|
Double Zero - you crack on.
To all others bemoaning the use of "slanderous and racist terms"...get your priorities in order and check your definitions. Last time I checked, the qualifying criteria for being a 'gypsy'/traveller, Muslim, Catholic, etc, etc had nothing to do with belonging to any specified racial grouping. After all, if I so wanted I could complete the shahada 3 times in front of two male muslims and, hey presto. ALL special treatment for ALL ethnic groups, BOTH sexes and ALL religions should have been done away with a long time ago IMHO. Stop wringing your collective hands over perceived racism and do something useful...like posting on an internet forum (who says a little self-deprecating humour can't be fun?) A massive campaign on arrse definitely contributed to the Headley Court planning application v Mole Valley....so maybe they should run another? Anyway, back to the grindstone... |
Totally agree with you Training Risky. All special treatment for minority groups/races etc should have been done away with years ago and the PC brigade hung from the highest lamp post as yardarms are in short supply. Affirmative action sucks. From a purely devils advocate point of view shouldn't this also apply in this case then?
Doc C |
I honestly can not see how this could be deemed intrusive if their were no objections from the neighbourhood i would feel different.
the details with plans are here. http://www.planning.wealden.gov.uk/a...,%20BN24%205AG. And as for so called travellers then maybe it would pay to get some of these people on board as believe me if you want to take on an flaunt planning rules there are nobody better.As planning rules and regs certainly don't apply to them.And yes i am talking from experience Traveller buys agri land waits for Easter bank Holiday hardcores field puts up fence move in caravans, Council returns to work and cant be bothered to take on the expense to move and grants TEMP Permission for nine caravans travellers now hard cores the rest of the field. |
Training Risky,
Thanks. Gar 170 be careful you don't run into people who I'm sure would love having a 'gypsy' camp install themselves next door to them.:rolleyes: I was going to offer them to come for a drive with me ( their car, not mine ) and try to enter such a place and see how they got on asking questions - as we say, we both have direct experience. Let that be the end of the slagging DZ / whoever PC stuff, and let's get on with helping RM Townsend !!! Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way, if you can't beat them, join them; how about either tarmacing an area in the proposed site and putting a large user-friendly 'mobile home' there - seems OK for some as previously mentioned - or if RM Townsends' family felt like it, get on with building and let's see who has the balls to face the nation and order it down ! It seems a decent looking proposal aesthetically, and the ace is that no neighbours have complained - an even better case than Headley Court... I'd be happy to help out for free where possible, though I am no builder. BTW I don't read the Sun, so have no idea what they're saying - but if it's helpful to this cause then great, and let's get other broadsheets & media involved - I'm sure they'd feel the same way. |
Neither the neighbours nor the Parish Council have stated any objections....
I agree, it looks like a very reasonable structure. |
Quote
A massive campaign on arrse definitely contributed to the Headley Court planning application v Mole Valley....so maybe they should run another? Unquote Having read the thread on AARSE, I think that even they are calling off the attack dogs. Wait Out Common sense, and patience, may still win the day. |
I suspect no common sense is involved, except certain councillors' sense of survival !
I truly hope you're right, not holding my breath. Plan B & the rest of the alphabet remain available as options. |
I would suggest an appeal against the refusal which would be heard by an Independent Adjudicator.
Where I lived in UK in the 90's there was one individual who appealed twice against planning refusals on a particular plot of land and won both times - with costs against the County Council. |
We're already petitioning the government, and letting Wealden council know what we think - and I presume Joe Townsend is appealing against the crass decision ( never assume anything - is he ? ) so who's this independent adjudicator then ?
|
I suppose he means appealing to the Planning Inspectorate who are independent but of course each individual inspector can only look at the planning regulations and apply them as he/she thinks fits the case.Whether they are allowed to take this person's personal circumstances into account I am not sure about.
If they appeal they have three choices. Written Representation Informal Hearing Public Inquiry With a PI you can employ a planning barrister and Wealden Council will have to as well which will cost a fortune and costs can also be awarded against the loser so not a road to go down lightly. PS I think it would be better to re apply with a small change in the details and then either Wealden Council planners can save face and approve it or if not then the Councillors can get the planners off the hook by over ruling a refusal by insisting it goes to committee. I do not think both would dare refuse now in view of all the publicity |
I'm not surprised
I had the misfortune of working with this woman. So I'm not surprised. A worst egotistical megalomaniac I've still to encounter. By the way: Her maiden name is Dashwood (Barbara not Barby), 'Hall' is the name of her ex-husband. So even her name is bull****!
|
E-mail received this afternoon:
This Council has received an unprecedented number of enquiries regarding the planning application for Royal Marine Joe Townsend. We appreciate their concerns in what is a highly emotive issue and we are doing our best to reply to everyone. We think it is important that everyone who knows about Joe's case fully understands both the reason for this Council's decision on January 8 and the current situation. Whilst this Council is fully committed to providing help and assistance to representatives of all our armed forces who have been injured in the service of this Country, we also have a duty to balance any proposals for new development with the strongly held wishes of the community in Wealden to protect our rural environment. The Council has made it clear throughout that they are prepared to negotiate with Joe and his family to secure independent local accommodation for Joe. We have suggested a number of alternative proposals which we are discussing with the planning agent and family representatives. All staff and councillors fully support the need to find a solution to Joe's housing needs. We remain committed to working with the family to help find a satisfactory outcome. Wealden District Council '....strongly held wishes of the community in Wealden to protect our rural environment...', eh? Yet neither the local community nor the parish council had any objections to the proposal. |
"Yet neither the local community nor the parish council had any objections to the proposal.|
Which, given sufficient evidence to support such a claim, would be excellent grounds for a very strong appeal against the decision, which in turn would be almost impossible to resist, ESPECIALLY with national media interest. |
As can be noted from Wealden District Council's applications online - Documents list
In 00708087.PDF Westham Parish Council: We have no objections to this application In 00709748[1].PDF Technical Services: No objection In 00713372.PDF On behalf of the Highway Authority: I do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below (which concerned visibility standards to the south east of the existing access and recommended some foliage trimming to improve them). Finally, from the Planning Committee's meeting notes in 00710869.PDF: At the time of writing the report no letters had been received. Any reports received will be reported verbally at the Planning Committee meeting |
So, it took until Post 50 for someone to acknowledge what I'd said in Post 4, that the course of action now for the applicants is an appeal to the planning inspectorate.
The Council's involvement with the matter is finished, they have made their decision. The only way they can become involved again is if there is a re-application. I suppose I could have declared an interest in being an elected Councillor, (albeit north of the border)with a reasonable experience of the planning system, but that would have spoiled all the fun. In any case, bearing in mind some of the earlier posts here, would anyone have listened? Out. |
Watched Noel's HQ on Sky one tonite Noel Edmund's has taken on Joe's case with a scathing attack on the council and their press officer if you get a chance to See the repeat it is worth a watch.
Noel's HQ: Get Hero Joe his Bungalow! - Sky1 |
Applicants always have a second bite at the cherry as was outlined to me by a planning officer a year ago and its at no cost. This is standard with English planning laws apparently.
It may involve making a small change as suggested by the planners and then gets reconsidered. Given the situation a resubmisson is best option as allows council a way out stating that a change was needed. They don't deserve it but better a way out for all that going to HM Planning Inspectorate. |
The link on the Sky 1 website stated that the petition contained 'over 4000' signatures.
This morning, the figure is 6998. I think that rather shows the strength of public feeling on this issue. |
What i did not say earlier was that Noels Edmund's got a support from He Tory leader and also Lib Dem's he also read out a statement from the PM in support for Joe' his plans case and stated that he hoped the the planners will now see that it is only right to approve his plans.
I wish i could find Noel's outburst and down load it. |
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.