They must have had three leccy bill in!! Solar on Kings chapel!!!

[tony sayer]

<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
kings-college-26184985>

[tony sayer]

Post by tony sayer
<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
kings-college-26184985>

Whoops!..

https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

[Tim Ward]

Post by tony sayer
https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

That is exactly the purpose of planning committees - to overturn officer
recommendations from time to time.

Note that the officer recommendation isn't necessarily what individual
officers think is the right thing to do - it's an analysis of how policy
applies to the application, and where competing policies pull in
different directions the report will say so.

I've had officers say to me (not out loud in the meeting!) "we're
recommending refusal, but we expect to lose this one". Whether that was
a hint to me that they thought we *should* vote against their
recommendation I wasn't entirely sure ...

[charles]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by tony sayer
https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

That is exactly the purpose of planning committees - to overturn officer
recommendations from time to time.
Note that the officer recommendation isn't necessarily what individual
officers think is the right thing to do - it's an analysis of how policy
applies to the application, and where competing policies pull in
different directions the report will say so.
I've had officers say to me (not out loud in the meeting!) "we're
recommending refusal, but we expect to lose this one". Whether that was
a hint to me that they thought we *should* vote against their
recommendation I wasn't entirely sure ...

and. I've met a planning officer who couln't read drawings and decided the
proposed extension was the original building and vice-versa. He's mow a
Senior Planning Officer.

[Roland Perry]

Post by charles
I've met a planning officer who couln't read drawings and decided the
proposed extension was the original building and vice-versa. He's mow a
Senior Planning Officer.

My old college room-mate is now a planning inspector (unless he's
retired again - that was his job after retiring from being the head of a
distant local authority planning department).

I've read some recent planning appeals (not his) and they said
something along the lines of "it's not something we would approve
of aesthetically, but unfortunately it's within the rules".

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by charles
I've met a planning officer who couln't read drawings and decided the
proposed extension was the original building and vice-versa.  He's mow a
Senior Planning Officer.

My old college room-mate is now a planning inspector (unless he's
retired again - that was his job after retiring from being the head of a
distant local authority planning department).
I've read some recent planning appeals (not his) and they said
something along the lines of "it's not something we would approve
of aesthetically, but unfortunately it's within the rules".

Yes. Planning is all about telling people what they're not allowed to do
with their own property, which is actually a bit of a big deal.

The law says you can build anything you like unless there is a planning
reason, which can be upheld in court if necessary, for refusal. "Nobody
likes it, including planning officers and inspectors" isn't a planning
reason.

The trick is to write better rules next time, either through the normal
cycle of the local plan process or as supplementary documents ... but of
course you can only write rules within the rules for writing rules ...

When I was chairing a planning policy committee that was making
decisions on such rules I did always remind the members that "what we're
doing today is writing laws telling people what they can't do with their
own property".

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Ward
The trick is to write better rules next time

hahahahha

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by charles
I've met a planning officer who couln't read drawings and decided the
proposed extension was the original building and vice-versa.  He's mow a
Senior Planning Officer.

My old college room-mate is now a planning inspector (unless he's
retired again - that was his job after retiring from being the head of
a distant local authority planning department).
I've read some recent planning appeals (not his) and they said
something along the lines of "it's not something we would approve
of aesthetically, but unfortunately it's within the rules".

Yes. Planning is all about telling people what they're not allowed to
do with their own property, which is actually a bit of a big deal.
The law says you can build anything you like unless there is a planning
reason, which can be upheld in court if necessary, for refusal. "Nobody
likes it, including planning officers and inspectors" isn't a planning
reason.
The trick is to write better rules next time, either through the normal
cycle of the local plan process or as supplementary documents ... but
of course you can only write rules within the rules for writing rules
...
When I was chairing a planning policy committee that was making
decisions on such rules I did always remind the members that "what
we're doing today is writing laws telling people what they can't do
with their own property".

Although there are other layers of more national rules like "what you
can do in conservation areas" as well as "what you can do to Listed
properties".

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
When I was chairing a planning policy committee that was making
decisions on such rules I did always remind the members that "what
we're doing today is writing laws telling people what they can't do
with their own property".

Although there are other layers of more national rules like "what you
can do in conservation areas" as well as "what you can do to Listed
properties".

Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
"conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
When I was chairing a planning policy committee that was making
decisions on such rules I did always remind the members that "what
we're doing today is writing laws telling people what they can't do
with their own property".

Although there are other layers of more national rules like "what
you can do in conservation areas" as well as "what you can do to
Listed properties".

Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
"conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.

Those tended to have been done ages ago. The only changes I can detect
locally are actually a reduction in the acreage. Perhaps a recognition
that the original area was too ambitious, and contained numerous
properties or streetscapes which had frankly should never have been
included in the first place.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
"conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.

Those tended to have been done ages ago.

Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been recently,
campaigns from people wanting their area to become a conservation area.
In some cases of course these are drawbridge puller-uppers - "I've built
*my* extension, but if my neighbour is allowed to build one too it'll
make the place look untidy".

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
"conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.

Those tended to have been done ages ago.

Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been recently,
campaigns from people wanting their area to become a conservation area.

Because they think it scores house-value points I suspect. But then they
maybe don't realise the personal drawbacks. Until they want to get
replacement windows fitted etc.

Post by Tim Ward
In some cases of course these are drawbridge puller-uppers - "I've
built *my* extension, but if my neighbour is allowed to build one too
it'll make the place look untidy".

That's just one small issue to have to deal with. hers include "I've
just moved next door to a pub that's been in business 400yrs, and you
need to shut them down because of the noise".

cf: /church bells/trains at the end of the garden/smells from farmyard
animals/

[Alan]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as a
"conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a law.

Those tended to have been done ages ago.

Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been recently,
campaigns from people wanting their area to become a conservation area.

Because they think it scores house-value points I suspect. But then they
maybe don't realise the personal drawbacks. Until they want to get
replacement windows fitted etc.

Don't think being in a Conservation Area is as bad as being Listed. We
live in Conservation are in Ely, and had no problem in replacing soft wood
sash windows with uPVC. Yes we had to apply for Planning Permission, as
there were no Permitted Rights, but Parish and Ward Councilors had no
issue. And Conservation Officer took a pragmatic approach to modern
replacements.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Yes. But choosing whether or not to designate a particular area as
a "conservation area" is, in effect, local councillors making a

Those tended to have been done ages ago.

Depends where you are. In many areas there are, or have been
recently, campaigns from people wanting their area to become a
conservation area.

Because they think it scores house-value points I suspect. But then
they maybe don't realise the personal drawbacks. Until they want to
get replacement windows fitted etc.

Don't think being in a Conservation Area is as bad as being Listed.

True, but it still restricts what can be done. (If not, then the concept
is moot).

Post by Alan
We live in Conservation are in Ely, and had no problem in replacing
soft wood sash windows with uPVC. Yes we had to apply for Planning
Permission, as there were no Permitted Rights, but Parish and Ward
Councilors had no issue. And Conservation Officer took a pragmatic
approach to modern replacements.

I'm told they are much less pragmatic in Bury St Edmunds.

[Alan Jones]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by tony sayer
https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

That is exactly the purpose of planning committees - to overturn officer
recommendations from time to time.

In case anyone in this cam.misc group can help, what should one do if a
planning committee was misled?

The case in point is a new primary school built on the busy B1049 near
me (Histon) where residents objected on the grounds that there was
insufficient provision for parental drop-off at the school. The council
commissioned a professional report (excerpts below) that includes claims
that the on-site provision (a drop-off zone) was adequate for the amount
of traffic (around 150 drop-off vehicles) that would be generated.
Residents pointed out that the drop-off zone was inadequate and that the
school needed a parking area for parents, but there was no reply.

The drop-off zone has never and will never be used for that purpose - it
is too valuable as overflow parking for staff and visitors, and as a
safe zone for parents of children with special needs to park.

As a direct consequence, the drop-off vehicles are driving, turning and
parking in a side street (aptly named "Narrow Close") which also carries
one of the main flows of pedestrian, cycle and scooter traffic to the
school, to the dismay of other parents and residents.

We have tried talking to our local councillor and the relevant council
transport officers, but nothing has changed. As one cycling parent
commented to the police last time I met with them - "it is an accident
waiting to happen."

Is there any expectation that statements and reports produced at the
planning stage will be honoured? Is it a responsibility of the planning
committee to follow up, or does that lie elsewhere?

I have copied relevant extracts from the report below.

Cheers from Alan Jones.

The Transport Assessment parts 1 and 2 (28 Feb 2019) can be downloaded
from:
https://planning.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ZZZZZCDYDR004


From Transport Assessment part 1:

“5.5 Standards also indicate a waiting facility should be provided for
primary age children. A 20 or so space waiting will therefore be
provided, with this sizing having been previously discussed with C.C.C,
and based upon vehicles waiting at the site approximately 5 minutes with
a total of about 60 or so vehicles per fifteen minutes at peak times
(see Table 5.3). As such this is considered to be in line with standards”

“5.21 Based upon the above analysis, the number of vehicular
arrivals/departures associated with the school at morning/afternoon peak
times is summarized and tabulated in Table 5.3 below. This generation
was agreed at pre application stage with C.C.C.”

Table 5.3: Predicted Vehicle Generation at Peak Times
Period Time Arr Dep Total
Morning
0815-0830 18 18 36
0830-0845 65.5 65.5 131
0845-0900 65.5 65.5 131
Afternoon
1500-1515 65.5 65.5 131
1515-1530 65.5 65.5 131
1530-1545 18 18 36

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Alan Jones
Is there any expectation that statements and reports produced at the
planning stage will be honoured? Is it a responsibility of the planning
committee to follow up, or does that lie elsewhere?

No.

I have sat in a planning meeting where an 'expert' claimed that a
windmill would run at a 40% capacity factor in rural Suffolk - The
offshore ones claim 40% but actually achieve less than 30%.
No one gave a fuck.
The Tory head office had decreed that year that wind turbines were the
coming thing, and all tg=he council cared about was pleasing CP central
and having enough paper to wipe their arses on and cover them afterwards.
Facts were not allowed into the matter.

Post by Alan Jones
Is it a responsibility of the planning
committee to follow up, or does that lie elsewhere?

It isn't a matter of responsibility, it's a matter of ability to enforce
the rules.
Planning committees are 100% corrupt by and large. They are not
interested in legal action unless they didn't get paid off.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Tim Ward

Post by tony sayer
https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

That is exactly the purpose of planning committees - to overturn
officer recommendations from time to time.

In case anyone in this cam.misc group can help, what should one do if a
planning committee was misled?
The case in point is a new primary school built on the busy B1049 near
me (Histon) where residents objected on the grounds that there was
insufficient provision for parental drop-off at the school. The council
commissioned a professional report (excerpts below) that includes
claims that the on-site provision (a drop-off zone) was adequate for
the amount of traffic (around 150 drop-off vehicles) that would be
generated. Residents pointed out that the drop-off zone was inadequate
and that the school needed a parking area for parents, but there was no reply.
The drop-off zone has never and will never be used for that purpose -
it is too valuable as overflow parking for staff and visitors, and as a
safe zone for parents of children with special needs to park.
As a direct consequence, the drop-off vehicles are driving, turning and
parking in a side street (aptly named "Narrow Close") which also
carries one of the main flows of pedestrian, cycle and scooter traffic
to the school, to the dismay of other parents and residents.

A primary school near me has solved that problem. They painted large
yellow zig-zags by the front gate of the school, perfect for parents to
use as a drop-off zone.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry
A primary school near me has solved that problem. They painted large
yellow zig-zags by the front gate of the school, perfect for parents to
use as a drop-off zone.

Round the corner from here there's a cycle lane which is so used.

[Alan Jones]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones

Post by tony sayer
https://tinyurl.com/2c5ej7va

 That is exactly the purpose of planning committees - to overturn
officer  recommendations from time to time.

In case anyone in this cam.misc group can help, what should one do if
a planning committee was misled?
The case in point is a new primary school built on the busy B1049 near
me (Histon) where residents objected on the grounds that there was
insufficient provision for parental drop-off at the school.

A primary school near me has solved that problem. They painted large
yellow zig-zags by the front gate of the school, perfect for parents to
use as a drop-off zone.

Nice! I think our parents are more law abiding, but they could legally
park along the B1049 outside the school, except on the zig-zags for the
light-contrrolled crossing. They don't park anywhere on the B1049,
presumably because no-one yet parks on that stretch of road, and it
would feel really odd to impede such an important artery, even though it
has no parking restrictions in this area. I suspect that "no waiting"
restrictions would be put in place on the B1049 pretty quickly if it
started.

Hence the use of side roads where many parents make three/five point
turns in the flow of the other parents, some of whom are using the road
because the pavement has been torn up by the turning vehicles.

And the school is not yet at full capacity.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Alan Jones
Hence the use of side roads where many parents make three/five point
turns in the flow of the other parents, some of whom are using the road
because the pavement has been torn up by the turning vehicles.

I have this theory that a "no parking within a mile of schools" rule
might help. (There would be some details to work out, as ever.)

[Alan Jones]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Alan Jones
Hence the use of side roads where many parents make three/five point
turns in the flow of the other parents, some of whom are using the
road because the pavement has been torn up by the turning vehicles.

I have this theory that a "no parking within a mile of schools" rule
might help. (There would be some details to work out, as ever.)

The school tried this, drawing a red circle on the map showing a rough
five minute walking time, intending to ask parents to park outside it.
Trouble is, the last newsletter encouraged parents to park WITHIN a five
minute walk of the school:

https://primarysite-prod-sorted.s3.amazonaws.com/histon-impington-infant/UploadedDocument/b5cac3f4-9041-47de-a653-49cfe4ec0bc1/ppatt-newsletter-jul-2022.pdf

Of course this was just a mistake, but even when it is corrected, a
school newsletter won't have much effect without some legal backing. The
driving parents that I have spoken to would never break a law or byelaw,
but they consider that any legal parking is fair game and is being
tacitly encouraged by not having any restrictions.

[Theo]

Post by Alan Jones
Of course this was just a mistake, but even when it is corrected, a
school newsletter won't have much effect without some legal backing. The
driving parents that I have spoken to would never break a law or byelaw,
but they consider that any legal parking is fair game and is being
tacitly encouraged by not having any restrictions.

A school near me has single yellows active 8.30-9.30am and 2.45-3.45pm (or
whatever chucking out time is). Seems to do the job, and not a major issue
for people parking there overnight. In reality there is no enforcement, but
I suppose people could be ticketed if shown to be abusing it, and the school
could apply pressure on the parents for breaking the law.

Anything like that be suitable for those sidestreets?

Theo

[Alan Jones]

Post by Theo

Post by Alan Jones
Of course this was just a mistake, but even when it is corrected, a
school newsletter won't have much effect without some legal backing. The
driving parents that I have spoken to would never break a law or byelaw,
but they consider that any legal parking is fair game and is being
tacitly encouraged by not having any restrictions.

A school near me has single yellows active 8.30-9.30am and 2.45-3.45pm (or
whatever chucking out time is). Seems to do the job, and not a major issue
for people parking there overnight. In reality there is no enforcement, but
I suppose people could be ticketed if shown to be abusing it, and the school
could apply pressure on the parents for breaking the law.
Anything like that be suitable for those sidestreets?
Theo

Single yellows with such time restrictions were exactly what the council
transport department proposed, complete with drawings.

The problem is that almost all the houses around the drop-off area have
front gardens as well as limited driveways (1 or 2 cars), so extra
visiting guests, students, builders etc. are often parked considerately
on the road outside the relevant houses, and it would be highly
inconvenient to have them clear the area in both mornings and
afternoons. Their nearest alternative parking is the B1049, but no-one
wants to impede such an important thoroughfare.

The whole area entered by Narrow Close would have to have the single
yellows to prevent the parking traffic entering there. Then I expect
that many of the front gardens would be paved over, which would be sad
as chatting to neighbours in the garden is one of the best ways of
forming a cohesive community. We stop and talk to our neighbours all the
time, and know all of our 15 nearest households very well, which seems
rare these days.

And all because the county refuse to make Narrow Close "access only" at
drop-off times, which would only inconvenience the driving parents, and
no-one else. Two signs at the entry from the B1049 would be much cheaper
to erect and maintain than 300m of disjointed yellow lines and
associated signage.

But somehow we cannot make any headway with that. Hence my interest in
planning.

The ideal planning solution would be for the school to have additional
parking and drop-off using a tiny bit more of the fields that it is
built on, which are owned by the council.

My argument would be that the council have turned a safe, quiet and
pleasant pedestrian and cycle route to the school into a busy parking
area with at least 20 vehicles making their three/five point turns every
morning and afternoon, which was never envisaged at the planning stage.

And all this in a county that is supposed to be encouraging more
sustainable modes of transport.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan Jones
And all because the county refuse to make Narrow Close "access only" at
drop-off times, which would only inconvenience the driving parents, and
no-one else.

Wouldn't the parents argue they are accessing the school?

[Alan Jones]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones
And all because the county refuse to make Narrow Close "access only"
at drop-off times, which would only inconvenience the driving parents,
and no-one else.

Wouldn't the parents argue they are accessing the school?

The school is the other side of the B1049, and these side streets form a
cul-de-sac so do not have any through traffic. I think that should make
Narrow Close a good candidate for "access only" restrictions.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones
And all because the county refuse to make Narrow Close "access only"
at drop-off times, which would only inconvenience the driving
parents, and no-one else.

Wouldn't the parents argue they are accessing the school?

The school is the other side of the B1049, and these side streets form
a cul-de-sac so do not have any through traffic. I think that should
make Narrow Close a good candidate for "access only" restrictions.

You need to make a case for why "access to on-street parking" isn't
permitted. And why that only applies to parents, not visitors, tradesmen
etc.

[Alan Jones]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Alan Jones
And all because the county refuse to make Narrow Close "access only"
at drop-off times, which would only inconvenience the driving
parents,  and no-one else.

 Wouldn't the parents argue they are accessing the school?

The school is the other side of the B1049, and these side streets form
a cul-de-sac so do not have any through traffic. I think that should
make Narrow Close a good candidate for "access only" restrictions.

You need to make a case for why "access to on-street parking" isn't
permitted. And why that only applies to parents, not visitors, tradesmen
etc.

The "except for access" plate means that passing the sign is only
permitted where it is necessary to gain access to property or land that
is adjacent to the roads beyond the sign. Not to "access the road", or
"access the view" or "access a place to park" or anything else that one
might consider.

Such exception plates are in quite common use around Cambridge. E.g.
Albert Street, and of course to prevent parents driving to drop off at
the Brook Primary School in Histon. where the supplementary plate to the
"No Motor Vehicles" prohibition is "Mon-Fri, 8.30-9.30am, 3.00-4.00pm,
except for access".

The restriction that saddened me was on the road from Oakington to
Longstanton, which had a "No Motor Vehicles" circular sign with
supplementary plate "Except for access, buses, ... , invalid carriages".
It would have been a wonderful shortcut to/from Histon when the old A14
was blocked.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Alan Jones
And all because the county refuse to make Narrow Close "access
only" at drop-off times, which would only inconvenience the
driving parents,  and no-one else.

 Wouldn't the parents argue they are accessing the school?

The school is the other side of the B1049, and these side streets
form a cul-de-sac so do not have any through traffic. I think that
should make Narrow Close a good candidate for "access only" restrictions.

You need to make a case for why "access to on-street parking" isn't
permitted. And why that only applies to parents, not visitors,
tradesmen etc.

The "except for access" plate means that passing the sign is only
permitted where it is necessary to gain access to property or land that
is adjacent to the roads beyond the sign. Not to "access the road", or
"access the view" or "access a place to park" or anything else that one
might consider.

There's one edge case which was discussed here years ago, which is the
"on" street parking on Chesterton Road:

https://goo.gl/maps/T5tXULwAsVdXpsP76

The bay is the "wrong side" of a compulsory cycle lane, which under
standing rules can only be crossed to 'access premises'. Therefore we
should conclude that such a configuration is in fact "premises".

Post by Alan Jones
Such exception plates are in quite common use around Cambridge. E.g.
Albert Street, and of course to prevent parents driving to drop off at
the Brook Primary School in Histon. where the supplementary plate to
the "No Motor Vehicles" prohibition is "Mon-Fri, 8.30-9.30am,
3.00-4.00pm, except for access".
The restriction that saddened me was on the road from Oakington to
Longstanton, which had a "No Motor Vehicles" circular sign with
supplementary plate "Except for access, buses, ... , invalid carriages".

I wonder if that includes cars with occupants holding blue badges?

Post by Alan Jones
It would have been a wonderful shortcut to/from Histon when the old A14
was blocked.

For about 0.1% of the traffic I expect.

[Alan Jones]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones
The restriction that saddened me was on the road from Oakington to
Longstanton, which had a "No Motor Vehicles" circular sign with
supplementary plate "Except for access, buses, ... , invalid carriages".

I wonder if that includes cars with occupants holding blue badges?

Post by Alan Jones
It would have been a wonderful shortcut to/from Histon when the old
A14 was blocked.

For about 0.1% of the traffic I expect.

When the old A14 was closed anywhere from about Fenstanton to Bar Hill,
it would have been a good diversionary route for almost all of the A14
traffic, but I suspect that most drivers would not have been adventurous
enough.

For example, when Bar Hill to Histon stretches were closed, especially
around the Girton interchange, traffic could legally divert through
Oakington and Histon. This caused more amusement than inconvenience to
us in Histon, as the bottlenecks were probably getting through Oakington
or queueing to get into Histon High Street.

Hmm, maybe that's what you meant by the 0.1% (:-)

Cheers.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan Jones

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones
The restriction that saddened me was on the road from Oakington to
Longstanton, which had a "No Motor Vehicles" circular sign with
supplementary plate "Except for access, buses, ... , invalid carriages".

I wonder if that includes cars with occupants holding blue badges?

Post by Alan Jones
It would have been a wonderful shortcut to/from Histon when the old
A14 was blocked.

For about 0.1% of the traffic I expect.

When the old A14 was closed anywhere from about Fenstanton to Bar Hill,
it would have been a good diversionary route for almost all of the A14
traffic, but I suspect that most drivers would not have been
adventurous enough.
For example, when Bar Hill to Histon stretches were closed, especially
around the Girton interchange, traffic could legally divert through
Oakington and Histon. This caused more amusement than inconvenience to
us in Histon, as the bottlenecks were probably getting through
Oakington or queueing to get into Histon High Street.
Hmm, maybe that's what you meant by the 0.1% (:-)

I was wondering how you got a dual-carriageway full of traffic,
including HGVs, down a country lane between Oakingon and Longstanton.
More than 0.% of it, anyway.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Theo

Post by Alan Jones
Of course this was just a mistake, but even when it is corrected, a
school newsletter won't have much effect without some legal backing. The
driving parents that I have spoken to would never break a law or byelaw,
but they consider that any legal parking is fair game and is being
tacitly encouraged by not having any restrictions.

A school near me has single yellows active 8.30-9.30am and 2.45-3.45pm (or
whatever chucking out time is). Seems to do the job, and not a major issue
for people parking there overnight. In reality there is no enforcement, but
I suppose people could be ticketed if shown to be abusing it, and the school
could apply pressure on the parents for breaking the law.
Anything like that be suitable for those sidestreets?

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the county [or is this where you live?], there's
an enormous amount of yellow paint on the roads (and side-roads) here:

https://goo.gl/maps/qBXgrDoEdYf7LYpR6

In particular note the amount of 24x7 (in the absence of a time-plate)
double yellows.

https://goo.gl/maps/BxxD4CGsz5dErM2m7

And the single-yellows similar to what you describe:

https://goo.gl/maps/uG9dtU9M8hTpohTA9

I wonder if they customise them for the school, or is it a case of "one
size fits all"?

[Tim Ward]

Post by Alan Jones
Is there any expectation that statements and reports produced at the
planning stage will be honoured? Is it a responsibility of the planning
committee to follow up, or does that lie elsewhere?

Depends. If what was built wasn't what was applied for, or if what was
built isn't being used for the specific stated purpose for which it was
given permission, or what's happening is contradictory to a condition,
then enforcement action may be possible.

And even when enforcement action is possible it isn't that easy to
achieve. Typically it's a reactive service - there's no point in waiting
for the council to spot a breach of the permission and do something
about it off their own bat, for most councils someone has to make a
complaint. And then there's staffing - the one thing that's absolutely
and for sure about being a planning enforcement officer is that
everybody you meet in the course of your job is going to hate you, so
this isn't the easiest of roles to recruit to, so some councils are
unable to take action on all the complaints they receive.

[Alan Jones]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Alan Jones
Is there any expectation that statements and reports produced at the
planning stage will be honoured? Is it a responsibility of the
planning committee to follow up, or does that lie elsewhere?

Depends. If what was built wasn't what was applied for, or if what was
built isn't being used for the specific stated purpose for which it was
given permission, or what's happening is contradictory to a condition,
then enforcement action may be possible.
And even when enforcement action is possible it isn't that easy to
achieve. Typically it's a reactive service - there's no point in waiting
for the council to spot a breach of the permission and do something
about it off their own bat, for most councils someone has to make a
complaint. And then there's staffing - the one thing that's absolutely
and for sure about being a planning enforcement officer is that
everybody you meet in the course of your job is going to hate you, so
this isn't the easiest of roles to recruit to, so some councils are
unable to take action on all the complaints they receive.

Thanks Tim. I suspect that the use of the drop-off zone for all parents
as modelled by Atkins was not formally a planning condition, but was
just used to overcome residents' concerns.

Maybe the "Standards [that] indicate a waiting facility should be
provided for primary age children." could be used. Trouble is, I can't
find those standards.

Anyone know where they might be found?

Nor can I find out if any planning department might be interested, as it
certainly comes under "Place and Sustainability", but it's a bit of a
work in progress:

https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/asset-library/Place-and-Sustainability-Structure-Chart-November-2022.pdf

I might ask this Steve Cox to direct my enquiries about the standards
for a waiting facility, and see if I get anywhere.

I have got nowhere with the "Assistant Director, Transport Strategy and
Network Management" on the issue of safety though. He went as far as
planning yellow lines to displace all residential, trade and delivery
parking as well as the parents, but you can imagine how well that went
down with the residents!

We suggested a TRO to make the entry to Narrow Close "access only" at
school drop-off times, as is used at the other Primary School in the
village, but he says that most drivers do not understand "No Motor
Vehicles" signs, so he does not want to use more of them. He also
claimed that the police do not support such a "Prohibition of Driving"
(POD). I asked the police about this, and they explained that they do
not want to be held to "undertakings of specific, targeted or routine
enforcement", but have indicated that they are not minded to formally
object if a POD was put in place.

Yet still we wait ...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Alan Jones
We suggested a TRO to make the entry to Narrow Close "access only" at
school drop-off times, as is used at the other Primary School in the
village, but he says that most drivers do not understand "No Motor
Vehicles" signs, so he does not want to use more of them.

That's very true. Just like so many drivers think that parking on the
pavement is OK as long as they put on their yellow flashing "I'm a
fuckwit" lights. Or do they think that parking half on the pavement over
double yellow lines means they'll get a 50% discount on the parking
ticket?

Post by Alan Jones
He also claimed that the police do not support such a "Prohibition of
Driving" (POD). I asked the police about this, and they explained that
they do not want to be held to "undertakings of specific, targeted or
routine enforcement",

Apart from speed limits, of course.

Post by Alan Jones
but have indicated that they are not minded to formally object if a POD
was put in place.

But yes, many years ago I lived on a road which was a rat-run, and the
police objected to "Access Only" signs on the basis that so many people
ignored them it brought the whole road signage thing into disrepute.

The drivers would probably complain "but I was accessing the other end
of the rat-run, what's the problem"? However there's a sign for that,
which I've seen just once I think, where a No-Entry had plate saying
something like "Except access to off-street premises". Pedants might
like to comment on the tautology, because on-street premises are not
really a thing (other than marked parking bays, iirc).

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones
He also claimed that the police do not support such a "Prohibition of
Driving" (POD). I asked the police about this, and they explained that
they do not want to be held to "undertakings of specific, targeted or
routine enforcement",

Apart from speed limits, of course.

Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit and
see what the police tell you about their intentions, or otherwise, to
enforce.

(Yes I know there was a picture in the paper of me with some police
under a new speed limit sign. They were happy to show up for the
photo-op but they still gave no commitment as to any actual enforcement.)

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Alan Jones
He also claimed that the police do not support such a "Prohibition
of Driving" (POD). I asked the police about this, and they explained
that they do not want to be held to "undertakings of specific,
targeted or routine enforcement",

Apart from speed limits, of course.

Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit and
see what the police tell you about their intentions, or otherwise, to
enforce.

I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

Post by Tim Ward
(Yes I know there was a picture in the paper of me with some police
under a new speed limit sign. They were happy to show up for the
photo-op but they still gave no commitment as to any actual enforcement.)

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit
and see what the police tell you about their intentions, or otherwise,
to enforce.

I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

What, one of those lethal ones with no hard shoulder? I avoid if at all
possible.

[Alan]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit
and see what the police tell you about their intentions, or otherwise,
to enforce.

I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

What, one of those lethal ones with no hard shoulder? I avoid if at all
possible.

It's not the motorway that is lethal, but the motorists who don't drive
within their ability.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Alan
It's not the motorway that is lethal, but the motorists who don't drive
within their ability.

Not a distinction I GAS about - I'd be just as dead.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit
and see what the police tell you about their intentions, or
otherwise, to enforce.

I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

What, one of those lethal ones with no hard shoulder? I avoid if at all
possible.

It's not compulsory to use that inside lane.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Tim Ward
Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit
and see what the police tell you about their intentions, or
otherwise,  to enforce.

 I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

What, one of those lethal ones with no hard shoulder? I avoid if at
all possible.

It's not compulsory to use that inside lane.

I don't. (Except where it's necessary to use it as a slip road.)

[Michael Kilpatrick]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Tim Ward
Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed limit
and see what the police tell you about their intentions, or
otherwise,  to enforce.

 I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

What, one of those lethal ones with no hard shoulder? I avoid if at
all possible.

It's not compulsory to use that inside lane.

I don't. (Except where it's necessary to use it as a slip road.)

Whatever people think the need is for these things because we haven't
got enough transport infrastructure for this and that, I just think that
a motorway is a motorway. A motorway (in the UK) is something that has a
hard shoulder. Full stop. Making arbitrary decisions to allow people to
drive on some hard shoulders and thus having a motorway which no longer
has a hard shoulder is just not good enough.

Michael

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Michael Kilpatrick

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Tim Ward
Nope, including speed limits. You try introducing a new speed
limit and see what the police tell you about their intentions, or
otherwise,  to enforce.

 I'll remember that next time I'm on a smart motorway.

What, one of those lethal ones with no hard shoulder? I avoid if at
all possible.

It's not compulsory to use that inside lane.

I don't. (Except where it's necessary to use it as a slip road.)

Whatever people think the need is for these things because we haven't
got enough transport infrastructure for this and that, I just think that
a motorway is a motorway. A motorway (in the UK) is something that has a
hard shoulder. Full stop. Making arbitrary decisions to allow people to
drive on some hard shoulders and thus having a motorway which no longer
has a hard shoulder is just not good enough.
Michael

The [problem is that this country is to all intents and purposes, full.
Leaving aside uninhabitable deserts in wales and scotland, the country
rand out of elbow room sometime in the 1960s when we were at what - 50m
population. No one knows how many people are here now because many of
them dont want to be on any census.

The official figure is 72m.

We need less people, but the problem is that wrecks the existing
economic model.
Lets say we went back to 50m

- house prices would crash - all houses would be affordable, but no one
would want the worst ones
- banks and mortgage companies would crash as people were forced into
bankruptcy with negative equity
- Social services would collapse as the tax base of yet more young
people collapsed.
- businesses would collapse as markets shrank.
- In short till the older generation died off, it would be permanent
economic depression.
BUT the good news is, we would have enough infrastructure and migrants
would no longer make a beeline for a country in as bad a state as the
one they were leaving

[Tim Ward]

BUT the good news is ... migrants would no longer make a beeline for
a country in as bad a state as the one they were leaving

I've seen this suggested as a planning policy for Cambridge:

"We don't want any more people coming here, so let's make the place so
shit that nobody *wants* to come here."

[The Natural Philosopher]

Post by Tim Ward

BUT the good news is ... migrants would no longer make a beeline for
a country in as bad a state as the one they were leaving

"We don't want any more people coming here, so let's make the place so
shit that nobody *wants* to come here."

Oh, I think that objective has already been achieved some years ago.
High taxes and lack of car parking and massive one way streetage and
road closures has wrecked any pretence to be a 'market' town with shops
to serve the hinterland.

If you want to buy stuff, go to Amazon.
What's left is student safe spaces and tourist traps.
There are no decent music venues, the theatres are overpriced and
feature snobfilled arty crap.


Its shit, and property is overpriced, and any bicycle can accuse you of
anything and you will get fined.

Once you grow up, you dont want to be there any more.

[Tim Ward]

Post by The Natural Philosopher

Post by Tim Ward
"We don't want any more people coming here, so let's make the place so
shit that nobody *wants* to come here."

Oh, I think that objective has already been achieved some years ago.

Guess whether I knew you'd say that ...

[Vir Campestris]

Post by Michael Kilpatrick
Whatever people think the need is for these things because we haven't
got enough transport infrastructure for this and that, I just think that
a motorway is a motorway. A motorway (in the UK) is something that has a
hard shoulder. Full stop. Making arbitrary decisions to allow people to
drive on some hard shoulders and thus having a motorway which no longer
has a hard shoulder is just not good enough.

AIUI the argument is that the extra lane results in fewer accidents, and
that this benefit is more than having the dedicated hard shoulder,
especially given the reliability of modern cars.

I'm not convinced.

Andy

[Tim Ward]

Post by Vir Campestris
AIUI the argument is that the extra lane results in fewer accidents, and
that this benefit is more than having the dedicated hard shoulder,
especially given the reliability of modern cars.
I'm not convinced.

Last time I broke down on a motorway - not very long ago, and I've still
got the same car, and it's a few years older now - despite it being
freezing cold we vacated the car (which was on the hard shoulder),
climbed over the crash barrier, and waited at the top of the embankment.

Some passing Highway Patrol people (whom I'd never heard of before) gave
us some space blankets, so we weren't completely frozen by the time the
AA arrived.

So people needing help seems to happen sufficiently frequently that
there's an entire organisation driving round checking that everyone is OK.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Vir Campestris
AIUI the argument is that the extra lane results in fewer accidents,
and that this benefit is more than having the dedicated hard
shoulder, especially given the reliability of modern cars.
I'm not convinced.

There's not a complete lack of places for a broken down car to stop,
it's at least one every 1.5 miles)

Post by Tim Ward
Last time I broke down on a motorway - not very long ago, and I've
still got the same car, and it's a few years older now - despite it
being freezing cold we vacated the car (which was on the hard
shoulder), climbed over the crash barrier, and waited at the top of the
embankment.
Some passing Highway Patrol people (whom I'd never heard of before)
gave us some space blankets, so we weren't completely frozen by the
time the AA arrived.
So people needing help seems to happen sufficiently frequently that
there's an entire organisation driving round checking that everyone is OK.

That's only one small part of why they are patrolling the roads, it's
possible they also have a defibrillator, but they wouldn't expect to
use it more than once in their career.

Smart motorways have additional safety measures, most obvious being the
regular CCTV cameras which are supposed to allow the central control
centre to identify potential hazards in the "extra" inside lane, and
adjust the signage to direct passing traffic onto the original three
lanes.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward

Post by Vir Campestris
AIUI the argument is that the extra lane results in fewer accidents,
and that this benefit is more than having the dedicated hard
shoulder, especially given the reliability of modern cars.
I'm not convinced.

There's not a complete lack of places for a broken down car to stop,
it's at least one every 1.5 miles)

Post by Tim Ward
Last time I broke down on a motorway - not very long ago, and I've
still got the same car, and it's a few years older now - despite it
being freezing cold we vacated the car (which was on the hard
shoulder), climbed over the crash barrier, and waited at the top of the
embankment.
Some passing Highway Patrol people (whom I'd never heard of before)
gave us some space blankets, so we weren't completely frozen by the
time the AA arrived.
So people needing help seems to happen sufficiently frequently that
there's an entire organisation driving round checking that everyone

is

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Tim Ward
OK.

That's only one small part of why they are patrolling the roads, it's
possible they also have a defibrillator, but they wouldn't expect to
use it more than once in their career.
Smart motorways have additional safety measures, most obvious being the
regular CCTV cameras which are supposed to allow the central control
centre to identify potential hazards in the "extra" inside lane, and
adjust the signage to direct passing traffic onto the original three
lanes.

But we know that "efficiencies" mean the cameras are too far apart and
there aren't enough people watching them.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Tim Ward
And even when enforcement action is possible it isn't that easy to
achieve. Typically it's a reactive service - there's no point in
waiting for the council to spot a breach of the permission and do
something about it off their own bat, for most councils someone has to
make a complaint. And then there's staffing - the one thing that's
absolutely and for sure about being a planning enforcement officer is
that everybody you meet in the course of your job is going to hate you,

Up to a point. I've had reason to refer some potential infringements
to our local planning enforcement officers, and they've given the
impression they quite like that.

Isn't this just another variant on "everyone hates traffic wardens",
apart from the people who can now go about their lives less afflicted
by other people's bad parking?

[Tim Ward]

Post by Roland Perry
Isn't this just another variant on "everyone hates traffic wardens",
apart from the people who can now go about their lives less afflicted
by other people's bad parking?

Yeah, similar. One difference being that a planning enforcement officer
can alternatively get a job as a planning officer, and they're also a
shortage profession, and whilst not everybody loves planning officers
the suggestion seems to be that they have a more pleasant time of it
than planning enforcement officers.

"Rotate people through the two jobs," you might say, no nobody has to be
a planning enforcement officer forever. The suspicion was that that
would just make it even harder to recruit planning officers.

[Brian Gaff]

I know there has been much debate over a lot of listed buildings having
panels, including the one you mention, recently. Its heritage against
functionality. If nothing had had a drain, and they refused to retro fit
them for whatever reason, would that be acceptable?
Over in Hampton Court some years ago, the historic water supply from a
clean source on the other side of the river was cut off in favour of a
normal supply, It was not used any more and was leaky and very old, so they
had to dredge part of the river there, so they removed the pipe. They kept
the water source which is now in the under-croft of the John Lewis store in
Kingston Upon Thames and some other buildings on the opposite side for
historic reasons.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by tony sayer
<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/solar-panels-put-
kings-college-26184985>
--
Tony Sayer
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.
Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[Tim Ward]

Post by Brian Gaff
I know there has been much debate over a lot of listed buildings having
panels, including the one you mention, recently. Its heritage against
functionality.

Eg students living in a mediaeval building suddenly being told they
can't cook in the staircase kitchen because it doesn't meet fire regs
and the listed building people wouldn't approve the changes that the
fire regs people demanded.

"But students have been cooking in this kitchen for 500 years and it
hasn't burned down yet" didn't hack it.

(Eventually there was a compromise - remove the curtains, which weren't
listed, and carry on cooking!)