important stuff such as ethnic monitoring, diversity co-ordination, and employing Urdu interpreters.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Grimble

Get on to the local councillor and ask him why they are not getting the payments for advertising consent, 1000 signs across a number of car parks adds up to £50,000, they are missing out on.

The_Deep

it would probably cost the council more than that to collect.

bargepole

This has all the hallmarks of someone applying unnecessary violence to a recently deceased equine creature.

Umkomaas

bargepole wrote: »

This has all the hallmarks of someone applying unnecessary violence to a recently deceased equine creature.

.... or someone trying to sell one!

abedegno

Fired this back to them, will see what they come back with:

Thank you for the prompt and detailed response, I am pleased that you are investigating the lack of lighting columns.

In your response, you confirm that 'the site has not been extended beyond the area identified in the original application', however, I believe I may not have sufficiently described the extent of the issues that I see:
- In addition to area 2 being brought into use as a new car park, post-relocation portions of areas 1A and 1B have subsequently been also brought into use as a car park.
- This is also in contravention of condition 11, as parts of the permanent physical barrier that was supposed to remain in place throughout the life of the development have been removed to allow the car parking area to be expanded.
- The drawing, which details the lighting plan, even if it had been implemented, was designed and approved based on the original car parking area and is now possibly insufficient. As there are additional parking areas in 1A and 1B additional floodlighting would be required along the edge with Brimington Road to ensure driver safety, as my primary the concern raised in my original email was this is an extensive car parking area without any lighting.
- Similarly, the screening required in condition 12 to prevent dazzling of drivers on the A61 was designed based on the original car park extend and may also be required on the perimeter of Brimington Road?
- The new signage is a large, elevated billboard facing onto Brewery Street. Without consent, I understand this is a criminal offence under regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement)(England) Regulations 2007 and therefore may require your concern?

The_Deep

bargepole wrote: »

This has all the hallmarks of someone applying unnecessary violence to a recently deceased equine creature.

I am with Neimoller on this one.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

I also like someone making life hard for the PPCs. Can't disagree with that.

abedegno

Just you wait until 25 May - I'll be organising a SAR bomb against the PPC :-)