Comment posted Council planning site crashes in run up to deadline on submissions on Oban transit marina by Tim McIntyre.
Webcraft – no joke, but my (and partly your) mistake – your link above connects to the withdrawn application, not the current one.
Not helped by the council website showing the document date for the withdrawal letters as 25th April, when the letters themselves were dated 5th April…
Apologies!
Tim McIntyre also commented
- …and I need to recant what I said at post 7, as the doors have been firmly closed on further comments.
OK, it seems that the council has written to all commentors yesterday to say that the application has been withdrawn (hence the barring of further comments.)
It has been re-submitted with a new reference number and a small technical change. All comments received will now have to be sent in again with the new reference.
PS update – the above is all mince – see post below.
- To be fair, the planning department is usually pretty flexible as regards comment deadlines. In practice they will keep validating comments long after the ‘official’ deadline has expired, though obviously not beyond the point at which the officer’s report is issued. This is usually some time after the deadline, especially in the bigger or more controversial applications.
I don’t know how the statutory requirements apply to website availability. The plans can still be viewed in the usual places, and comments sent in by letter or email.
If comments have been lost by the system, that’s obviously another matter.
Recent comments by Tim McIntyre
- Conundrums on ‘Challenge: see what you make of these VisitScotland statistics’
The survey results are said to relate only to overnight visitors, so how come only 66% of them spent “one or more nights” in the area? - Russell to make parliamentary statement on rural schools today
newsroom – could you not maybe confine your hair-trigger anti-SNP rants to the threads where they are at least vaguely relevant? The schools issue was always largely and commendably non-party-political and for you to suddenly take a hissy fit against one of ARSN’s most committed campaigners and member of the Rural Education Commission, for absolutely no apparent reason, is not only bizarre and irrational but, in your own words, pretty personal and vicious. - Russell to make parliamentary statement on rural schools today
The peer-group argument really only comes into play in the tiniest schools. People who talk about ‘classes of 1 or 2′ are perhaps not familiar with the way that small schools work – such a situation would only occur in a school with 1 or 2 pupils in total.In the more typical situation the kids of all ages are taught together in one or two groups. Obviously they each work at their own level, and teaching staff need to develop specific methods – which they seem to do very successfully. The kids benefit from working with older & younger peers which is in any case a key principle of the Curriculum for Excellence.
I don’t know the current situation at Southend, but I doubt it is down to 1 or 2 pupils.
- Russell to make parliamentary statement on rural schools today
“…there was eventually agreement that rural authorities are compensated for the challenges of rurality.”Spot on – as we clearly showed was the case in Argyll.
This is one of the reasons why the reasonable-sounding but false assumption that closing rural schools saves lots of money is nonsense. The other key reason is the sky-high and increasing cost of transporting children from one community to another and back every day of the school year.
These factors were always clearly there in the evidence right from the start, as demonstrated time & again by SRSN who must surely now feel thoroughly vindicated.
- Cybernat response shaming as Chris Hoy’s rationality highlights a genuine independence issue
Newsroom – your stories recently appear to be spinning in ever-decreasing circles around a black hole of anti-nationalist sentiment.Another desperate slow-news piece following close on the heels of ‘sh*tgate’.
For goodness sake, get out in the sun for a bit!
powered by SEO Super Comments
Notwithstanding the above ‘news’ article, it can not be denied there were many against the proposals for a marina in the iconic site between the piers for well documented reasons, some of which featured on here several times. Tha is a fact similarly there are many for the dvelpoment in that location.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Call me cynical, but I would not be surprised if all the comments were lost.
There are a lot of mysteries surrounding this application.
~ Why was it necessary to scrap all comments on the previous (virtually identical) application?
~ Why were previous commenters informed by letter rather than e-mail?
~ Why did it (in my case anyway) take two weeks from the time the letter was dated to it being delivered, so that it arrievd towards the end of the 28 day consultation period with only a few days left?
~ Is it coincidence that the server collapsed on a Monday morning when staff arrived to find an influx of positive comments on the application?
~ Why at midday Tuesday – the last day for consultation – is it still impossible to comment?
~ There were 117 public comments on this application last time I looked. Will they all be there when/if the site is restored?
~ In view of the server downtime will additional time for consultation be granted?
Given the Council’s previous history of chicanery and manipulation involving any proposals for a marina in Oban, I think this whole matter needs careful looking at.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps the Council’s computer hamster is helping out in the media office just now and is a little overworked?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crazy,
There were 100 submissions made over the weekend. I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of these were in support of the application.
It would be nice to think that this is a random database crash, but the consultation period expires in a few hours and it would be awfully convenient for those on the Council who have set their face intransigently against any marina for so many years to have all this support just disappear.
(There is also every reason to believe that, with the word out, more submissions in support would have been forthcoming yesterday and today, which is why even if the data is recovered the consultation period needs to be extended)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The idea that the planning website would have been ‘doctored’ is not credible, and conspiracy theorists should save their efforts for more credible scenarios.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A database server crash is hardly ‘doctoring’ – I just wonder what caused it, and whether or not the data was backed up.
There have been enough twists and turns in the history of this particular project to provide material for a whole convention of conspiracy theorists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Obviously there are far too many computers logging on from Kazakstan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the database is unavailable then the deadline will have to be extended, otherwise the full 28 days has not been made available for comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quite correct, in order to meet the statutory requirement the deadline will have to be extended.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To be fair, the planning department is usually pretty flexible as regards comment deadlines. In practice they will keep validating comments long after the ‘official’ deadline has expired, though obviously not beyond the point at which the officer’s report is issued. This is usually some time after the deadline, especially in the bigger or more controversial applications.
I don’t know how the statutory requirements apply to website availability. The plans can still be viewed in the usual places, and comments sent in by letter or email.
If comments have been lost by the system, that’s obviously another matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have just been reliably informed that A&BC say they have all comments up to the point where the website went down. They say there were around 120 comments at that point.
There is a notice outlining an alternative way to submit comments on the ‘ search for a planning application’ page thus:
Please note: we are currently experiencing problems with our online planning and building standards system. We hope to have this up and running again as soon as possible. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. If you would like to make a comment on a planning application, please email us at: centralvalidationteam@argyll-bute.gov.uk . If you are looking for more information on a planning application, please call us on 01546 605518
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The site is now back up and appears to still be accepting submissions.
HERE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…and I need to recant what I said at post 7, as the doors have been firmly closed on further comments.
OK, it seems that the council has written to all commentors yesterday to say that the application has been withdrawn (hence the barring of further comments.)
It has been re-submitted with a new reference number and a small technical change. All comments received will now have to be sent in again with the new reference.
PS update – the above is all mince – see post below.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What?
You are joking aren’t you? This is what happened before and everyone was made to send their comments in again. How many people are going to bother sending them in a 3rd time?
As far as I can see the site is still up and running and accepting comments – there are now 150 comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft – no joke, but my (and partly your) mistake – your link above connects to the withdrawn application, not the current one.
Not helped by the council website showing the document date for the withdrawal letters as 25th April, when the letters themselves were dated 5th April…
Apologies!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In fact they still seem to be accepting comments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0