Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
This just occurred to me, I've not checked it, and if quoted and I'm wrong, I'll deny all knowledge, if right, I'll claim all credit ;)
I thought that permenant fixtures, like mobile phone installations (masts), poles of whatever sort, etc. on a street, had to be subject to the same Planning Laws as everything else?
If this is the case, how the hell have we missed this? If Planning Permission is required for all "street furniture", where've the consultations been? Have we had opportunities to protest the establishment of even one fixed-point "Safety Camera"?
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject:
G1LIW wrote:
I thought that permenant fixtures .......... had to be subject to the same Planning Laws as everything else?
I would guess that (if necessary) planning permission is inherent in the process of implementing a speed limit - they have to be promulgated in the press, as opposed to planning permission. Or are they no different from a lamppost, speed hump or keep left bollard? Plain old Traffic Management. _________________ Dennis
Wearing my ex Planning and Development Committee Councillor's head here...
Let me just say that in five years as Councillor, not once did we ever have a case come before us for "street furniture" such as Telephone masts, Traffic Lights, Speed Cameras etc etc.
Now, I can't answer WHY, as I was simply not knowledgeable enough at the time as to the background reasons, I readily admit.
But I can tell you this.... As it never came before us, the Committee, it means one of a number of things. Either:
a) They do not need any form of Planning Permission, or
b) They are allowed by "Deemed Consent", that is provided a certain set of what almost amount to tick the box conditions, are adhered to, then permission is automatic, and 'deemed' - it does not even need applying for in terms of even receiving a "yes" letter back automatically, or
c) It is "Delegated Consent" - that is of such a general, easily decided, and regular occurrence and nature, that OFFICERS (paid staff, not Councillors themselves), can decide on such matters, without it having to go to Committee.
Personally, as (c) would still mean certain objections, or in some areas, being erected near Councillor's home etc, when under these cases, they would HAVE to be passed over to Committee for consideration, so as to be shown to be fair, and none ever were. So I doubt (c) is the reason why.
I favour (a) as the likely reason, myself.
Finally, on a relevant note, the new type 3G monopoles we now see erected at the roadside, on the footpaths now, DOES need Full Consent, as per any phone mast anywhere. Although I seem to recall, masts are erected under Deemed Consent, but nearly always referred to full committee anyway, because of the current sensitive nature of them - a provision all councils may utilise if they wish.
But just to throw a slight spanner in the works here, the green boxes you see being added alongside Post-Boxes (green for environmental blending in some areas, red in others) - these are storage boxes for excess post to be DELIVERED - that is, the post man gets a second big bag dropped off into this box, and he comes back to this once he finishes his first lot of rounds, to save him either carrying lots of post, or having to go back to the sorting office for the rest.
These, curiously, DO require Planning Permission, and I know of a number of such cases that were refused (usually to do with wrong positioning too close to a junction mouth etc, that sort of thing).
So strange why other street furniture like traffic lights, telephone masts, speed cameras etc, DON'T seem to need permission (or it is automatic), when these little things do need permission.
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:50 am Post subject:
In addition to shadamehr's post, these devices are probably deemed to be safety equipment as the name safety camera would suggest.
A quick search on Google found one article which states:
Quote:
The introduction of the safety cameras will not require express planning permission, as the proposal falls within the criteria for 'permitted development' in Class A, Part 13, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
edited to correct typo _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Last edited by GPS_fan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:10 am Post subject:
G1LIW wrote:
Ah. Riiiiiiiight. I was wondering why they changed the name a few years ago.
Cheers for that.
I doubt if it was for planning reasons. More like Labour spin in an attempt to give them an air of respectability, as opposed to the cash cow that they actually are.
Incidentally, the phone companies do not need planning permission to shove up a mast, they can just do it, and to h*** with anyone else, like local residents.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14892 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:55 am Post subject:
GPS_fan wrote:
In addition to shadamehr's post, these devices are probably deemed to be safety equipment as the name safety camera would suggest.
A quick search on Google found one article which states:
Quote:
The introduction of the safety cameras will not require express planning permission, as the proposal falls within the criteria for 'permitted development' in Class A, Part 13, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
Well, I'm glad you're not on my council planning and development committee, mate - I suppose you'd be chucking cameras up all around me! _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jun 19, 2006 Posts: 212 Location: Sahrf Lunnon ;)
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject:
M8TJT wrote:
I doubt if it was for planning reasons. More like Labour spin in an attempt to give them an air of respectability, as opposed to the cash cow that they actually are.
Sounds about right. Damn things are everywhere. out of idle curiosity, I downloaded the database for MemoryMap the other day. If you've got it, get the database, and zoom all the way out so that you've got the entire British Isles shown on the route planner map.
Be prepared to spot the remaining land as a VERY small percentage not plastered with camera icons
M8TJT wrote:
Incidentally, the phone companies do not need planning permission to shove up a mast, they can just do it, and to h*** with anyone else, like local residents.
Figures. Oh, well. Who was it there was looking for a Johnny English Anti-Camera Rocket Launcher? If you find one, mate, stick me down for a brace of the darn things
Incidentally, the phone companies do not need planning permission to shove up a mast, they can just do it, and to h*** with anyone else, like local residents.
Figures. Oh, well. Who was it there was looking for a Johnny English Anti-Camera Rocket Launcher? If you find one, mate, stick me down for a brace of the darn things
73, OM [/quote]
M8TJT/
It's not the ANTI camera/launcher you require. Be happy with the proposal of the image I submitted.
At least:-
1) It would be painless.
2) No points on your license
3) Instant termination
4) Keep the government happy by reducing "Global warming", and emissions
5) Reduce (speeding) motorists, thus freeing up the road for the others to speed, which would take us back to:-
1) .... :-)
Joined: Jun 19, 2006 Posts: 212 Location: Sahrf Lunnon ;)
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
What's 73, OM and 73's QRT?
These relate the the hobby of Amateur Radio, otherwise known as Ham Radio. You'll note that the use of GPS and Ham Radio has been a rather happy one too Just lok up "APRS" on wikipedia sometime, or even Google
Anyhow, to answer your question:
73: loosely translated, "Best Regards"
OM: Old Man (add obligatory toffee-nosed accent, of course, old boy )
QRT: Stop sending / I have finished sending / I am shutting the radio off
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
!! 
Just lok up "APRS" on wikipedia sometime, or even Google 
