It is not a lack of poles which would prevent such things.
Lamppost cable. What are they for?
- Thread starter dishman
- Start date
Unlike, telegraph poles that are permitted development, the Eruv poles would require full planning permission; the local residents would be informed in the same manner that they would be for any other works.
As Bernard says above, they may not serve a 'Real' purpose for many of us, but they certainly do to some.
The works would also be costly in terms of money, and time spent on legal matters etc. - things that anyone would be reticent to spend, if there were no 'real' purpose.
That's what I just wrote - and, as I said, the extent of "local residents" would presumably be much greater in this case than in the normal/usual situation of a planning application relating to a single building - that 'extent' quite probably extending to the entire local community.
However, the OP is presumably one of those members of the local community,yet clearly was not informed of the planning application (or invited to comment/object) by the LA.
Kind Regards, John
That presumably depends on one's interpretation of "affect". I'm sure there are many members of the population who would be aesthetically happier without their environment being 'littered with poles' (or wind turbines, or whatever)
As I wrote, I cannot recall any previous instances of things being done for the benefit of one religious (or other 'minority' group) which 'impact' to anything like this extent on the population as a whole.
Yes, we know that's the reason for these poles ... but see above.
The town and country planning order 2015, only requires the "adjoining owner or occupier", to be directly served a notice (although my council extends this to a certain radius) - even though there are many poles, each one may be treated individually, in terms of informing 'adjoining owners".
There would also be notices posted near to the proposed poles location and through local newspapers.
A local resident just driving through, would not necessarily know of the planning proposal - although these schemes have been attracting publicity in the local press (as in Bernards link), outside of the standard planning notices.
Surely that is two separate issues?
Racism is about race.
Prayer I think is about religion.
The wo are not necessarily linked are they?
One is not dependant upon the other, different races have different religions to a large extent and different religions (including non) contain differing races.
Whilst some majorities might exist in some of those they are, to a large extent, also mixed.
They are not the same thing.
You might also find that some are of mixed race and some of mixed religion too.
Unless, of course, you are being racist (or "religiousis" if that is actually a word!) .
Hmmm!
By pure co-incidence,this morning I stumbled across a bit of a TV report about a passionate campaign by the residents of some town in Yorkshire in relation to the plethora of 'telegraph poles' for broadband which are appearing in, and "devastating the natural beauty of" their town.
As one might expect, both their LA and central government have told them that there is nothing they can do about this since, as RandomGrinch wrote, 'telegraph poles' are classified as 'permitted development' and therefore do not need planning permission. However, the campaign and petition being created by these people apparently seeks to get legislative change, such that such poles are no longer 'permitted development' so that residents would at least have an opportunity to comment/complain about planning applications.
Government has apparently expressed the view that, whilst they encourage the spread of good broadband, routing it overhead in a manner which requires new poles should be 'the last resort', underground routing or use of existing utility poles being more preferable - although, as above, they cannot currently enforce that view.
One assumes that these people will achieve nothing, but their existence and views suggest that bernard's "doubts" may not be fully justified
.Permitted developement doesnt simply mean poles can be erected willy nilly by any communications company wherever they want.By pure co-incidence,this morning I stumbled across a bit of a TV report about a passionate campaign by the residents of some town in Yorkshire in relation to the plethora of 'telegraph poles' for broadband which are appearing in, and "devastating the natural beauty of" their town.
As one might expect, both their LA and central government have told them that there is nothing they can do about this since, as RandomGrinch wrote, 'telegraph poles' are classified as 'permitted development' and therefore do not need planning permission. However, the campaign and petition being created by these people apparently seeks to get legislative change, such that such poles are no longer 'permitted development' so that residents would at least have an opportunity to comment/complain about planning applications.
Government has apparently expressed the view that, whilst they encourage the spread of good broadband, routing it overhead in a manner which requires new poles should be 'the last resort', underground routing or use of existing utility poles being more preferable - although, as above, they cannot currently enforce that view.
One assumes that these people will achieve nothing, but their existence and views suggest that bernard's "doubts" may not be fully justified
For a start they have to get permission from the land owner and they still have to adibe by planning laws and building regs.
For example our road has a strict building line rule, nothing is permitted to be erected ahead of it without planning permission, the deeds state wording to the effect of between the building lines of opposing properties. A number of years ago we had single yellow lines added and several poles bearing the yellow signs showing the rules.
Some of our residents challenged the changes and got councillors involved. Highways applied for retrostective planning permission, permission was granted for the lines and signs (some of which are on lampstandards) but not for the poles and they were served with a 28 day removal notice which was ignored. However several months later I saw them on the scrap metal truck, complete with contrete plug and yellow sign. Tecnically some portions of the road have no restrictions due to lack of signage accompanying the (now become) illegal yellow lines.
Our road is a horseshoe off a main road, the (edit main road properties) all have FTTH available, our 'full fibre' is only to the cab over existing final copper to the house because they can't use poles
Last edited:
Yes, realise that.
Indeed so, but the point I've been making is that, if it's not 'permitted development', and therefore needs planning permission, then it's more likely that the proposed work will come to the attention of 'interested parties', and also a mechanism whereby they can 'have their say' about the proposed work.
And to put a mockers on that; a neighbour applied for planning permission to rebuild a bungalow to a house, all properly publicised with planning notices on lamp standards and letters to something like a dozen neighbours, the application and approval specifically listed the large double garage as being untouched.
Months later a second application was made to expand the garage to 9m deep to accomotate his limousine business and add a second floor as office space, a very prominent notice was posted on a lampstandard on the final day to make objections, chats with neighbours raised a few eyebrows about the short time scale. I hand delivered my objections to council office reception on the Friday and requested a receipt. It didn't get to PO until 3 days later due to weekend, a conversation followed via email during which they claimed I missed the deadline and stated the notice had been posted the correct number of days previous by the CPO. Dashcams came in handy, a number of neighbours were able to demonstrate the notice had not been there earlier (and the white string certainly hadn't been ther for several weeks in the heavy rain we'd had). We didn't get to the bottom of when the notice was posted but council accepted the issue and started the process again. We were also able to show the 'no business' clause in the deeds. His garage was restricted to 6m deep and single story.
We accept the notice was posted (CPO's cameraphone picture) but suspect the house holder removed it until the last day, if it hadn't gone back there would have been little chance of any objections.
Had something similar not far from me. The town was getting fiber via one of the non-BT outfits. For whatever reason, they couldn't use existing infrastructure so wanted to put a pole up. The residents on the "nice street of detatched houses" objected - so missed out on fiber.Our road is a horseshoe off a main road, the (edit main road properties) all have FTTH available, our 'full fibre' is only to the cab over existing final copper to the house because they can't use poles
That makes sense... but every other street in the area is being fed underground. The story is there are a high number of elderly residents (twas very true 30 years ago when we moved here but very much younger now) and not expecting a significant take up of full fibre.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Similar threads
