As you will doubtless have noted, the bulk of the text below is from a mail template developed by the people objecting to the development. I am, however, in full agreement with the points made and evidence supplied. Furthermore, I’d like to note from a professional point of view, as a long-time teacher in Infants and Early Years, that the continual loss of access to open spaces is contributing to the well-documented deterioration in children’s mental health. This is a serious loss of amenity, recognised by the local planning authority.
Got grandkids here at the mo or I'd work up some more!
Today's the last day for us to get in our objections.
More than 850 people have signed our petition, thanks to all who've done it on here. My target has always been 1,000.
I've been posting on Facebook a lot to try to get some more people to send in objection letters using the links we've set up. I've no idea how many people have done that but seeing as originally we only had 66 people formally object according to the Planning Application website I'm sure we're way over that now.
I've done a little on Instagram and Twitter but I'm not sure how effective that's been, but even one additional objection is something. I've also followed a few people on here on Twitter.
Despite all that we've done people are still apathetic or unaware, that always amazes me.
Midnight tonight it is.
Then a short break and moving onto the next phase.
Nothing yet, I'll share as soon as we find out anything.
We managed to get the developers to come back and lower their fence inline with planning regulations, they weren't best pleased and were again abusive towards members of the public. Delightful gammon.
Appeal rejected. Thanks to everyone for their support, I'm expecting the developers to appeal but the rejection appears to be pretty strong and not based so much on their design but the location.
Appeal rejected. Thanks to everyone for their support, I'm expecting the developers to appeal but the rejection appears to be pretty strong and not based so much on their design but the location.
I have read it - have to be honest, it seems pretty thin, just in general. But then they must do hundreds of these all the time. I'm not any kind of planning law expert obviously, but it's not obvious to me what the ground for JR would be.
Comment