The idea that the planning website would have …

Comment posted Council planning site crashes in run up to deadline on submissions on Oban transit marina by Robert Wakeham.

The idea that the planning website would have been ‘doctored’ is not credible, and conspiracy theorists should save their efforts for more credible scenarios.

Recent comments by Robert Wakeham

  • Emergency closure of A83 at Strone Point this afternoon
    Two ‘thumbsdown’ already – it’s not just the trunk road engineers in denial!
  • Isle of Luing gets consent for Spanish slate to roof its Atlantic Islands Centre
    I wonder what the estimated difference in cost was?
  • Emergency closure of A83 at Strone Point this afternoon
    AA – the stretch of the A83 between Tarbet and Arrochar has been flagged for overnight closures from the beginning of this week, continuing (I think) into next week, with hourly convoy ‘amnesties’ – and there should be a message on the electronic signs on the A82.
    It’s nothing whatsoever to do with the council – it’s one of Holyrood’s trunk roads, and management is delegated to a contractor – BEAR.
    But you’re right in questioning why this stretch is needing resurfaced, and it’s worse than you think – when it was done a few years ago, the opportunity was taken to deep excavate and replace the sub-base on the stretch by the railway station – but without addressing the main problem here, which is that this section is narrower than the rest, and can easily catch out coach & HGV drivers who aren’t familiar with the notion that substandard stretches of a trunk road can be left without the customary ‘road narrows’ warning signs (same problem as on the stretch by the filling station at the other side of Arrochar).
    Successive government road engineers have been in denial about this ever since the A83 from Tarbet to Inveraray was supposedly rebuilt to an 18ft (5.5m) standard width many years ago – and even the historic bridge at Inveraray only got traffic lights after two HGVs operated by a local company collided there.
  • Summer 2014 realised fears about coastguard numbers in new service
    Herakles has been busy recently, and not just with the coal carrier it towed into Scapa Flow – it had previously headed south to the aid of the nuclear waste carrier drifting without power near the Beatrice platform, and more recently (on the very day that the tail end of Gonzalo blew through) heading north to the aid of the steel pipe carrier drifting without power near Fair Isle.
    In both these cases other tugs took the ships in tow, to Invergordon and Lerwick, but there’s surely not much doubt that keeping a rescue tug at Kirkwall was eminently sensible.
  • Will Luing’s Atlantic Islands Centre get consent for Spanish or Slate Isles roofing slate?
    Absolutely right – and it doesn’t matter how much people manage to kid themselves that slate from somewhere else ‘will do’ – it won’t.
    It would be like a miniature Swiss penknife that I once bought as a souvenir in a cafe at the top of a Swiss mountain – on closer examination it turned out to have been made in Taiwan.

powered by SEO Super Comments

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

16 Responses to The idea that the planning website would have …

  1. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.