FTTC cab in conservation area reject due to visual impact!

Has anyone had any luck getting a FTTC DSLAM planning application amended to move the cab due to objections on conservation grounds?

Is this wishful thinking or has it been done?



Regards,

Gareth

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4175128-re-...

I'm going through this at the moment....

As of now the new site proposal has been with Morrison Utility for a month now

They are not responding to my request of an update

Nor is my contact in BT responding either

Been over a year now since the original planning application

*grrr*

Any information with reagrd toplanning applications should be made to BT or if the planning application has gone into the local council you should be able to track it on there. You could also contact the relevent planning officer

This hasn't yet gone to the planning committee and the consultation period is still open.

We are in direct contact with both the senior planning officer and the surveyor within the contractor that is requesting the planning permission.

The contractor is trying to sort it out as they seem keen to get the cab in - so being vey supportive but they already told us that if movement required wayleave then they will have to withdraw the application and OR will bin it.

So from the comment it the application is rejected that'll be it.


Regards,

Gareth

The application realy has nothing to do withthe Contractor . They act as sub contracvtors to BT but the planning application will be made by BT and they are responsible for the application. It it requires wayleave it must be crossing private land and if thats the case can get expensive and slow. The best bet is if the could find a way of avoiding crossing private land

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

The application realy has nothing to do withthe Contractor . They act as sub contracvtors to BT but the planning application will be made by BT and they are responsible for the application. It it requires wayleave it must be crossing private land and if thats the case can get expensive and slow. The best bet is if the could find a way of avoiding crossing private land

That is not correct.

At least in my case, Morrisons Utility submitted the 2 failed previous planning applications, and will be submitting (I hope!) this final planning application that in principal the new site has been agreed by my council.

I understand Morrisons are doing many planning applications on behalf of BT, but do not know which areas they cover.

To the OP

the planning application should not go to full planning committee if its only on conservation area grounds, it only requires prior approval.

also, be aware that the Government is in consultation with a view to remove this requirement from next spring.

if you look through my thread you will find the relevant information, you should make your council aware of this, which they should be by now anyway.

good luck, I've been going at this since July....

Edited by deleted (Thu 15-Nov-12 17:28:10)

I think you are misunderstaning the propsal. AAlthough full planning permission will not be required the applications still need to go thre council

Morrisons utilities may submit them but they are submitting them on behalf of BT and BT is the official applicant of the planning permission. Morrisions can do nothing on their own bat. If an application gets rejected it goes back to BT whon have to decide what to do

I suspect Morrisons have a set of criteria which means they just dump applications based on certain criteria, rather than having to keep going back and forth constantly.

On a technical note, is it feasible to sink the "cabinet" into a 'tanked' excavation in the ground? Has it ever been done? If only at much greater expense?

cheers, a

I did not misunderstand, that is exactly what i said.....

prior approval is normally handled by a planning officer

it should not go to full planning committee

Edited by deleted (Thu 15-Nov-12 19:14:39)

Again, you are wrong

at least in both my cases it was Morrisons Utility that was the applicant on the planning application.

to the OP

I have been led to believe that BT will normally allow 2 planning applications

If both fail, they will "walk" unless, like me, you get involved to overcome whatever the problem is. If you read through my thread I linked you will get some idea of how to go about this. Good luck

I have being going since July and still not even got to new planning application stage yet after 2 previous failed ones

I have found it a very slow painful process, but I will not give up

Technically possible and you can keep water out of all the mains powered electronics and and get access to the contents

All possible, but at this stage of rollout would be outside cost limits, and probably would be with BDUK funding too

Hi, MrSaffron!

Maybe there's separate funding for 'cabinet sinking' through a 'street scape improvement grant' or some such?

cheers, a

Kensington council don't think so, they said NON to FTTC at all

Cheers Don0301

Yeah actually got the sub contractor to engage with us - seriously. They've gone to site and a looking at re-survey. We're now trying to confirm the land ownership of a proposed site. It'll be the council that own it but what conditions are associated with it we're trying to work out.

The council does want it sorted. The whole situation is slightly annoying considering most if not all the houses on the cab are easily connected via FTTP but there must be an issue we're not aware of because OR had planned to FTTP the area originally.

Regards,

Gareth

In reply to a post by asbokid:

On a technical note, is it feasible to sink the "cabinet" into a 'tanked' excavation in the ground? Has it ever been done? If only at much greater expense?

cheers, a

Milton Keynes has sunken PCP's which lift out on rails. Would be interesting to know what the engineers think but the one I'm aware of did have some awful faults - caused by water!


Regards,

Gareth

In reply to a post by garethr:

Cheers Don0301

Yeah actually got the sub contractor to engage with us - seriously. They've gone to site and a looking at re-survey. We're now trying to confirm the land ownership of a proposed site. It'll be the council that own it but what conditions are associated with it we're trying to work out.

The council does want it sorted. The whole situation is slightly annoying considering most if not all the houses on the cab are easily connected via FTTP but there must be an issue we're not aware of because OR had planned to FTTP the area originally.

Regards,

Gareth

out of interest is it Morrisons? I may have some useful contacts/phone numbers if so

I had to get local councillor/ local papers etc involved before the council decided to "review" their position...so your ahead of me already

if both parties want a solution I see no reason it won't happen.

You may want to propose a site meeting and be present. Porbably the quickest way to get a solution. Good luck!

In reply to a post by garethr:

Milton Keynes has sunken PCP's which lift out on rails. Would be interesting to know what the engineers think but the one I'm aware of did have some awful faults - caused by water!

Hi Gareth,

The concept seems well tested in other industries(!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHpNgmI0RLs&t=0m35s

cheers, a

You mean similar to http://www.coolwebhome.co.uk/fibre-milton-keynes/def... which is a fibre DP in a pavement chamber.

PCP's and the fibre kit are not mains powered, which makes keeping water out a very different issue

In reply to a post by don0301:

I did not misunderstand, that is exactly what i said.....

prior approval is normally handled by a planning officer

it should not go to full planning committee

Yes after confirming with the planning officer that is the case. I owe you one!

We are working through the problem with the council and the OR subcontractor - who is keen to get the job done. We have a retired local resident who is pushing for this and he is very determined to get it resolved and is working on the problem.

Our local resident has found alternative sites which have been surveyed informally by the sub-contractor and necessary paperwork to confirm that way-leave's are not required has been obtained (adopted highway) - our local resident has managed all this today!

I'm very positive about the situation. I will update the thread after Tuesdays decision.


Regards,


Gareth

Seems your moving much faster than I am!

Who is the sub contractor?

Good luck