We think we've got our heads around this one now thanks to feedback from friends of The Blog and one of our Borough Councillors.
Although the proposed amendment to the wording is slight, the implications are potentially far-reaching. Basically, it means that, if approved, the owners could demolish the pub and sell off the site either as a job lot or individual plots without having to spend money on designing the road, street lighting and drainage infrastructure that the planning permission presently requires them to do before any development activity takes place.
What's more (and this is our assumption) with the pub demolished, the land could remain derelict until such time that it is sold off which might take some considerable time. If you think the place looks unsightly now, imagine what it would look like with the pub gone and no one being held responsible for making sure that it looks neat, tidy and in good order. Given what's happened to the site of the former Smithfield pub in Blythe Bridge, this situation could last for quite a while. Years, even.
Our view is that since the owners started all of this, designed the development and produced the plans they should be responsible for discharging all and any of their obligations in accordance with the required standards to the satisfaction of the designated authorities as stated in their planning permission.
If you agree, do make your feelings known by posting an objection on the SBC website or by writing to them. Again, the details are:
Online: www.staffordbc.gov.uk/planning
Post:
Mr A. Lynch
Planning Services
Stafford Borough Council
Civic Centre
Riverside
Stafford
ST16 3AQ
Don't forget to mention the planning application reference, 11/16147/FUL
Friday, 4 November 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for outlining the gravity of the implications of their new application.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that condition 19 should not be adjusted in any way for these owners convenience. As you state John, we all need to make sure that the SBC do the right thing by not allowing these owners to get out of the important responsibilities and safeguards set out on approval of this application last November/December. A year has passed since planning permission was granted! We have seen them trying to get rid of the Tree Preservation Order and now they have come up with this latest maneuver. Lets just hope that our good Councillors are interested enough to stop them making a bad situation even worse than it already is.
At close of play on 11th it looks like we have a good spread of objections supported by Highways,Parish and Borough Councillor Roycroft.
ReplyDeleteI have just scanned who is on the Planning committee and notice that "the G&D Developers friend",the new member for Milwich,Councillor Harp is on it.
So common sense and the democratic voice will likely be as rare as the last time we were so badly "represented" by him then ?
Let's not be too hasty to make any judgements about anything on this one. The number of neighbour responses is more than encouraging and gives SBC a good idea about local feeling. Just how much notice is taken of our views remains to be seen!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Planning Committee, we might not have liked their decision last December but we have to hope that this time around they will take notice of our point of view. We don't really have any other choice in the matter. And, you never know, common sense might just prevail!
From a legal perspective, local residents affected by a planning application don't have very much say in a matter. We can object but have no rights of appeal if things don't go our way.
What we can do is to make our feelings known as best we can and to look to the Planning Committee to judge our case on its merits. I think we've done the former, can we do anything about the latter?
So. Courage! Let's fight our corner while we can! And bring pressure to bear where we are able. Keep on keeping on.
Objection posted on planning site. Lets hope it goes our way this time. Not holding my breath having seen how these things work but am still hopeful Thanks for keeping us informed. Great job.
ReplyDeleteI am confused.....I have had a letter from SBC dated 22/11 asking if I want to comment on the amendment to submitted application. To substitute "Before the proposed development commences" with "Before the proposed development commences but excluding demolition work...."
ReplyDeleteIs this just the same as that which we have recently sent in letters of objection to or is it yet another Davis developer last minute change ?"
I recall from the fight last year that he was constantly amending amendments !
Clarification would be welcome if we have to send in a further objection about this odious mans plans.
We're still trying to find out what the score is on this one. However, it is more than likely the owners are looking for ways of selling the site without having to comply with any existing obligations which require them to spend money.
ReplyDeleteWe've posted a new item about it above and will advise as soon as we know more.