ARGHH! Planning Permission Required!

[whine mode]
Following on from this, I now find that planning application has been submitted.

What bothers me is that some of the parties consulted cannot see the proposed site from their premises and they already have access to FTTC services from cab 28 (288) or cab 42 (128) and cable from Virgin Media - spin round 180 degrees (from cab 42) and you'll see the Virgin Media cab. They could effectively limit my choice of higher speed broadband by objecting to the development of cab 33. And I don't particularly want Virgin Media.
N.B. The tree adjacent to cab 33 has been removed sometime within the previous 4 years and I can't find any planning consent for its removal.

The planning application states that the conservation area is Moss Hall Crescent, but cab 33 is (arguably) situated on Ballards Lane. None of the other cabs previously mentioned have required planning permission and they're all within 100m of cab 33.

Worried (and I'll definitely NOT have FTTC by 31/03/2012)!
[/whine mode]

It seems possible that the conservation area is defined as ending at the kerb of Ballards Lane . Have you looked that up?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

It seems possible that the conservation area is defined as ending at the kerb of Ballards Lane . Have you looked that up?

Prodded-on by your thoughts, I have now found a map outlining the extent of the MHC conservation area.

Unfortunately, the proposed site for cab 33 is within the MHC conservation area boundary (it does extend to the kerb of Ballards Lane).

I haven't yet found applications for the Virgin Media cab (<10 years in that location) or the tree removal.
That's currently 2 x planning violations in favour of Openreach.

I'm still hopeful...

It did seem likely, as that verge and the trees do add to the ambience of the houses on the Crescent.

I don't see OR ignoring the conservation area or withdrawing that application and just installing regardless.

I hope you have responded in favour of the application? And anyone else you can be sure will back it . Don't mention it to anyone you think might object!

Caught in the act (Sunday morning, 17/06/2012) - The installation of a 128-Way FTTC cabinet adjacent to Cab 33 - NOT the 288-Way cabinet in the planning application, but it's more than enough for the number of premises served.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I hope you have responded in favour of the application?

Thanks for the tip. Like most people who had no objections to the proposal, I wasn't going to respond, but I did...
Result: 1 for, 1 against the proposal.


CORRECTION: Cab 42 is actually Cab 41.

Result!

Let us know how it goes once you are connected. That could be a few months away .

Next, find out who it was that objected! You have every right to see the documentation and I'm surprised it is not online.

Might be the poster's partner. Ignorance is bliss, as the battle is won.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Next, find out who it was that objected!

It'll be some busy body with nothing better to do, I think every town probably has someone who objects just because they can - I know there is someone around our way that does.

In reply to a post by R0NSKI:

In reply to a post by MHC:

Next, find out who it was that objected!

It'll be some busy body with nothing better to do, I think every town probably has someone who objects just because they can - I know there is someone around our way that does.

The was a planning application for a cab near me that attracted numerous objections about it's location. In the end OR gave up and commissioned a cab further down the road that wasn't even on the current rollout schedule.