Display Name
A few posts under my belt
Fame and fortune?
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Stafford Sleaze and Scandal
- Thread starter PPPPPP
- Start date
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
If he makes things right I'll be lenient on his political tendencies.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Got a response on the park view planning:
"Although the proposed extension would result in the dwelling being extended considerably over 70% above the original floor area, the proposal is considered to form a proportionate addition to the main dwelling given its design and orientation. It is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties."
"Although the proposed extension would result in the dwelling being extended considerably over 70% above the original floor area, the proposal is considered to form a proportionate addition to the main dwelling given its design and orientation. It is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties."
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
The Freedom Of Information Act is to be reviewed by a panel of people who are probably rather less interested in it actually working than we are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33580800
Including Jack Straw on it is presumably a joke intended to cheer us up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33580800
Including Jack Straw on it is presumably a joke intended to cheer us up.
bpelectric
Well-Known Forumite
The Con men are loving all this power they don't want the Plebs getting above there station or to know what there up to
So the rule is that extensions of over 70% are only permitted if it's of direct financial advantage to a senior borough councillor, in which case 152% is fine. Glad we got that sorted out.
Yalla
Well-Known Forumite
I wonder if people who have had past applications turned down will now reapply..... I certainly would!
I'm not so sure on this. Surely there has to be leeway. For example over 70% when you have plenty of open space around you and not causing eye sore, loss of amenity to a neighbour etc I would have thought would be treated differently tham if it was 70% plus on a semi in middle of town.
I noticed there were no objections as well and the policy does allow for 70+ if it doesn't infringe.
I know we all like a good conspiracy theory on here and some dealings of the authorities really do raise an eyebrow. But not convinced this one sits comfortably in the 'sleaze and scandal' category.
I noticed there were no objections as well and the policy does allow for 70+ if it doesn't infringe.
I know we all like a good conspiracy theory on here and some dealings of the authorities really do raise an eyebrow. But not convinced this one sits comfortably in the 'sleaze and scandal' category.
Maryland
Well-Known Forumite
You may well be right. It may well sit very comfortably indeed in the 'cosy chat, drinkies, round of golf, lovely dinner' category.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
All I know is that when I come to extend my property I shall use this as a benchmark to validate my proposal.
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
And you will be told to get lost, as you are not a 'special case'.
The exceptional circumstances that were brought into play to cover this one example will not apply to (the likes of) you.
bpelectric
Well-Known Forumite
I suspect your right Mr G but it certainly makes the powers that be Aware of the fact the Plebs are watching
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
You think the powers that be care that we are watching or will in any way curtail their corruption and abuse of privilege because we are?
What's the point in having rules if they're selectively ignored? How about applying the same 'leeway' to things like parking and speeding? The council has now set a 152% precedent, so that should give us about 75mph in town (in the unlikely event of being able to move in Stafford) and an extra 1.5 hours parking time.
If we had a local newspaper worthy of the name this would be all over the front page.
The first bit of the report says 'Policy C5 provides for extensions over 70% subject to etc etc' (wish I could work out how to cut and paste from the report to here)
This suggests to me that you can go over 70% it if you meet qualifying criteria.
I'm sure there are exemptions in speeding and parking laws - that lawyer 'Mr Loophole' (can't remember his real name) makes loads of money exploiting them.
But obviously trying to shed some rationale doesn't go down well when the conspiracy theory train is hurtling along.
This suggests to me that you can go over 70% it if you meet qualifying criteria.
I'm sure there are exemptions in speeding and parking laws - that lawyer 'Mr Loophole' (can't remember his real name) makes loads of money exploiting them.
But obviously trying to shed some rationale doesn't go down well when the conspiracy theory train is hurtling along.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
For non-councilors?
Dear Council
Having noted that building extensions of 152% floor area are now acceptable, please find enclosed application form to extend my property from 1000sq/m to 4000sq/m. I appreciate that this is slightly over the new limit, but the extra storey isn't very noticeable and the neighbours have agreed not to object because they're all applying for 500%.
Yours etc
Having noted that building extensions of 152% floor area are now acceptable, please find enclosed application form to extend my property from 1000sq/m to 4000sq/m. I appreciate that this is slightly over the new limit, but the extra storey isn't very noticeable and the neighbours have agreed not to object because they're all applying for 500%.
Yours etc
Yalla
Well-Known Forumite
Rural area and no objections raised either. Looks like they applied the rule book to this one ...,