Merry Christmas

More Support from Politicians

A somewhat belated post, this.  Despite the "moving target" that seems to be a feature of this application, we have now received a further letter of support from Bill Cash MP.  This makes an impressive array of political support which now includes Stafford Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield who has had the planning application called-in, our three Parish Councillors as well as the entire Parish Council.

Who Stole the Roof?

Strange goings on today, folks.  It seems that workmen have been along to the pub and removed some of the roof tiles.  Why would they do that?  If we had any money we would offer a prize for the best suggestion but have a go anyway.  Here are a few possibilities to get you started:

1.  To encourage the bats to leave their roosts so that Staffs Wildlife Trust won't have anything to object to
2.  To ventilate the lounge and snug which by now must have become very stale and musty
3.  To allow the wind and rain to get inside thus damaging the interior beyond economic repair which would make the pub unsaleable and start the "decline and decay" threatened in the design statement.
4.  To provide an emergency escape route for Santa when he visits on Thursday in case he is unable to find anyone inside who has been good enough during the year to deserve presents.

Take your pick, folks, the choice is yours!

Bats in the Belfry (reprise)

Strange goings on here.  Avid readers of the Blog may remember that Staffordshire Wildlife Trust placed a holding objection on the original application (for the flats) on the grounds that there might have been protected species and habitats on the site.

Well, it seems that no one in the Planning Department told them about the new proposal hence the absence of any comments from them on the Planning portal.  Fortunately some well meaning citizen contacted them recently and put them in the picture.  They have now sent in another holding objection on the same grounds as before.  We are just left wondering who could possibly have tipped them off ?

And Another Thing

After Thursday's Parish Council meeting, it was pointed out to us by one of the Fulford Ward Councillors that the planning application does not make any allowance for the social needs of anybody short sighted enough to purchase one of the proposed houses.  Where, for instance, are children going to play? 

Five-bedroomed houses indicates that the target market will be families.  Families have children.  Children need to socialise.  The proposals make no allowance for this.  As shown on the plans, the gardens are tiny or non-existent.  There is not enough room to accommodate playing areas.  Kids being kids, we are just fearful of where they might end up. 

That's One Small Step

Well done to those brave souls who ventured out this damp Thursday evening to attend the Fulford Parish Council meeting.  Councillors seemed well impressed with the turnout which they recognised showed the depth of feeling there is within the community against the proposals.

Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield was also present to announce that he had called-in the application as was our other Borough Councillor Peter Roycroft who sits on the Planning Committee and noted the objections we raised.

When it came to it, the vote it was unanimous.  All were opposed to the application with no absentions.

A terrific effort from the whole community which was well rewarded.

A Revelation

If you saw the story in tonight's edition of The Sentinel about the opposition to the planning application, you may well have picked up on what we think is a bit of a give away by developer Phil Taylor (the owners' agent) who is quoted as saying that the original application (for flats) was, in fact, intended for social housing.  In case you missed that here it is again.  The original application was intended for social housing! 

Now then, there were those who may have suspected that was the intention all along but nowhere in any of the documents associated with that planning application did it say anything about social housing.  The design statement did not mention it.  Our councillors were not informed of it.  The Borough Council did not tell us about it.  Probably because they didn't know either.

All of this leaves us wondering what they are not telling us about the latest application.

A Light Comes On

We regret to announce that we missed a trick regarding the revised submission.  Having gone through the various plans and responses again, all has now become abundantly clear! 

The new plans are based on the responses not just of the aborculturist but also the Highways Authority who initially objected on the grounds of traffic queueing to enter and exit the properties (amongst other things).

The response from the owners has been to increase the number of parking spaces per property to three in addition to the integral garage as well as making small changes to accommodate the retained trees.

This is not easy to tell from the plans posted on the Staffordbc website.  We've just been up to see a copy of the full scale versions held in the Parish office.  They haven't been provided with any more explanation than we have but at least their versions are easier to read.

As we pointed out in an earlier post, this means four vehicles per house (and let's not forget that that could include vans) making 32 vehicles as a minimum.  We don't know what the folks in Sunningdale View think about this but it scares us witless.