The Christmas Post

What did you get in the Christmas Post today?  For us it was a few more Christmas cards as might be expected at this time of year, a somewhat belated communication from Bill Cash and a timely missive from Stafford Borough Council about the forthcoming Parish and Borough Council Elections in May 2011.

Which of our local politicians do you think will be re-elected?  Of course, predictions are always tricky.  And we don't know who'll be standing yet.  But one thing is for sure.  The Blog will always be here to remind you of the events of the past week.  It might be that we take a different form.  But we aren't going away just yet.

Win Some, Lose Some

The Planning Committee has spoken and although the result is not to our liking, we are more particularly concerned with the way the whole thing has been managed.

We spoke for 3 minutes quoting extensively from national planning guidance (PPS) indicating how the application did not comply.  These points were completely ignored by the Committee members who appeared to have made up their minds in advance.

Worse, we had been instructed to limit our points to planning issues only and not mention anything to do with the view that the owners had run the business down deliberately to develop the site.  And yet the first councillor to speak expressed sympathy with the owners because residents had not used the pub suggesting that we had brought the situation upon ourselves.

He did not explain how we might have done that given that the pub was often closed after the applicants took over.

Disappointingly one of our own Borough Councillors, Andrew Harp, spoke in favour of the application.  As he was a member of the planning committee we had not been allowed to discuss any aspect of the application with him.  Worryingly, he had let it be known when the consultation exercise started that he thought the application would go through this time.  One can only wonder what his reasons were and why he was able to express such a view when the consultation exercise had barely started.

Several councillors also took the view that little else can be done with the site and that none of the letters of objection had come up with an alternative.  This is untrue but more to the point, no one has asked the residents what they want.  A meeting was suggested between residents and applicants (12 months ago) but this was declined by the owners.

 Moreover, the Planning Dept. instructions are quite clear about the nature of the consultation exercise: it is for residents to make objections based on planning issues.  To the best of our knowledge, there is no official mechanism for making counter proposals.  Residents have been making alternative suggestions on their own initiative for some time including via the local press and directly to local councillors.

The most appalling aspect must be the fact that the committee did a complete turn around from its position in May when the vast majority were against the proposal to a situation where the vast majority were in favour of essentially the same application.  How does that happen?  How do you go from a position where you are totally against something to one where you are totally in favour?

   

In case you are interested, the one member who voted against the application was our own Peter Roycroft.  Well done Councillor!

We're not sure that it is the end of the game yet and are currently exploring any other avenues there might be.

Meeting Venue

Fed up with being pushed around by people muscling in on your community?
Want to have some say in what happens in your local area?
Incensed at a local authority that doesn't take any notice of your views?

Then get to the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday, 15th December and support our objection to these outrageous plans.  Please note that the meeting will NOT be held at the Borough Council offices.  The venue is as follows:

County Buildings
Martin Street
Stafford

Starting time is 6.30pm

 Here's a map.  "A" marks the spot!  Click the link below the map for a larger view.


View Larger Map

Application Goes to Planning Committee

It's official.  The planning application goes before the Planning Committee on Wednesday, 15th December.  Let's do our utmost to get this most unwelcome proposal thrown out.  We've done it before, we can do it again.  Once last push folks!  If you haven't written in to object, there is still time but you'd better be quick. 

And don't forget the importance of a personal appearance.  The more residents who turn up on the night to demonstrate the fierce opposition there is to this and other plans, the more notice the Committee is likely to take of our protest.

We'll publish further details nearer the time.  For now, put a note in your diary:

Wednesday, 15th December.

Write In!

We now have a copy of the new plan but are still struggling to work out what's new about it.  We are reliably informed, however, that the design features an amendment to the turning circle for vehicles.  One thing for sure is that there is still the same number of houses and still the same unsightly mass of concrete. 

If you are one of the many people having difficulties with the SBC website, we suggest that you simply write in to them voicing your concerns and objecting to the proposal.  The address is:

Planning and Regeneration

Stafford Borough Council

Civic Centre

Riverside

Stafford

ST16 3AQ

Reference: 10/14268/ FUL

And of course, even if you have seen the plans write in anyway.  There is still time!

Still In The Dark?

The Borough Biodiversity Officer has now commented on the application and seems to find no problem with it apart from the absence of a suitable fence between the site and the badger setts.  However, his remarks refer to a survey submitted by the applicants of which we can find no trace on the SBC website.  Unless, of course, it is a reference to the survey we mentioned in the previous post which accompanied the application in August.  Either that or there is something is amiss with the SBC website.  We'll let you know.

There is also a new "plan" on the website.  It is actually a drawing of the proposed development but there is nothing to explain  what it is or in what way it differs from the previous version.  Déjà vu anyone?  This is par for the course.  SBC has never provided any online information about new submissions or why they have been submitted. 

Our guess is that it is the applicants' response to the Biodiversity Officer's comments about fencing.  Unfortunately, we can't tell for sure because the zoom facility on the document web page doesn't work nor does the PDF download facility.  The result is that you can't view the drawing in sufficient detail.  What with this and other problems experienced by contributors to the Blog and residents alike, we think a note to our Borough Councillor is called for.  You might wish to do the same.

Bats in the Belfry (Reprise [version 2.0])

We've been here before.  You may have noticed the Biodiversity Officer's comments on the SBC website pointing out that there is inadequate ecological information with the new application particularly with regard to bats and badgers. 

Given there were issues with the last application regarding the very same creatures, we are surprised that the applicants did not learn from this earlier experience and either provide the required information or submit a design that met everyone's requirements.  Bats, badgers and residents alike.

There is a not-so-old saying: if you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got.

More Support from Bill Cash MP

Member of Parliament Bill Cash has written to assure residents of his continued support in our opposition to the planning application.  He has written to Stafford Borough Council on our behalf to voice his concerns.

Planning Application Called-in

The public consultation period has now finished.  Past experience shows, however, that late submissions are sometimes accepted.  If you haven't got your objection letter in yet, there may still be time.

Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield has called-in the application.  That means that, whatever the outcome of the Planning  Department's deliberations, it has to go before the Planning Committee.

More when we get it.

Parish Council Opposes New Builds!

Once again Fulford Parish Council has voted to oppose the proposed development on the pub site.  A number of villagers turned out to make Councillors aware that the new houses are not wanted by the residents of Rough Close, a view endorsed by County Councillor Ian Parry who also attended.

Even though most residents remain opposed to the plans, we need to make the point forcefully by sending in letters of objection to Stafford Borough Council. If you haven't written in already, get those letters off!!

Parish Council Meeting

A full Parish Council meeting is to be held on Thursday, 9th September at the Village Hall in Grange Road, Meir Heath.  The latest planning application will be on the agenda.  There has always been a good turnout of Rough Close residents at past meetings.  Be there if you can make it.  The meeting starts at 7.15pm.

The Houses That Jack Built

If you've tried to download a copy of the plans from the SBC website you may have  been disappointed.  We were online for ages and weren't able to get a sight of them.  However, one of the kindly women in the Planning Dept. has sent us a copy.  How's that for community relations?

As you know, we aren't allowed to use anything from the SBC website on the Blog but if you want a copy click on the link on the right-hand side to email us and we'll send you a copy.

To be going on with, try this one.  There are seven properties altogether, five running along the rear embankment and two at the front facing towards Stone Road at an angle.  The proposal is for 5x5 bedroomed houses and 2x3-bedroomed houses.  Seven properties altogether.  More concrete.  More cars. More traffic.

Given the comments made at the Planning Committee meeting in May, we had thought that the owners would come back with a scheme for a reduced number of properties but no.  They seem to have completely ignored the views of the Parish Council, County Councillor, Member of Parliament and, oh yes, us, the local residents.  Take a look for yourselves.  We've updated the link on the right-hand side of the web page.

We think there is very little difference between this application and the last one in terms of the mass of new concrete that will be introduced, the impact on the area and the squeezing of a quart into a pint pot.  What do you think?

Here We Go Again

And we're off!  The owners have submitted a new application, ref 10/14268/FUL.  We are currently perusing the info at the moment.  What we can tell you is that the intention is to build 7 houses of varying sizes.  At first glance, we can't see how this differs very much from the last application but we have yet to review all the documentation.

If you intend to look up the application on the SBC website, be aware that they have introduced changes to the software and it doesn't work in quite the same way as it did.

Watch this space for more info.

It's All Gone (Very) Quite Over There

No sign of any activity on the pub site at the moment.  All quiet on the Western front, you might say.  Not so much as the flap of a bat's wing or the croak of a great crested newt, in fact. 

There again, maybe this is just the lull before the storm.  The original planning application was submitted around this time last year so maybe they are just waiting for everyone to be on hols again before sneaking in another!

There was a construction lorry over on the car park this week which had us worried for a moment or two.  Further investigation revealed, however, that it had simply broken down.  Phew!

Or maybe the owners are now carrying out their threat about the pub entering a period of decay and decline...


Anyway, be vigilant.

Many Hands Make Light Work

Activity continues unabashed at the George & Dragon with all manner of comings and goings this week.   The Blog has learned that, on Tuesday, there were no less than eighteen people in attendance, including the owners, trying to take photographs of various aspects of the site.  No doubt this is a prelude to another application.

As we said previously, be vigilant.

Here We Go Again?

Residents of Stone Road may have noticed surveyors at work on the pub site this morning.  It seems that the owners are having work carried out to survey road access and visibility from the entrance to the pub up and down Stone Road.  And of course, earlier this week we noticed various comings and goings and the sight of smoke coming from one of the chimneys.

Is this the start of another planning application?  Only time will tell!

Mind you, this does strike us as being rather odd.  Presumably the owners had this kind of survey undertaken prior to submitting the original application so why another one?  Makes you wonder ...

Be vigilant.

Smoke

Strange goings on at the moment, folks.  There is smoke and a smell of burning coming from one of the chimneys at the front of the pub.  There is a couple of cars parked outside, presumably the instigators of what ever is  going on inside.  What a way to spend a Bank Holiday.

Pause for Thought

Now that the euphoria and celebrations have died down a bit it's worth considering what happens next.  In fact, one or two contributors have already started to do that (click on the links to see comments in earlier posts).  We can only speculate about what happens now.  One thing for sure is that it cannot be the end of the matter.  We did think of using this post to explore the various options but would hate to give anyone ideas they hadn't already thought of, if you see what we mean.

Rest assured, we'll keep you posted about any developments that come our way.

Some More News

According to the latest posting on the SBC planning portal, the application was refused on the following grounds:

• Impact on street scene
• Breach of space about dwellings guidance
• Design of development

Good, eh?  More news when we get it.

We've Won!!!!!

News is still trickling through but are delighted to tell you that the planning application has just been rejected by the SBC planning committee.  It seems that common sense has finally prevailed with most committee members voting against the application.  Those that didn't, abstained.

Unfortunately, we were not able to be there because of a long-standing business commitment out of the area.  We have just heard the news from Friends of the Blog who are still in the committee room and celebrating their well earned and deserved success with other residents and politicians who united to oppose these terrible plans.

More news when we get it but for now, well done residents of Rough Close for going the extra mile!

It's On

We learned earlier this week that the planning application is be heard by the Borough Planning Committee next Wednesday 19th May.  It is disappointing to note that the Planning Department has recommended that the application be allowed.

Basically, in their report they disagree with the thrust of our objections but it seems to us that this is a material disagreement about the facts eg. we think the development is out of keeping with the local area and its character.  They think it isn't.  Staffordshire Wildlife Trust thinks the owners' survey was inadequate given that it was carried out during dormant periods for bats and nesting birds.  SBC thinks that it was.

And so it goes on.  There is clearly a difference of opinion when it comes to the facts.  Interestingly, the Government's Planning Policy Statement, PPS1, states that local authorities should involve communities in all development proposals.  We wonder why SBC has not taken any notice of this especially when we have differing views.  Why have they not bothered to engage the community in dialogue over the issue when they have clearly been recommended to do so? 

Looking at it another way, they are completely ignoring the overwhelming body of local opinion in favour of people who don't live in the area and have simply purchased a property with a view to redeveloping it to make a quick profit.

Residents get a paltry three minutes to present a case to the Planning Committee.  We are currently preparing our statement.  Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield is supporting us and gets to speak for five minutes.  The slightly better news is that anyone can attend and we would urge everyone who can make it to turn up and demonstrate the continued strength of feeling against the proposals.  The arrangements are:

Time: 6.30pm
Venue:  The Craddock Room (1st Floor), Civic Centre, Riverside, Stafford

Here's a link to a map showing the location:   Stafford Borough Council Offices

Bill on a Flying Visit

Surprise of all surprises today when no lesser a person than Bill Cash came knocking on our door.  He called in to assure the residents of Rough Close of his continued support for our opposition to the planning proposals.

We had been hoping to arrange a meeting with a group of locals but unfortunately Bill couldn't fit it into his schedule.  Something to do with next Thursday ...

No matter.  It's the support that counts.  He is strongly opposed to situations like the one in which we find ourselves where owners demolish pubs of long standing to develop houses for their own financial gain and to the detriment of the local community.  He even talked about the possibilities of introducing legal aid for people affected in this way.  A bit late for us, though.

Anyway, keep those letters rolling in to SBC.

Now is the Time ...

Well, it looks like the owners are responding to our objections by getting their mates to send in letters in favour of the planning proposals!!  Just one liners stating that they are in favour.  Nothing more than that and nothing approaching a reasoned argument.  Whether these empty letters will cut any ice with the planning committee remains to be seen.  And of course, none of them is from Rough Close let alone the area near to the pub.  There again, will the planning committee take any notice of that?

Our advice, therefore, is to continue writing in, even though the deadline has passed.

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.

Keep on Writing

Some news.  We still haven't heard from the BC in answer to our queries but what we can report is that any letters sent in so far will still count.  We got this from Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield.

However, it looks like the owners are responding with tactics of their own and are getting their pals to write in approving the revisions.  We would urge all those objecting to the plans write in and make it very plain to the planning department that the residents of Rough Close continue to oppose these proposals vehemently.

More when we get it.

The Waiting Game

It should come as no surprise that we have not received a reply to the set of queries we emailed to Stafford BC last week-end given their track record so far.  It seems to be par for the course.  We chased them up this morning and again this afternoon by telephone but we are still none the wiser as to the implications of this amendment.  We have also contacted our three Borough Councillors.

Keep watching this space folks!

By the way, did you get your Council Tax bill recently?  So did we.  Do you think we get good value for money?

Another "Revision"

This will have to be a quickly scrambled post as there are more plans to review!  Yes folks, the owners have submitted yet more revisions.

The new plans allow for seven two-storey four-bedroomed houses seemingly with fewer cars.  At first sight, there is still a lot of concrete and we remain worried about the increase in traffic that will arise.

We don't know yet whether there will be a completely fresh consultation exercise or a continuation of the previous one.  No doubt we'll be getting Stafford Borough Council's standard letter about this and no doubt it won't tell us very much.  We'll be sending off our, by now, standard email to find out.

Another thing that has troubled us from the start of the whole sorry saga is that the owners are not required to resubmit a design statement when they change the plans.  All we have to go on is a drawing or two.  As was previously the case, there is no written description of these houses or the surrounding area.  Would you buy a new house simply from looking at a drawing? 

When we know more, we'll let you  know.

Isn't Nature Wonderful?

Following the fracas over the badger incident, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust has now sent in a very comprehensive response to the latest proposals for the pub.  They have once again submitted a holding application based on the following points.

There should be a further survey for bats.  Apparently, the survey commissioned by the owners was  taken when bats would have been hibernating and, it seems, small numbers of bats can be hard to detect.

The survey also reported that no active birds' nests were found.  But of course at that time of year, birds would not have been nesting anyway!


The Trust further recommends that a scoping assessment should be carried out to confirm the presence/ absence of great crested newts.  Triturus cristatus, as it is more formally known, is a protected species and it seems that there may be small ponds in the area where these little creatures might be in residence.

In the event that the application is approved, the following measures should be taken

• Provision of method statements for badgers, bats and nesting birds
• Bird nest boxes/ features should be provided in each house and bat features in at least two
• There should be a detailed landscaping/ planting plan including tree planting

And quite right too.

Surely A Coincidence?

Do you believe in coincidences?  If not, try this one for size.

Regular readers of the Blog will be aware that the owners commissioned a Bat and Badger survey which revealed the existence of several badger setts just beyond the boundary of the pub site. 

Earlier this week, residents of Leadendale Lane were disturbed by curious goings-on to the rear of the pub.  It seems that, shortly after 6am, a man with a number of Jack Russell dogs and a bloodhound were seen heading for the badger setts just beyond the perimeter of the site.  The activity was witnessed by several residents and reported to Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the police.

Wildlife's crime liasion officer has now visited the site.  The Trust has also informed the consultant who carried out the original survey on behalf of the owners.  We understand that he is planning another visit.  When we know more about what the various parties discover we'll let you know.  In addition, we have brought the issue to the attention of the Borough Council's Biodiversity Officer and presently await his reply.

A coincidence?  Badgers discovered living near to the proposed development works and now the possibility of them being hunted?  You be the judge.

A Miscellany

A quite literally sobering thought came to us this week as we witnessed the owners carting off yet another load of equipment from the pub bound for whatever destination.  The place appears to have been stripped of everything that made it a pub:  the cellar fittings, the toys from the children's playground, the kitchen equipment, even the piping.

The owners are clearly intent in making sure the George & Dragon never functions as a hostelry again.  Quite whether their actions work in their favour remains to be seen.  What will they do if their planning application doesn't succeed?  Do they have the funds to service any loans or mortgages they took out to purchase the pub in the first place?  If they leave it "to go into decline and decay" as they suggest in their planning application, how will this enhance their standing with their bankers and/ or sponsors, not to mention the local authorities?  And, more to the point, what will that do to their initial investment? 

Another issue that has got to us over the past few months concerns the historical status of the pub.  It is at least 175 years old.  We have copies of old photographs, census records and entries in trade directories tracing the establishment back to 1834 at which time it was already a going concern so the odds are that it is much older.  However, according to the Borough Conservationist, the pub is of no historical interest.  And this is the source of our discomfort.  If it is 175 years old does that not mean, ipso facto, that it is of historical interest?

From our point of view, the historical importance of a pub is a function of its social context as much as anything else.  According to the Borough Council's response to Bill Cash's letter on our behalf the pub is not of historical interest because the Borough Conservationist has ruled that it is not.

However, we are not aware of any surveys, investigations, inquiries or any other form of research undertaken by the aforementioned with regard to the George & Dragon.  There was, it seems, a survey undertaken in the "mid 20th century" which concluded that extensions to the main building rendered the building as being of no historical interest.

It is this survey that the Borough Conservationist cites as her reasons for the pub being historically uninteresting.  We are very concerned that an office financed by council tax payers could make such pronouncements without consulting local residents or undertaking some form of research.  To the best of our knowledge, the Borough Conservationist has not pursued this matter locally nor has she been in touch with residents.

Still, we might have got this wrong.  Has anyone approached you about your views on the historical importance of the George & Dragon to Rough Close?  Has the Borough Conservationist been in touch with about your views as to its impending demise?  If so, please let us know.

But what do you think?  By all means leave a comment to share with us but better still, protest to your Borough Councillor or even to the Chief Executive of Stafford Borough Council.


And are we giving in?  Not a chance.

A Thought

As you may know, there are many people in Rough Close who are actively campaigning against the planning application.  One particularly active resident has come up with a number of ideas for saving the pub from oblivion.

One possibility is to run the pub as a social enterprise, something that might have occurred to many of you.  We think the idea has a lot of potential.  However, it is predicated on the owners being prepared to sell.  And of course, that presents a number of problems not least of which is that they have clearly been stripping the place of its assets for some months. Nevertheless, we think it is a sound idea that could be taken forward and is not too dissimilar from a previous suggestion made by Parish Councillor Joy Bennett.

The way this would work is that residents would purchase a share in the pub and be responsible for its ongoing management.  There are numerous examples around the country of where this has been successfully implemented.

We also hear "on the grapevine" of various people who have expressed an interest in buying the place and running it as either a pub or a restaurant.  So far, no serious contenders seem to have materialised and, of course, as we said earlier, all would depend on the owners being prepared to sell and the extent of the asset stripping.

Anyway, if you have any thoughts on the matter or know of anyone who might be interested in taking such a proposal forward do drop us a line or leave a comment.

How to Win Friends and Influence People

Events of the past week have reminded us of this timeless classic written in the 1930's and still in print today.  Described by The Times as the most successful self-help book of all time, it has sold literally millions of copies world-wide.  According to the fly-leaf, amongst the twelve things the book will do for you are:

• Increase your popularity
• Help you to win people to your way of thinking
• Help you  to avoid arguments and keep your human contacts smooth and pleasant

Now then, you may be wondering just what this has got to do with the pub and the planning application.  Well, on Friday, the owners submitted what we believe to be their first comments on the current situation.  Basically, they claim that our local councillors advised them that an application for eight houses rather than flats would be acceptable.  In summary, what the owners say flies pretty much in the face of what we already know of their meeting with councillors in October and attribute statements to them which are less than complementary.  

Not only have the owners succeeded in alienating the residents of Rough Close, they are now trying very hard to do the same with our politicians.  How to Win Friends and Influence People?  Hardly.  More like "hell have no fury ..."

Badgers, Bats and Politics

Well, according to the surveys commissioned by the owners, there are no signs at all of these (potentially) delightful creatures on the site of the George & Dragon.  We haven't read the surveys in full yet although if time permits we shall.   Staffordshire Wildlife Trust has intimated that the surveys might not actually have been that thorough and therefore we assume are not conclusive at this stage.  And of course, there is still the matter of other protected species of flora that have to be taken into consideration.

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.

  

The Letter

If, like us, you have received a letter from Stafford Borough Council dated 2nd February, you may be wondering what the "amendment" is all about and why there is no trace of an "amendment" on the BC Portal.  We have it on the very best authority that the term is used to refer to any  new material received on  the application rather than the usual meaning ie. that something has been altered in some way.

Anyway, the upshot of it is that the amendment consists of two surveys that the owners have commissioned, one into the presence, or not, of bats, the other is a badger survey.

With regard to the bats, their survey says that they found no evidence of the creatures in the pub (mind you we have seen some odd characters hanging around of late).  Likewise with the badgers.  The survey did not detect any setts on the site itself but there are a number within 35 metres. 

Some News at Last

Well, it took its time in coming but we've finally had a response to the comments we raised about the latest revised plans.  We wish we could report that it was worth waiting for but it wasn't.  The key questions about why the revisions have been submitted and their implications have gone unanswered.  In the words of John Holmes "The Council does not attempt to guess why particular information or applications have been submitted, nor does it try to guess what implications neighbours or other interested parties may consider there to be."

Anyway, as we suggested in an earlier post, we believe that the revisions are an attempt to get around the Aborculturist's objections. We are still looking into the matter and will advise as and when.

We have also received a letter from Bill Cash which you be able to see by clicking on the following images.  The letter refers to a reply he got to his own letter to Stafford Borough Council on our behalf.  Most of the reply is also attached.

Still Quiet

Well, we finally got a call from case officer Alan Lynch on Friday morning.  Unfortunately, that was all we got.  He was not able to answer any of the questions we had asked despite having received them two weeks ago.  He added that we will get an answer  but not when. 

Given that the closing date for comments on the latest round of plans is this coming Friday that doesn't give us much time to respond.  However, he did say that anything received after the closing date would be taken into consideration.

We also got a letter from Bill Cash MP in response to his letter to the Chief Executive of Stafford Borough Council.  In short, the letter explains the matter will be resolved by the planning committee.  Worryingly, the Borough Council's position on the traffic issue is that the road is deemed safe because the Highways Authority has raised no objection!

What we can tell you (and have written to the Borough Council about this) is that there have been 73 accidents between the A520/ Hartwell Lane junction and Nicholls Lane during the past 14 years, five of them involving fatalities.  During the same period there have been 14 in the general area of the pub, two of them involving fatalities. 

Not dangerous?  Makes you wonder how some people define dangerous.

The Sound of Silence

Today, you find us perplexed.  A fairly normal state of affairs, some might say.  However, we digress.  The source of our perplexity is the continued silence from Stafford Borough Council about the revised plans and their implications.  The promise, last week, of an answer by the end of the current week, so far has not materialised.

Now we know that the working week does not officially end until 5pm tomorrow but we felt that if we left it until then it would be cutting it mighty fine so we rang up this afternoon to find out what was going on.  The nice sounding lady who answered the phone was very helpful and said she'd get the case officer to phone back between 4pm-5pm.  And of course, he didn't.  So we sent off another email asking what on earth was going on.  To date, that makes three emails and four telephone calls and still we don't have an answer.

A long time ago, we decided that the keys to achieving most things in life were persistence and determination.  Never were two attributes more keenly required!  We'll continue to keep you posted.

Communicating

We have just dug out and are perusing our copy of this best-selling guide to the local dialect.  And why, you might ask, should we do that?

Well, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to get a response to our queries about the latest set of plans.  Despite two emails and several telephone calls our questions go unanswered.  We are not from these parts and we can only conclude that our understanding of the English language is different from that of Stafford hence the current lack of feed-back.  It is, of course, our fault.

In order to redress the communication balance, we have therefore decided to consult the aforementioned tome which has revealed a number of local dialect phrases that might help us to get the required information:

Jip                     A degree of suffering
Werrit               Worry
Breeky sneck!   Five Towns Demolition Ltd.
Set a gate          Start about a task
Pub- crowin      Going from pub to pub
Brock               In need of repair
Packer daft       A case of nonsense
Woss mane?     Would you care to enlarge on what you are saying?

And finally,
Chonnuck-knockin     Turnip stealing (Whatever happened to the vegetables?  Or the roof?)

We apologise for not being able to provide you with anything more meaningful.  On a more serious note, however, the absence of any response at all from Stafford Borough Council gives cause for concern.  We think that, whatever the outcome of this planning application, the Borough Council will need to review how it interacts with its stakeholders in future.

As previously promised, as soon as we get a response to our queries, you will be the first to know.

The Missing Roof - Finis

And this is absolutely, definitely, finally and totally the last word about the missing roof.  We hope.  Hard working sleuths in Rough Close have established just what happened.  It seems that, for reasons best known to themselves, the owners decided to remove the pub's water tank and associated piping.  They chose to take it out via the alpine route ie. by removing some of the tiles thus creating a hole in the roof through which they manhandled the tank and pipes.  Well, you would do it that way, wouldn't you?

Anyway, the tiles are still there piled up on a ledge adjacent to the holes in the roof which are now covered with blue tarpaulins.  The owners informed Stafford Borough Council that the tank and pipes were, in fact, stolen and that they had to carry out work on the roof to make it safe.  Personally, we think this is a much better tale than the one about the gipsies.
  

Plans, Plans and Yet More Plans

First week into the new year and confusion reigns.  At least it does at the Blog.  Two new documents were posted on the Planning Portal yesterday containing what are described as "Revised Plans" and "Superseded Plans".  Quite how these differ from previous versions of the plans and why they have been submitted remains a mystery.

Some of the new documents were received by the Development Control department in November yet have only just been made public.  Whether these are the same as other versions of the plan previously published, bearing the same date, is not clear although why they would be published twice doesn't make sense.  There again, not much does at the  moment!

We await an answer from Development Control supremo John Holmes on these and other points.  Once we have an answer you will be the first to know.

Once again the "moving target" nature of this application gives cause for concern as does the fact that there are so many versions of plans and documents that the Borough Council must be hard pushed keeping track of which is the latest version.  Technically, this is known as Configuration Management, and is a major issue for organisations in terms of keeping track of documents and other assets.  Let's just hope the Borough Council has a good configuration manager.

Winners of the Christmas Competition

We are pleased to announce that the winners of our Christmas competition to come up with the most original explanation for the missing roof tiles are ...  the owners of the pub!

Although they didn't actually write in, the Blog has learned that they have claimed the tiles were taken by gipsies!   We believe that this is far more original than any of our suggestions and have no hesitation in awarding them the prize.

Interestingly, the owners were themselves were actually seen, by Friends of the Blog, supervising the removal of the tiles.  We can only assume, therefore, that the gipsies in question were working in the employ of the owners.  On second thoughts perhaps we ought to reconsider our decision to award them the prize.  Unfortunately, we didn't receive any other entries so maybe we should give it to ourselves.