Comment posted on Council planning site crashes in run up to deadline on submissions on Oban transit marina by Webcraft
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)
Webcraft also commented
- In fact they still seem to be accepting comments.
- 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.
- The site is now back up and appears to still be accepting submissions.
- 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
- 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.
Recent comments by Webcraft
- New major financial issue, supposing Scotland voted ‘Yes’ to independence
Mike,You seem to be overlooking the fact that a percentage of current UK defence assets would be inherited by an independent Scotland. From that perspective we already ‘own’ approximately 9% of UK military assets. We would not be starting from nothing.
Denmark, which is of a similar size to Scotland, had a 2012 military budget of £2.6bn.
- New major financial issue, supposing Scotland voted ‘Yes’ to independence
Perhaps things will continue as normal, with the new independent Scottish government dealing with defence the same way the UK government has – breaking one promise after another on personnel, basing and capabilities.Or maybe not?
If the SNP form the first independent Scottish government (by no means a racing certainty) then they are committed to an annual defence and security budget of £2.5bn, an annual increase of more than £500m on recent UK levels of defence spending in Scotland.
- Another untold story: Independence and The UK National Lottery
Not just Webcraft, but also H2O, Fletcher, Morven, Dougie, and other persona I can’t be arsed to rememberEh?
- Another untold story: Independence and The UK National Lottery
No Jamie – what my question shows is that you are unable to support your allegation and so prefer to stoop to personal insults.Shame indeed that the debate has come to this level. I ask you again, where are these YES sites that refuse to publish your comments? Come on Jamie, surely you can give us one URL at least . . .
- Cybernat response shaming as Chris Hoy’s rationality highlights a genuine independence issue
What exactly is the definition of a ‘known cybernat’ , and is it worse or better than being a ‘known unitroll’?.
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