markpa12003
Well-Known Forumite
Rugby Club planning application time again next Monday. This is the sort of solid gold sleaze that makes Stafford great. Loads more on the Borough C website.
Process:
There was no pre-application consultation
The application is a moving target because of continual amendments
The application was advertised with a misleading site address; there was a lack of publicity
The applicant was advised that no more amendments would be accepted then more information was submitted
There has not been sufficient time for late amendments to be viewed by consultees
The process has not been transparent
Supporting comments from people outside of Stafford should be disregarded
References to the previous approval are irrelevant and should be ignored
External influences such as the Newsletter stating new courses from this site suggest the decision has already been made
The height of the clubhouse is not clear
Network Rail were not informed but there is an impact on rail users
Senior SBC officer who is also a SRC Director is party to information on the application
The club have links with Adam Hill and Mike Heenan
Council officers have been lodging support online
Land charge searches on the housing estate did not reveal previous applications on this site
If approved, the case will need to be judicially reviewed
Also (a classic, this one)
The club have no legal right to build over protected green space
No statutory requirement to have pre-application discussions. Notwithstanding this, pre-application discussions do not need to be disclosed.
I assume your referring to the determination date - Determination dates can be extended. National Planning Policy encourages developers / Councils to work together to find solutions etc
The planning application was published in the local press. A site notice was also erected near to the site. I also suspect letters were sent to nearby residents.
In respect to bullet point 4 - so?
Any material amendments should have been reconsulted for additional 21 days. Did this happen?
Not transparent? All documents / responses (I assume) have been uploaded onto the Council's website. Meeting notes etc are not uploaded onto the council's website
Objection / supporting comments from anywhere is taken on board. However, more regard should be taken to those comments received from local residents.
Why is references to previous approvals irrelevant? It provides a background to the application.
Local press always get things wrong. Local Council cannot be held accountable for lazy / ill informed reporters.
Is it not possible to ascertain the height of the club house from the scaled plans? Has the application been approved in outline or detail? if it's an outline application detailed matters, such as roof height will be determined at a later date.
How will railway users be impacted? Network Rail will only be consulted if they are directly affected by the proposal. Will the floodlights impact the train drivers etc?
The club can have links to SBC. However, any interests should be declared. Adam Hill / Mick Heenan do not sit on the planning committee and, therefore, were not involved in the decision making process (they may have exerted pressure on members however how do you prove it?)
Council can lodge support online, as well as objections.
Land searches should have picked up nearby applications. However, this is an issue that home owners should direct towards their conveyancing solicitor not the council.
A JR claim can be made, however all but one of the points raised above will not result in a successful JR claim.