Archive news as at 8th November 2010
Archive news as at 8th November 2010
KEEP SENDING IN YOUR LETTERS OF OBJECTIONS. THE MORE THE BETTER! THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED AGAIN TO 12th NOVEMBER
DECISION TO PERMIT JELSON TO BUILD ON MELTON ROAD HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
A number of Barrow residents have come forward to say they see no point in objecting to Jelson‘s proposal to build around 300 houses on land off Melton Road because Charnwood Borough Council has already agreed to permit the application.
THIS IS NOT CORRECT BUT IT IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT BARROW RESIDENTS COULD BE DRAWN TO THAT CONCLUSION.
On 30th September 2010 a document appeared on the CBC website for the Jelson plan (P/10/1518/2) from the Principal Planning Officer, an employee of the Council. In the recommendation box he has ticked PERMIT. The document then goes on to explain his reasons for this recommendation. At the time, the front page of the application webpage showed that the decision on the plan was to be made by ‘Officer Delegation' So, it was not unreasonable for those who had not objected, and for those who had, to conclude that the Jelson proposal was passed for building by a planning officer of the Council.
For the full text of the chief planning officer‘s report, see below.
Since then, our Borough councillors, our Parish Council and ourselves (BRAG) have complained about this. Although CBC may not have had the intention of undermining public participation in the consultation process we have clear evidence that has happened. Following representation, the CBC has reaffirmed that the decision on the Jelson plan will be made at a meeting of CBC planning committee, possibly in December 2010.
CBC planners have said they will ‘ review their internal procedures' and accept the points made to them.
WHAT POSSIBLE HARM COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY WAITING FOR ALL OBJECTIONS TO HAVE COME IN BEFORE PLACING THIS RECOMMENDATION ON THE WEBSITE?
We continue to encourage all Barrow residents to submit their objections. We do not see how the Council can sustain an argument for not accepting objections after the closing date when they have plainly discouraged some residents from objecting before the closing date.
Here is an extract from the document we refer to:
‘It is therefore appropriate that this proposal for dwellings in the countryside is considered against the current development plan and other material considerations in PPS3, particularly paragraph 69, to assess whether this site should be allowed for housing in the short term, whilst local development documents are prepared to overcome this shortfall in the long term'
Which shortfall is that? If this development goes ahead it will not be short term neither will all the negative impacts on our community that go with it. These houses will be permanent. The strategy outlined above is ridiculous.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO OBJECT, MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN.
For the full text of the chief planning officer's report, click here
