|
Post by Joe K on Oct 18, 2012 15:51:57 GMT
And I really have to fix this site's clock.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Oct 18, 2012 15:53:32 GMT
Let's try GMT...
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Oct 18, 2012 15:56:44 GMT
Latest representation, put here before sending because AOL, where I usually save info, is kind of frozen:
Though I'm fairly sure this application will be approved, because it would take serious and substantive objections to make the planning committee reject anything, and representations from residents, while opposing, could have been more focused, I'd like to note two things about Cllr Patel's comments:
1) Sinope St carpark is too far away, when Muslim worshippers at other mosques have demonstrated no willingness to park legally, at a distance. The parking at the Ango-Asian Centre is also unlikely to be made use of in actuality, remaining locked, with the argument that worshippers will walk or cycle taking pre-eminence at the planning meeting.
2) When a politician uses the phrase 'As far as I am aware', it proceeds a statement with no authority whatsoever. Why is a 'funeral wash room facility' needed at all, if bodies will not be stored? Aren't there plenty of undertakers in the city, at least a few of whom will be 'halal'?
Finally, I'd like to say that it's unlikely that anyone would raise this issue with Cllr Patel, or any of our councillors, because they would not expect him to be any help.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Dec 11, 2012 14:37:36 GMT
I should have mentioned before now that I emailed the planning committee, and they won't be meeting to consider this application until January, when people who have raised objections (and those who have posted supporting statements if there were such people, I suppose) will be contacted, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 8, 2013 11:05:34 GMT
We're obviously in January now, and with no sign of notification for this application to be discussed, I checked the planning website for updates. As well as a note from the Environment Agency about flooding (not a great worry, seemingly), this from Urban Design:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2013 17:23:58 GMT
Nothing about having dead bodies there, though! Nothing about the existing use being unsuitable. Oh, and nothing about parking spaces, or lack of.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 11, 2013 17:36:33 GMT
Copied from Tredworth Facebook page, so I can Tweet-link it for those who don' have Facebook: Since the beginning of the week, I've had a letter addressed to 'The occupier', which I'd assumed was from Virgin or similar. Just before throwing it un-opened into the recycling bin, I decided it couldn't hurt to check. It was actually a letter from the planning department (who know my name), with *another* application. It seems the applicants have recognised that the second story is a no go, and gone horizontal across the old parking area instead, leaving no off-road parking except for the Anglo-Asian centre 'agreement'. This might mollify residents (and *I'm* certainly not digging my heels in just for the hell of it), but the application makes no further mention of preparation of 'dead bodies'. That might still be a sticking point, and people now have further time to voice any objections, until January 23rd, that is. glcstrplnng12.co.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MFZV84HMC0000
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 13, 2013 23:57:41 GMT
Correction: that deadline is February 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 25, 2013 10:21:54 GMT
I added this to the online comments section of the application (although the form says that the comment will be added immediately, in practise it takes a while, presumably so it can be vetted):
I received the confirmation email, and as usual, my two paragraphs were squashed into one, which is how I'm sure it will appear on the site. In future, I'll send each para as a separate comment, since they can't be bothered to fix it.
And dang, I just saw the typo...
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 2, 2013 10:43:01 GMT
I posted another comment, noting the typo, and that paragraphs were always squashed into each other (which I don't think it necessary at all). When my first comment was displayed, it included my address, which also isn't necessary. Bob Ristic, though, has ignored my request to have it removed, so having given it a week, I'm making a complaint, which I've also sent to that site, although the deadline for comments expired yesterday (never assume they won't mess that up, too):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 0:18:56 GMT
It's true. Other people's comments about planning applications have the address blanked out. That's clearly what's supposed to happen in every case.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 4, 2013 13:43:26 GMT
Finally, after the complaint, which probably wasn't couched through the correct channel but which they couldn't really ignore, the original comment with the address attached has been removed, leaving the second attempt without the address. I'll probably never receive a response to the complaint, but you certainly can't have everything, not with this lot...
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 4, 2013 13:46:09 GMT
I have a theory, Kay, that what is blacked out is the person's signature, because those comments are handwritten. Having said that, petitions are sometimes posted. Not sure how that works, because a lot, if not all of the names, are basically signatures...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:18:54 GMT
No, I've just seen a letter, presumably from a close neighbour (and probably a friend to boot) relating to the proposed development in the garden of a house on Stroud Road. It thoroughly supports the application on the grounds that it will fill a gap (that's what you and I would call a garden!). The signature and address have been blacked out, so I assume that this is the usual practice now.
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Mar 11, 2013 11:15:12 GMT
Meant to say... over a week ago now, I had a letter from the planning department saying that they had approved the application. No meeting for the public to attend to outline their objections. This is because, according to Mike Ristic...
'There was no requirement for the decision to go before committee and the decision was made by the Development Control Manager under his delegated powers. This is the procedure for over 90% of planning decisions.'
I asked if '90% of planning applications' were as contested as this one. He said...
'In planning terms, yes'
Which seems pretty meaningless, as an answer. Are the objections of residents so casually dismissed out of hand?
I think I'm going to complain to the planning committee about this, and then I'm out of it. It really is up to the residents themselves to carry forward their own complaints about noise at all hours, which I have never heard myself, and parking problems, which is an issue across the ward.
|
|