At Last - Some Answers!

We've just finished a very long telephone conversation with Alan Lynch, Stafford Borough Council's case officer for the planning application.  Here's what he had to say in response to our questions.

1.  Submission to Planning Committee
Our question was why the whole process was taking so long and why, given the expiry date had been 23rd February, the application had not yet gone to committee.  AL said that the application involved "complex planning issues" such as the digging out of the bank which affected the trees and, as a result, the application was taking longer than usual to process.


2.  The Expiry Date
We then asked why this significant amendment had been allowed beyond the previous expiry date of 23rd February. AL's response was that the Planning Dept. endeavour to make proposals as acceptable as possible with a view to getting them through the process. 

We asked how many amendments could be allowed.  The reply was that there was no limit unless it became clear that the applicants were not taking any notice of their requirements.  We suggested that the whole thing could take a long time.  AL agreed.

We made the point that  the whole process was, in fact, working in favour of the applicants and against residents.  AL's response was to restate that the department's position was "to endeavour" to get the application through.  We suggested that he was agreeing with us but using a different form of words.

3.  Design Statement
Many residents have pointed out that the design statement and plans do not correspond.  The design statement describes a development of 8 x 5-bedroomed houses, the plans show an estate of 7 x 4-bedroomed houses.

We have to say we were shocked by Mr Lynch's response to this point.  He said that this was normal practice and that the applicants would not be expected to resubmit a design statement unless there were a major alteration such as the addition of another access point.  We remain horrified.  How can organisations operate successfully when there are conflicting requirements?  In our experience where there are conflicts or misalignments in statements of requirements there will always be an opportunity for people to exploit them to their advantage.

4.  State of the Building
We brought to Mr Lynch's attention, the fact that the building was entering the state of "decay and decline" so prophetically forecast by the owners in their design statement.  He told us that they were under no obligation to maintain the building but they were required to ensure that it remained in a safe condition.  Whereas this is not something the Planning Dept. would be interested in he did advise us of the appropriate department to contact.

5.  Planning Committee Meeting
Readers may have heard rumours that the application is to be heard at a committee meeting sometime in May.  We asked about this.  Mr Lynch's response was that a date had not been set.  The next meeting is scheduled for 19th May and the agenda for it will be set on 13th May.  Anything you may have heard to the contrary is clearly incorrect.

6.  Previous Letters
Mr Lynch advised that all previous letters relating to this application will be taken into consideration.  He has yet to read them all.  We signed off by wishing him "happy reading".

There you have it folks.  The BC is endeavouring to make sure the application is acceptable in terms of planning requirements.  It is down to us to make sure that they are aware of our objections on planning grounds.