| Topic: | Isn't it strange that Planning control were happy with his plans. | |
| Posted by: | Victor Mishiku | |
| Date/Time: | 16/03/13 01:04:00 |
| Ms Anna Lang wrote in the initial posting on the Forum: "...Secondly, Isn't it strange that Planning control were happy with his plans." The way that the Planning Department dealt with this case was very unsatisfactory. Initially, when the Application was notified to a number of neighbours in the New Year, residents examined the Plans via the Council's Website or in my case, I called at Planning Reception at Perceval House and requested A3 versions as the A4 downloads were near illegible in parts. One of the immediate neighbours wrote to the case officer, Ms Fiona Abrahamsen, requesting a site visit to which Ms Abrahamasen kindly agreed. On her visit to No.41 next door, Ms Abrahamsen was able to view (despite the falling snow) from the patio and rear garden, upper windows, etc. Ms Abrahamsen also listened to several neighbours' concerns (we had asked if a few other neighbours could attend). So far, so good. Objection letters went in and Mr Peter Causer, Planning Consultant wrote in a professional letter on behalf of several of the closest neighbours in Castlebar Road, Carlton Road and Longfield Road. During the third week of February 2013, a fresh notice arrived from the Planning Department stating that revised application Plans had been received and gave only 14 days in which to comment. The notice did not really explain what the changes were and the Plans are quite complicated for laypersons to figure out in any event. The 14 days was to expire on close of business Tuesday 5th March 2013. However, an extraordinary thing happened. A third notice was sent out informing residents that the case was going before the Planning Committee on Wednesday 13th March. It is well-known that the case officer's report to Committee has to be written up about 2 weeks before the night of the Committee. The published Agenda by law has to be available for 5 clear days (not including weekends or the day of the Committee Meeting). The Agendas were circulated to Councillors and published on the Web in the early afternoon of 5th March - but this was the last day promised in the consultation notice! Residents could have walked in to Perceval House just before 5pm (closing time) on 5th March with 50 letters of objection. In fact, Mr Causer sent a new 8-page letter to the Planning Department on 4th March, but of course, that was not seen by Ms Abrahamsen BEFORE she had passed her completed report to be assembled and printed for inclusion in the Agenda. This means because of the unseemly haste, a very important letter was not looked at. Back in 1990, Cllr. Norman Pointing (Chairman of the Town Planning Committee) had instructed the Planning Department to prepare "balanced" reports for the Committee taking into account not only what the developers say but also having regard to policies of the Council and Government, comments from various internal departments and of course, from neighbours and amenity groups, etc. But in the No.43 case, this was not really possible as the Planning Department jumped the gun and did not allow even the 14 days to run. In fact, 2 days were lost in the post, then the 14 days were cut short by at least 5 days. With the weekend, residents effectively had 5 working days in which to try to respond to the revised application Plans. Both myself and Ward Councillor Anthony Young requested the Planning Department to allow the full consultation time to run - neither of us received any response to say yes or no and the Agenda was duly published on 5th March (the last day for responses to be lodged) therefore making it iompossible for those responses to be referred to in the report. This is "sharp practice" and was outlawed in 1990, but, as you can see, those in control of planning in the Council have forgotten all the principles laid down by Cllr. Pointing. Actions like this make people wonder about the integrity of the planning system? By coincidence, just in the last few days, there have been several stories of blatant planning abuses in the UK. Since our most recent objections went in following the publication of the inadequate and absurd report, we have discovered that Ms Abrahamsen has resigned from the Council, so we have no idea what part of the report was really hers or whether others are involved, who hitherto did not know about the case and who had never visited the neighbnourhood to view from various vantage points. As various councillors from all three political parties commented, the report to Committee was very poorly written (by whom, we don't know now?). It was said to be "absurd" "insulting" "in defiance of reality" "not to be trusted" as councillors tore it to pieces. The planners' total failure to give weight to the heritage of the neighbourhood, the cohesive character of the similar Victorian houses as viewed from Longfield Walk (which is akin to a public open space) and the detrimental effect on the neighbouring house was remarkable. The Application was rightly thrown out. Two further Applications for garden development were also rejected by the Committee immediately after the No.43 case. Both had, of course, been fully recommended for "Grant" by the planners. I recall in the 1980's, we defeated 10 backgarden or other unneighbourlydevelopment Applications, all of which the planners had fully recommended for "Grant". Then, the planners were told to clean up their act. I think that the time has come again. Victor Mishiku (The Covenant Movement) 16/3/13 vmfree@madasafish.com |