Planning Committee Decision

Here's the text of the Planning Committee's decision regarding the change of wording to condition 19.  We are very concerned that there is no mention of the badger survey which was recommended by SWT and brought to the Committee's attention by us in our presentation.  We are, however, not surprised.  The matter was overlooked (cynics might say conveniently) by the Development Control Department representative when summing up - despite our gesticulations.

Fear not.  SWT are already aware of the situation and we shall be following it up ourselves.

As this is likely to be the last post before Christmas (sorry, no pun intended!), we'd like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

A Result? In a Manner of Speaking

A very brief post (more later) to let you know what happened at tonight's Planning Committee meeting at which the latest amendment was discussed.

The upshot is that the owners cannot demolish the pub until another bat survey has been undertaken at a time when those delightful creatures are likely to be active.  As and when they do knock down the building, the owners will be required to remove all rubble and other mess and erect fencing to prevent illegal use of the site.

Hopefully, this will go some way to alleviating some of the concerns expressed by residents in the various letters sent in to SBC.

We'll post again later (it's been a long evening) when we see the precise wording of the Committee's decision.

Planning Committee Meeting

The latest planning application, 11/16147/FUL, goes before SBC's Planning Committee on Wednesday 14th December 2011 starting at 6.30pm.  We have offered to speak on behalf of the community objecting to the application.  Of course, if anyone else wants to do this they are perfectly entitled to do so in which case contact committeeservices@staffordbc.gov.uk.

As with the previous applications, it is always good to have supporters along.  Early indications are that a number of residents will be attending.  Do feel free to join us.  The more the merrier!  The venue is as follows:

Craddock Room
Civic Suite
Civic Centre
Riverside
Stafford.

We hope to see you there!

By the way, will the author of the comment on the previous post ("Amended Application") please get in touch regarding our request for more information. 

Amended Application

Just to bring you all up to date with the situation, we have been advised that all letters sent in so far will be taken into consideration.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't write in again if you feel strongly enough about it especially given that Highways are no longer objecting to change of wording.  This in itself is a bit worrying as all manner of unsafe practices might now begin to emerge on the site once the pub has gone.

The application has definitely been called in and we are currently preparing a case to take before the Planning Committee.  Let's trust that we have more luck than last time.  Do email us with any points you think are relevant.

New Planning Application: Amendment

We'd been expecting an amendment to the planning application for a week or so and now it has finally come through.  We've now received notification from SBC that the amendment has been changed to read: "... before the proposed development commences but excluding demolition work."

As we suggested in an earlier post, it looks very much like the owners want to knock the pub down to make the site easier to sell but don't want to have to pay for any of the work required to comply with the conditions of the planning permission.  And that's what the amendment seems to be all about.

We are still trying to find out whether or not we will have to write in all over again or whether existing letters still count (we suspect the latter).  Whatever the case, our view remains the same as before.  The owners started all of this and they should finish it by developing the site in accordance with the planning permission they have been granted.

If the pub is demolished, the site may remain undeveloped for some considerable length of time.  Not wishing to worry anyone unduly but here are some of the implications:

• Threat of occupation by travellers
• Impact of an unsightly demolition site on the local area
• Potential health and safety issues

Our advice is to object again even if you have already done so.  We'll let you know as soon as we learn anything more.

Closing date for objections is now 11 December 2011.
Application ref: 11/16147/FUL
Case officer: Alan Lynch
Telephone no. 01785 649533

Here's a copy of the most recent letter from SBC.

More on the New Planning Application

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

New Planning Application

OK, we've now had the opportunity to study the new application in more detail.  Here is the gist of it.

The decision to approve the last application was granted subject to a number of conditions being met one of which required the owners to submit full details of road construction, street lighting and drainage and that these should be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.

The key point is that this should be done BEFORE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES. The owners now want to change the wording so that they don't have to do this until PRIOR TO BUILDING THE FIRST DWELLING.

As with most of the proposals concerning with this project, this application gives us cause for concern.  It means, for example, that the owners could undertake all manner of construction/ deconstruction activities without having acceptable plans in place for road construction, street lighting and drainage.  And who knows how long it would take for them to get around to actually building the first property.  Given their track record so far, it could take some years.

For your convenience, we've attached the relevant documentation:  letter from SBC in case you haven't seen it and a copy of the relevant part of the original decision notice which SBC omitted to enclose with their covering letter.

The section in question is paragraph 19.  They want to change the wording from "Before the proposed development commences" to "Prior to the erection of the first dwelling".

Some good news.  The Parish Council has already discussed the matter and sent in an objection on the grounds that the original wording is the best way of ensuring that the correct work is undertaken.

Closing date for comments is 11th November and you can do it online at www.staffordbc.gov.uk/planning or by letter to:

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

Here We Go One More Time

It had to come and now it has: another planning application.  We have just received notification of it but have not yet checked out the details.  More of that in a later post.  For now, if you want to take a look at it, the application reference is 11/16147/FUL.

View online at the usual site www.staffordbc.gov.uk/ planning but we've had problems with this tonight so you might have to try www.staffordbc.gov.uk and navigate to the planning portal from there.

New Local Plan

Not really a G&D issue, this, but one which might have similar implications for the future.  You may know from the Parish Newsletter about the draft Local Development Framework which is currently out for review.

If you want to find out what they have in store for us, it might be a good idea to take a look at it!  There's some more about it on the Voice of Rough Close website.  We'd sooner restrict The Blog to G&D matters so click here to access relevant web page.

It's Official

We've now had a letter from SBC giving us the official line on the confirmation of the TPO.  Here are some extracts from what they said.

"The trees ... are visually prominent ... and contribute to the overall treescape ... [and] have a high public amenity value."

Other trees " contribute to the treescape in the street scene."

"The trees in the woodland area ... are valuable as a wildlife habitat and will have an increasing amenity value after the development of the site."

So there you have it, folks, and hopefully that's the end of this particular saga but we doubt it's the last we're going to hear about the site and its development.

Some Common Sense At Last

Just a brief post to let you know that the appeal against the TPO  has been turned down.  The TPO stays!  We don't have any more details at the moment but when we do we'll let you know.

More on the TPO

Well, that was summer, we suppose.  We hope you enjoyed what little there was of it!

Anyway, it's back to the grindstone with another update on the TPO situation.  We returned from holiday to find a missive from SBC advising us that they had resolved the ownership issues regarding the trees on the northern boundary of the G&D site and had been in touch with the owners who had confirmed their support for the TPO.

There is to be another meeting of the Public Appeals Committee at which the decision to confirm the TPO or not will be made.  The meeting will be held in the Sheridan Room, Civic Centre, Riverside, Stafford on Wednesday, 14th September at 2pm.  Further written representations may be submitted to Mrs D. Hill at dhill@staffordbc.gov.uk. 

Once again, let's summarise the situation as it now stands.

• The owners have said that they don't want to demolish the trees.
• They have applied to have the TPO lifted because they say it isn't necessary as the trees are protected by the planning permission currently in place. Quite what difficulties this causes them that they should put in so much effort to have it removed, they haven't said.
• The site is up for sale and the agents have stated that SBC may be prepared to extend the planning permission to nine properties.
• We have heard "on the grapevine" that the presence of the TPO is making the sale unattractive to prospective buyers.
• If the planning permission is changed then, we assume, the trees might not be protected if there is no TPO in place
• Whatever the case, the only way to guarantee that the trees are fully protected is to ensure that the TPO remains.
• The Borough Tree Officer has argued in favour of retaining the TPO.

That's the position as we see it.  If you have a different take on it, do drop us a line.   We shall be writing again to SBC to make sure they are fully aware of the situation.  Don't forget the email address for correspondence:  dhill@staffordbc.gov.uk.

Update on the TPO

Apologies to regular readers who have been logging on in search of an update.  Monday's meeting was an odd experience which we've been mulling over and checking out a few facts.  Anyway, here's what happened.

First of all, the owners made it quite clear that they do not want to chop down the trees.  Let's repeat that one just so there's no mistake.  The owners do not want to chop down the trees.  Nor do we.  Neither does the Tree Officer.  Given that nobody wants to lose the trees, what, as one councillor put it, where we all there for?

The reason is this.  The owners believe that a Tree Preservation Order is unnecessary because the trees are protected by planning permission.  Putting it another way, the planning permission is contingent on the trees remaining and therefore a TPO is, according to them, not required.  That's why they have appealed against the order.  This is where it seemed (to us at any rate) somewhat surreal.  What difference will it make if the TPO is not lifted?  If they want the trees to remain, what's the problem with a TPO being in place?

However, we need to remember that the owners are trying to sell the property as a development site with planning permission.  The owners agents are actively promoting the sale using information provided by SBC to the effect that planning permission might be extended to nine properties.  If that happens, and there is no TPO in force, the trees will no longer be protected (our assumption).  However, this point was not explored at any length during the meeting.  The Tree Officer did, however, argue strongly in favour of retaining the order to ensure that the trees were protected in any eventuality.

One point that did emerge was that ownership of some of the trees on the northern boundary of the site is unclear.  After considerable deliberation, the panel decided to postpone their decision until ownership has been established.

So there you have it.  Or not, as the case might be.   The saga is obviously going to go on for some time yet.  As ever, we'll keep you up-to-date as and when we hear anything.

IMPORTANT NEWS

Regular readers of The Blog will be aware that the owners of the pub are now trying to sell it as a development site with planning permission and have placed the sale with an estate agent.

We have now learnt that they are having difficulty in selling the property because, or so they claim, of the tree preservation order which was instigated by the Arborculturist at SBC.  The owners have now appealed against the order and are trying to get it lifted.  The appeal is to be heard on Monday.  If it is allowed, it means they can cut down the trees.

It was bad enough losing the pub, focal point of Rough Close.  Now these people are once again trying to spoil the appearance of our local area by chopping down the trees. 

We understand that members of the public are allowed to write in to object to the appeal and we encourage you to do so.

Send in your objection to the appeal by email to Denise Hill, dhill@staffordbc.gov.uk.  But you'll have to be quick.  The appeal is to be heard on Monday, 18th July.  Your objections will have to be there by first thing Monday morning.

We also understand that members of the public can attend the meeting which is to be held at the Civic Centre, Riverside, Stafford.

News from the Borough Council

We finally got an answer to our query about information the Borough Council is passing on to commercial organisations regarding an extension to the planning permission already granted.  It doesn't tell us very much, however.

Development Control Manager, John Holmes, states that potential applicants must be allowed to speak freely and frankly with officers without being concerned about the details being made known to the public.  As such, SBC contends that the information in question is exempt from disclosure under section 41 of the Act.  We find this a little puzzling since it is the "potential applicants" themselves (Daniel & Hulme) who are making the disclosure known and using it in their advertising material!

Our other point, concerning why SBC is giving out signals that planning permission may be widened in the face of strong opposition from the local community, remains unanswered.

Maybe the time has come to involve our Borough Councillors again ...?  What say you?

Arson In Rough Close

As you might have seen at the Voice of Rough Close, or with your very own eyes, arsonists have been at work in the area.  Sometime during the late afternoon of Thursday, 26th May, person or persons unknown set the pub on fire.  It was no doubt a very conscientious local resident who raised the alarm and the fire brigade were on the scene quickly enough to extinguish the blaze before it could cause any serious damage.

From what we could see, part of what used to be the restaurant area has been burnt but not a lot else.  Certainly none of the building shell has been affected and the fire did not spread to local properties.

No doubt rumours will abound in the days to come as to who set the pub alight and no doubt the owners' names will be mentioned.  However, would anyone wishing to cause serious harm commit arson in the middle of the afternoon with local residents out and about?  We doubt it.

What we do find depressing is the abuse that this grand old pub has suffered over the past two years all of which has been brought about by property speculators (the owners) trying to make a fast buck.  Apart from a few members of the Planning Committee, no one really believes that the owners ever had any intention of running the pub as a going concern.

A sign of the times maybe but what is just as disappointing is that Stafford Borough Council have seemingly ignored the fact that the owners never had sufficient funding to realise the plans approved by the Planning Committee way back in December.  This is clearly evident from the advert on the Daniel Hulme website where the owners are trying to sell the pub as a development site or enter into a joint venture.

Whatever happened to caring about the community, about heritage and about the environment?  Apart from local residents, is anyone really bothered?

All Quiet?

Not much sign of life over at the pub at the minute.  Maybe it's got something to do with the Bank Holiday.  Or the wedding.  Or both.  As previously indicated, we've been in touch with the Planning Dept. at SBC to ask what information they are giving out about potential changes to the planning permission already granted and why they are doing that given the local opposition. 

They refused to tell us!  So we wrote back requesting the same information under the Freedom of Information Act.  That means they have to provide the information or explain why they are unable to do so.  They have 20 working days in which to respond.  As soon as we hear something you'll be the first to know.

Seconds out ...?

Well, we had thought that we had put an end to the Blog posts with the last entry and the emergence of the Voice of Rough Close web site.  That, however, might not be the case.  The owners of the pub have now put it up for sale, not, alas, as a going concern but as a development site with planning permission.

As we point out on the web site, we have no doubt that it is what the owners were planning all along ever since it became clear that they were not going to get the odious flats.   Selling a block of flats to a housing association for social housing is one thing.  Developing expensive houses to sell in a  depressed property market is quite another.  We did wonder whether this was indicative of the owners' lack of business sense or that they had some other plan in mind.  We now know that it is the latter.

Unfortunately, it appears that the agents for the sale have been in touch with our old friends in the Planning Dept. at SBC who have given them to understand that they may approve up to nine (9) smaller properties.  We've been in touch with SBC to find just what has been said but they have refused to tell us citing "confidentiality" as their reason for silence.

We think this is a terrible state of affairs.  SBC have been well aware of local views for nearly two years now.  Quite how they can justify giving out signals of this nature to a party which does not own the property (and probably never will), we find difficult to comprehend.  But then to refuse to inform residents of just what they have said we think is beyond belief.  Whatever happened to transparency in local government?  What do you think about it?

This sounds to us like we may have another fight on our hands.

As this situation is clearly going to evolve over the next few weeks and months, we'll keep you informed of developments using this Blog (rather than the web site) as it is easier to keep track of events.

www.roughclose.org

Voice of Rough Close Updated

Guestbook now available on the new web site!

Announcing a New Arrival

We are proud to announce the arrival of The Voice of Rough Close!  A new web site dedicated to preserving what's left of our precious community.

Given the events of the past 18 months, it has  become clear that our village needs to be cherished.  If we residents don't, it is very clear that no one else will.

So here it is.  You can click on the post title or simply go to www.roughclose.org.  Kindly note that the site is still under construction.  Not all the facilities are functional yet and you may encounter the odd glitch here and there but we didn't want to wait.

This does not mark the end of the road for The Blog.  It will remain online for as long we are around.  And there will be the occasional update.  As we said earlier, The Blog is a testament to the hard work of a few dedicated souls and the support of the local and wider community in opposing the property speculators.

Finis

Well, the time has come to pass on the sad news that our last throw of the dice has come to nothing and we must prepare ourselves for the inevitable.

Immediately after the planning committee meeting back in December, we got in touch with Bill Cash to explore any options we might have had.  Bill then contacted Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the chap responsible for the new(ish) Communities Act which will require more involvement of local communities in making planning decisions.

We optimistically thought that the Secretary of State might be able to help in some way.  But he can't.  At the end of the post is a copy of a letter received from one of his ministers, the Rt. Hon Greg Clark MP, no less.  The only action left to us is to take up the matter through the Courts which would, of course, require the involvement of solicitors not to mention time and money.  If anyone out there wants to do that then do let us know and we'll help out with the publicity. 

This does not mean the end of the road for The Blog, however.  We have another post in preparation about the lessons we have learned over the past eighteen months about democracy, local politics, common decency and a multitude of other points.  Don't miss it!

One Last Roll of the Dice

There's just one more line of enquiry we think we can take to halt this development and we are taking it!  We aren't sure if it will come to anything.  It might not. But it's worth a try.  We'll keep you posted.