catcuddler
19-10-2006, 08:34 AM
Neighbours have applied for retro PA to use a residential outbuilding for B1 use. This is their 3rd application along these lines. The 2 previous ones were withdrawn. This 3rd application letter does not fully describe the nature of the business activity. In reality, activity happens on a far greater scale and scope.
The LA has been made completely aware of the situation by neighbours - eg photos, dates, times, frequency, Statutory Declarations assuring truth of info. The LA have been aware of the situation for over 2 years.
The case is yet again going to be considered by a Planning Board (previous app. withdrawn on day of meeting) and the Case Officer has prepared a report. The CO has relied on the application letter - which paints an untrue picture - and has recommended permission. No attempt has been made to acknowledge the actual activity which takes place, and to control that through conditions.
The actual activity does have a clear adverse impact on neighbours and on the locality eg noise, volume of commercial traffic drawn onto a residential locality, highway hazards, hours of operation. The development is in conflict with the Local Development Plan. But the CO has not even acknowledged that this scope of activity occurs and has not placed any clear conditions to control this!
Can the LA just ignore what's happening and rely on the app. letter? It is a retrostpective application, and therefore it's not like a 'normal' application where an applicant say 'this is what we propose to do'. Question 1: Surely a retrospective application means that they are meant to describe what they are doing?
The applicants have been untruthful as to the actual business activity. The LA has been very clearly informed of the facts, but the LA seems to be ignoring this. Question 2: can anything be done about this 'blind spot?'
Just one example of the adverse impact is that delivery lorries park on the highway, across a footpath, and the drivers carry goods in on foot. The COs report states that there is adequate turning within the site. But over 95% of delivery drivers do not go to the trouble of entering a narrow driveway, manouevering in the site and coming out again safely. They just do the easiest thing and park on the extremely busy highway and footpath. The LA are fully aware of this. Nobody has any control over what the lorry and van drivers do and the LA know full well that these hazards will continue.
Question 3: can they just ignore this, knowing that it will continue, and hide behind the statement that there's adequate turning within the site, and that's all they're bothered about? Surely they cannot know about a hazard, and know that it will continue for evermore, and just concern themselves with a turning space shown on a plan knowing full well that it is not going to be used?
Sorry for the long post. It's been like talking to the wall for the past 2 years with this LA. In short, the applicants are doing what they like, without PP. What they are doing is not what is described in the application. This is a retro PA, so surely the application info should concur with reality?
The LA has been made completely aware of the situation by neighbours - eg photos, dates, times, frequency, Statutory Declarations assuring truth of info. The LA have been aware of the situation for over 2 years.
The case is yet again going to be considered by a Planning Board (previous app. withdrawn on day of meeting) and the Case Officer has prepared a report. The CO has relied on the application letter - which paints an untrue picture - and has recommended permission. No attempt has been made to acknowledge the actual activity which takes place, and to control that through conditions.
The actual activity does have a clear adverse impact on neighbours and on the locality eg noise, volume of commercial traffic drawn onto a residential locality, highway hazards, hours of operation. The development is in conflict with the Local Development Plan. But the CO has not even acknowledged that this scope of activity occurs and has not placed any clear conditions to control this!
Can the LA just ignore what's happening and rely on the app. letter? It is a retrostpective application, and therefore it's not like a 'normal' application where an applicant say 'this is what we propose to do'. Question 1: Surely a retrospective application means that they are meant to describe what they are doing?
The applicants have been untruthful as to the actual business activity. The LA has been very clearly informed of the facts, but the LA seems to be ignoring this. Question 2: can anything be done about this 'blind spot?'
Just one example of the adverse impact is that delivery lorries park on the highway, across a footpath, and the drivers carry goods in on foot. The COs report states that there is adequate turning within the site. But over 95% of delivery drivers do not go to the trouble of entering a narrow driveway, manouevering in the site and coming out again safely. They just do the easiest thing and park on the extremely busy highway and footpath. The LA are fully aware of this. Nobody has any control over what the lorry and van drivers do and the LA know full well that these hazards will continue.
Question 3: can they just ignore this, knowing that it will continue, and hide behind the statement that there's adequate turning within the site, and that's all they're bothered about? Surely they cannot know about a hazard, and know that it will continue for evermore, and just concern themselves with a turning space shown on a plan knowing full well that it is not going to be used?
Sorry for the long post. It's been like talking to the wall for the past 2 years with this LA. In short, the applicants are doing what they like, without PP. What they are doing is not what is described in the application. This is a retro PA, so surely the application info should concur with reality?