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.

Merry Christmas

More Support from Politicians

A somewhat belated post, this.  Despite the "moving target" that seems to be a feature of this application, we have now received a further letter of support from Bill Cash MP.  This makes an impressive array of political support which now includes Stafford Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield who has had the planning application called-in, our three Parish Councillors as well as the entire Parish Council.

Who Stole the Roof?

Strange goings on today, folks.  It seems that workmen have been along to the pub and removed some of the roof tiles.  Why would they do that?  If we had any money we would offer a prize for the best suggestion but have a go anyway.  Here are a few possibilities to get you started:

1.  To encourage the bats to leave their roosts so that Staffs Wildlife Trust won't have anything to object to
2.  To ventilate the lounge and snug which by now must have become very stale and musty
3.  To allow the wind and rain to get inside thus damaging the interior beyond economic repair which would make the pub unsaleable and start the "decline and decay" threatened in the design statement.
4.  To provide an emergency escape route for Santa when he visits on Thursday in case he is unable to find anyone inside who has been good enough during the year to deserve presents.

Take your pick, folks, the choice is yours!

Bats in the Belfry (reprise)

Strange goings on here.  Avid readers of the Blog may remember that Staffordshire Wildlife Trust placed a holding objection on the original application (for the flats) on the grounds that there might have been protected species and habitats on the site.

Well, it seems that no one in the Planning Department told them about the new proposal hence the absence of any comments from them on the Planning portal.  Fortunately some well meaning citizen contacted them recently and put them in the picture.  They have now sent in another holding objection on the same grounds as before.  We are just left wondering who could possibly have tipped them off ?

And Another Thing

After Thursday's Parish Council meeting, it was pointed out to us by one of the Fulford Ward Councillors that the planning application does not make any allowance for the social needs of anybody short sighted enough to purchase one of the proposed houses.  Where, for instance, are children going to play? 

Five-bedroomed houses indicates that the target market will be families.  Families have children.  Children need to socialise.  The proposals make no allowance for this.  As shown on the plans, the gardens are tiny or non-existent.  There is not enough room to accommodate playing areas.  Kids being kids, we are just fearful of where they might end up. 

That's One Small Step

Well done to those brave souls who ventured out this damp Thursday evening to attend the Fulford Parish Council meeting.  Councillors seemed well impressed with the turnout which they recognised showed the depth of feeling there is within the community against the proposals.

Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield was also present to announce that he had called-in the application as was our other Borough Councillor Peter Roycroft who sits on the Planning Committee and noted the objections we raised.

When it came to it, the vote it was unanimous.  All were opposed to the application with no absentions.

A terrific effort from the whole community which was well rewarded.

A Revelation

If you saw the story in tonight's edition of The Sentinel about the opposition to the planning application, you may well have picked up on what we think is a bit of a give away by developer Phil Taylor (the owners' agent) who is quoted as saying that the original application (for flats) was, in fact, intended for social housing.  In case you missed that here it is again.  The original application was intended for social housing! 

Now then, there were those who may have suspected that was the intention all along but nowhere in any of the documents associated with that planning application did it say anything about social housing.  The design statement did not mention it.  Our councillors were not informed of it.  The Borough Council did not tell us about it.  Probably because they didn't know either.

All of this leaves us wondering what they are not telling us about the latest application.

A Light Comes On

We regret to announce that we missed a trick regarding the revised submission.  Having gone through the various plans and responses again, all has now become abundantly clear! 

The new plans are based on the responses not just of the aborculturist but also the Highways Authority who initially objected on the grounds of traffic queueing to enter and exit the properties (amongst other things).

The response from the owners has been to increase the number of parking spaces per property to three in addition to the integral garage as well as making small changes to accommodate the retained trees.

This is not easy to tell from the plans posted on the Staffordbc website.  We've just been up to see a copy of the full scale versions held in the Parish office.  They haven't been provided with any more explanation than we have but at least their versions are easier to read.

As we pointed out in an earlier post, this means four vehicles per house (and let's not forget that that could include vans) making 32 vehicles as a minimum.  We don't know what the folks in Sunningdale View think about this but it scares us witless.

The Magic Roundabout

Readers of a certain age may recall this children's TV programme from the 1960's which acquired a cult following amongst the young and not so young alike.

We were reminded of this long forgotten classic late last week with the announcement of  revisions to the plans for the George & Dragon site.

In an earlier post, we reported that the Borough aborculturist had slapped a tree preservation order on the whole site.  It turns out that our suspicion that this might lead to design changes was right.  The owners responded immediately with a revised site plan which now includes the trees and Stafford BC has now sent out another letter asking for our comments.  We appear to be going round in circles.

• First there was the application to build flats
• Then there was the announcement that there would be a revision and that we would have to send in more letters 
• Next, the application was withdrawn
• Then another application was submitted
• Now this application has been revised before it has been fully assessed

In our view, we are being presented with a moving target, a point which we have taken up with Stafford Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield.   Not only that but the plans are now out of step with the design statement which has not been resubmitted.  What we can learn from this is that we need to be vigilant and keep up the pressure so, if you haven't written in yet, now might be a good time.

Anyway, as far as the revisions themselves go, we are hard pushed to spot the differences between the original and the new version, a point not helped by the omission of any kind of explanation.  Close inspection, however, reveals the presence of more trees on the revised plans suggesting that the owners have indeed responded to the tree preservation order.

Unfortunately, it also reveals something else.  Each of the eight houses is now shown with THREE car parking spaces in addition to a garage rather than two plus garage that were originally designed.  This means, dear readers, that there could be as many as 32 vehicles on this site - almost as congested as the onerous block of flats now thankfully consigned to the dustbin of planning history.

One of the major objections to any development of the pub site has always been the adverse impact on the already dangerous traffic conditions.  We learnt recently that there have been five fatalities in this area during the past 14 years.   Is it really in the interests of road safety to add another 32 vehicles?

If there is any good news at all about the revised application it is that we now have another two weeks in which to object.  As we said earlier, if you haven't written in yet there is no time like the present.

Florence, Dougal and Brian, we miss you!

The Empire Strikes Back

Events took an unexpected turn,  this week, when opposition to the planning application emerged from the most unlikely of sources: none other than Stafford Borough Council itself who have slapped a tree preservation order on the whole site!

The full implications of this are not totally clear yet but it is not unreasonable to assume that the design of the development might have to be reconsidered.  The current plans appear to involve the removal of some the existing trees which presumably now can't happen. Watch this space! 

AND DON'T FORGET TO SEND IN YOUR LETTERS OF OBJECTION!

Parish Council Planning Committee Meeting

There is a meeting of the Parish Planning Committee next Tuesday, 24th November at which, we are reliably informed, 09/12885/FUL will be discussed.  The meeting is open to members of the public.  Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend due to business commitments but we urge all to do so.  The meeting will be held in the Village Hall and starts at 7pm.

What Next?

Having studied the new proposals in some depth, we have to admit to being somewhat confused by the basic designs.  Three storey "dwellings" with five bedrooms?  And only two day rooms on the ground floor?  We would have thought that for a modern house to be desirable in the current climate there would have to be at least three ground floor rooms ie. a kitchen, lounge and dining room.

Call us paranoid if you like but none of this made sense to our way of thinking until someone else dropped another variable into the mix.  What if, at some future time, having won permission to develop these "dwellings" the owners decided to convert them to flats?  Eight dwellings with three storeys = 24 flats.  Which is, purely coincidentally, the same number of cars the application makes provision for!

We've checked with the Borough Council who advise that another planning application would be required if the owners wanted to undertake such a conversion.  However, by that time the pub would be long gone and the "dwellings" erected.  And where would the residents be then poor things?

Of course, all of this is purely hypothetical and just another example of our weary ramblings .....

Baffled and Bamboozled?

Anyone reading the new application might be somewhat baffled by some of the statements it contains.  For example, it claims to have followed recommendations made by the local Parish Council.  We had a long chat with Councillor Joy Bennett about this recently.  Councillors did indeed meet with the owners and gave opinions about the proposals.  The only recommendation they made was that the owners should present their intentions to the local community at an open morning (there is an earlier blog post about this).  The owners chose to disregard this recommendation.

Another claim made in the Design Statement (page 7) is that "the new solution is based on general views provided by the community and parish as a whole."  Did they ask your opinion?  We don't know of anyone who has been consulted or provided information to the owners or planners.  If they had taken any notice of local opinion then perhaps they might have given it up as a bad job and looked for somewhere more appropriate to develop their flats.

LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK!  LEAVE A COMMENT.

(You won't have to give any personal information if you do).