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.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Friday, 23 April 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
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?
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?
Saturday, 10 April 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)