Our ref: mu01847
Date: 19th May 2008
To: John Culligan, Assistant Director (Planning Management)
Copy to: Chair of Planning Committee (to be appointed)
Copy to: Stephen Hughes, Chief Executive

John,
Thank you for your response to my Councillor Enquiry mu01774, dated 12th May 2008.
I hope you don’t mind if respond to your comments and suggestion further actions.

1) Advertising Hoardings to the front of the site

I accept that under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulation 1992 there are classes of deemed consent for such hoardings. However, no where does these ‘deemed consents’ say that they overide the need for listed building consent or concern for public safety.
The advertising hoardings in front of 582 Moseley Road were deemed under class 8 of this act. Paragraph (1) of the Conditions and Limitations state “no such advertisement shall be displayed in a conservation area, a National Park, an area of outstanding natural beauty or the Broads.” This clearly shows that this deemed consent will not be allowed in sensitive areas. I can only assume that statutory listed buildings are not mentioned in the list, because it will be automatically be assumed listed building consent is required.
In your response you have also not explained why this deemed consent sets aside any public safety concerns. The original planning permission in 2002 for these hoardings was refused on the following public safety grounds:
“The position of the proposed hoardings would create an unsatisfactory pedestrian visibility splay at the junction of Trafalgar Road and Moseley Road, and therefore prejudices the safety and free flow of pedestrians and motor vehicles in the adjacent highway(s). “

Would it be possible for the following to be done:

1. Seek the advice of English Heritage, or an independent legal source, as to whether or not list building consent is still needed where an advertising hoarding that would normally be granted deemed consent is positoned in front of a statutory listed building.
2. Explain why public safety concerns are being set aside under deemed consent for these advertising hoardings.

2) Boundary Wall

Your response clarifies that the Planning department failed in its duties to ensure that the planning condition relating to planning application S/03789/04/FUL and the reinstatment of the original bundary wall within 6 months of approval of the planning application.
Even worse, it completely ignored by letter raising this concern on 24th July 2005.
Would it be possible for the following to be done:

1. An apology from the Planning Department for ignoring my letter dated 24th July 2005 – Councillor Enquiry mu00794.
2. An investigation into why the Planning Department ignored my letter and continued to ignore the fact that a planning condition was not being met. I want it clarified as to whether this was due to incompetence or malpractice. I raise the issue of malpractice, since the Planning Department have repeatedly turned a blind eye to breaches in planning conditions on this building. I would particularly be interested if unreasonable pressure has been put on the Planning Department by any elected members which has forced the Planning Department to turn a blind eye to what has been taking place at 582 Moseley Road.

3) Parking

Your response clarifies that the Planning department failed in its duties to ensure that the planning condition relating to planning application S/03789/04/FUL and the requirement for a legal agreement on car parking arrangments between the tram officer owner and the tram shed owner prior to commencement of building works.
Even worse, the Planning Department completely ignored my letters raising this concern dated 7th February 2005 and 11th June 2005 (councillor enquires mu00526 and mu00727). I eventually received a response, after the production of my YouTube video on this building, on 4th April 2007 claiming a legal agreement had been met – as you letter shows, this was completely untrue.
Would it be possible for the following to be done:

1. An apology from the Planning Department for ignoring my letters dated 7th February 2005 and 11th June 2005 (councillor enquires mu00526 and mu00727) and for knowingly giving me false information in a response dated 4th April 2007.
2. An investigation into why the Planning Department ignored my letters and continued to ignore the fact that a planning condition was not being met. I want it clarified as to whether this was due to incompetence or malpractice. I raise the issue of malpractice, since the Planning Department have repeatedly turned a blind eye to breaches in planning conditions on this building. I would particularly be interested if unreasonable pressure has been put on the Planning Department by any elected members which has forced the Planning Department to turn a blind eye to what has been taking place at 582 Moseley Road.

5) Work done to the site without consent

Your response clarifies that the owner of this statutory listed building has repeatedly carried out works without listed building consent and has carried on these works even when warned that consent was required. It also shows that the Planning department completely failed to ‘target’ this building, as was one of the resolutions of planning committee when permission was granted to S/03789/04/FUL. Targeting is where the Planning Department regulary visit a building, due to concerns that the owner will breach planning conditions or do unauthorised work.
Altering a statutory listed without consent is a criminal offence, yet the Planning department does not appear to be treating it as such.
Considering the severity of what the owner has done to this building without listed building consent - namely completely hollowing out the entire insides of the building, I fail to see why the owner is not being heavily fined.
Would it be possible for the following to be done:

1. An investigation into why the Planning Department failed to ‘target’ this building, after the Planning Committee resolved to do this when planning permission was granted to S/03789/04/FUL. I want it clarified as to whether this was due to incompetence or malpractice. I raise the issue of malpractice, since the Planning Department have repeatedly turned a blind eye to breaches in planning conditions on this building. I would particularly be interested if unreasonable pressure has been put on the Planning Department by any elected members which has forced the Planning Department to turn a blind eye to what has been taking place at 582 Moseley Road.
2. An investigation into why the Planning Department has failed to take court action against the owner of this building. I want it clarified as to whether this was due to incompetence or malpractice. I raise the issue of malpractice, since the Planning Department have repeatedly turned a blind eye to breaches in planning conditions on this building. I would particularly be interested if unreasonable pressure has been put on the Planning Department by any elected members which has forced the Planning Department to turn a blind eye to what has been taking place at 582 Moseley Road.

regards