It looks like the ‘Council’, putting in the roadworks, stop notices etc. and laying the cable for the second shed have forced the Planning Committee into approving the second shed. I did not manage to get to the meeting to hear the objections made by you, Melanie and co. Did you get the feeling that they had already decided which way they were going to vote and you may have well just recited a selection of your favourite nursery rhymes.
I hope that you made your objections clear to the Committee Members especially where you corrected the misdirections/misinformation in Mr Simmonette’s recommendation to them to approve the proposal by the agent Mr G Craig.
The are in a similar bind over my complaint. Customer Advocacy have already broadcast that the LGO have not upheld my complaint about the first shed without asking me first if I was going to appeal. If they had actually read the supporting draft carefully the would have realised that the ‘Senior Planning’ so completely misdirected/misinformed the Inspector that she had no option but to find for the Council.
—– Original Message —–
May I ask how you remain independent of the council as it appears you are part of the council?
There are a number of issues which have summarily ignored:
1) it was admitted the shed, breaching planning, has not been signed off;
2) it was put to us this was because it was not in ‘the public interest’ – but we are the public and believe it is;
3) we were more than aware that UK Docks have been more than confident they would get the planning permission: for example: my husband was told as much by those on site; by those laying an electricity cable ‘for the new shed’.
I hope this clarifies why it is believed there has been a bias towards the business rather than the residents.