On another point, we learn that one of our Borough Councillors, Peter Roycroft, has expressed the view that at some point, we residents and the owners will have to reach a compromise over the number of properties to be developed on the site. One of the difficulties facing the Planning Committee is that local authorities have targets to meet regarding new housing. And Stafford BC is behind its target.
That said, we don't believe that this gives the Borough Council carte blanche when it comes to approving new developments. The views of the local residents and requirements of the County Plan must be taken into consideration. Most residents don't want any properties at all and, as we all know, nobody has actually asked us our views on the matter. That is, of course, apart from the Borough Council who have been inundated with letters of objection. Parish Councillor Joy Bennett has gone on record as suggesting that the pub be redeveloped as a single property in keeping with the look and feel of the village. We support this view assuming, of course, that it cannot be retained as a pub. Whether this is realistic or not remains to be seen.
Do you have a view about this? If so, leave a comment. It will be totally anonymous if you prefer.
More interesting news from your informative blog for us to peruse.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed unfortunate that one of the 3 Fulford Borough councillors who have collectively been uninspiring in their contribution to the Rough Close communities attempt to engage with the democratic process has given such a craven statement on the necessity for reaching a compromise on the proposed development.He would no doubt get a forceful response to this advice if he got around to actually asking his Rough Close constituents views on the development.
The significant majority of the community views expressed on the SBC planning website are against the development itself,certainly not accepting that "if it were a couple of houses less all is OK" and Mr Roycroft is expressing a view that would be rejected by most of the existing contributors to the objections on the SBC site.
Ms.Bennetts proposals seem much more in agreement with the views expressed at the Parish council meetings and the SBC planning site when she says that the George and Dragon building is what the community wants retaining (preferably as a public house) and the plans should as a minimum incorporate this.
Not for the first time the Borough councillors (certainly Mr.Roycroft) seem to not represent the communities views,not that they have bothered to find out what they are (directly) of course.