Skip to main content

Planning and Paintball


I have just washed the pink paint out of my hair. For my now 12 year old's 12th Birthday we took him and 10 of his friends to paintball in Thornbury. Much that headshots did not count that did not prevent me being splattered on my head by 150 mph paintballs which went through the visor into my hair.

Good fun for the kids much that it is ironic how much effort goes into warning people in a war game not to slip in the mud and hurt themselves.

Being one to see these things I noted that they had set up in business and then applied for planning permission - with the argument that now people know what it is if they object. It seems that if they don't get permission then it won't cost them that much just to close down after 2 years trading.

The planning laws can be quite complex and challenging in those situations. I am still having a bit of a discussion with the Council following the local elections as to whether or not I have planning permission for one of my buildings.

The point about planning permission is that it applies not only when you make building alterations of some substance (much that there are changes that can be made without permission such as small extensions), but also when the use of the building changes in some ways.

Some changes require permission, others don't. Ie if a bookshop wants to sell hardware there is no change of use, but if it wants to sell fish and chips there is.

There is a further complication in that in fact if someone stops using a building in a particular way then the permission can go. Furthermore generally what the building was used for "10 years ago" takes precedent over the actual permissions.

This all arose because Labour complained about whether or not one of the candidates in Moseley had permission to live where she lived. This was in a property which has had a staff flat for decades. They also complained about some dormant companies having a registered office there. Labour's interest in this issue disappeared after the local elections, but I have taken up the issue wanting to clarify the situation.

All the information as to what the property was used for was provided to the planning department about 3 months ago and they cannot as yet tell me whether I have permission or not. This is ironic in that if I had applied for permission they would have a deadline of about 2 months on deciding.

There is some embarrassment afoot for some because letters were written to Labour implying that there was no permission based upon papers from 1959 (well before the "10 years ago" date).

The problem for me is, however, that the Standards Board get stressed about these sorts of things so I may have to take this through a long and tortuous legal process rather than simply apply for permission - if the council believes I have not got permission. It remains, however, that I believe on the basis of evidence that I am merely continuing the types of uses that have occurred in the past.


(eg residential flat, music studio, "non residential institution")

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: