Dear Council Representative.
I’m afraid I do not regard the response below as being adequate.The ‘report’ that the structure has not been built in accordance with permissions seems to have come as a surprise to you but as you know local residents have been pointing this out for several months. Your department attempted to claim for some time that this was not the case and only persistence from local residents seems to have finally forced your department to admit that there are ‘difficulties’ with the structure.
I’m afraid I do not regard the response below as being adequate.The ‘report’ that the structure has not been built in accordance with permissions seems to have come as a surprise to you but as you know local residents have been pointing this out for several months. Your department attempted to claim for some time that this was not the case and only persistence from local residents seems to have finally forced your department to admit that there are ‘difficulties’ with the structure.
As you know we believe the structure to be significantly wider and taller than permitted.
Why has your department not imposed an immediate cessation of work in terms of construction of the structure pending your ‘investigation’?
I can report that construction was still being carried out on 31 March despite frequent requests for intervention by your department.
The situation has recently been further compounded by the commencement of work on a boat within the confines of the shed contrary to the conditions of the 1996 planning permission which expressly forbids work to commence without the conditions being fully met.
My view is that your department is guilty of series of serious errors (which could amount to gross incompetence).
The impression is that every attempt has been made to allow the structure to continue to be developed (despite your knowledge that planning conditions have not been met) and that your department has made insufficient effort to carry out your statutory duties in relation to the conditions contained in the aforesaid planning permission. These conditions were clearly designed to protect local residents and as I understand it were included after consultation with your colleagues in environmental protection. The implications of the conditions are clear. No work that is a nuisance to local residents should be being carried out outside the shed which should be a contained structure (in order to minimise impact).
Why did your department not impose an immediate cessation of work on the boat that until recently has been housed in the shed in terms of failure to meet the conditions of the 1996 planning permission pending your ‘investigation’?
I understand that you have a mandatory duty to intervene please explain why this was not been exercised.
As regards to your definition of the site as ‘general industrial’ please provide details of the statute from which you have sourced your quote and confirm that there are no definitions for planning purposes which allow some commercial activity but not full industrial use.
I note that you say that the matter is complex and time is needed to consider the matter. I would suggest that the issues above are not complex although I understand that the errors that have been made by your department may be embarrassing. I also think that you have had more than sufficient time to respond. As previously stated, I believe that you were under an obligation to suspend work until matters were resolved.I note that further work is being carried out on the shed today (31 March). Given the circumstances and our request that the building be altered to conform with the planning permission your continuing failure to intervene seems to be adding to the potential costs that the developer will incur in order to comply.
The only conclusion that we can draw is that you have no intention of enforcing the conditions imposed by the planning permission and that the developer has been given tacit approval to carry on and told that a retrospective application will be viewed favourably.Please can you provide copies of any relevant correspondence you have had with the owners or developers.
The only conclusion that we can draw is that you have no intention of enforcing the conditions imposed by the planning permission and that the developer has been given tacit approval to carry on and told that a retrospective application will be viewed favourably.Please can you provide copies of any relevant correspondence you have had with the owners or developers.
In the meantime I ask you to:
- · Set out the nature of the complexities as you see them.
- · Indicate precisely what you are doing to address these.
- · Set out a clear timetable for resolution.
Your previous delaying tactics are not acceptable.
We understand that you have an obligation to keep us fully informed and that this would be something the Planning Ombudsman would also consider if reference to them is required.
It gives me no pleasure to have to write in such terms.
Indeed I was diagnosed in December of last year with cancer and am undergoing treatment (which has included a major operation at the end of February 2014). The stress that these issues are causing is adding to an already stressful situation and is compromising my ability to recover. For example the noise and other environmental impacts such as dust (of undetermined content and which is not being contained in the shed) over the last couple of weeks has meant that I have been unable to utilise my garden as I would like for recuperation purposes.
Whilst I regard these matters as private I feel forced to place them on record should we need to raise the stakes further in the absence of a satisfactory resolution. My privacy and ability to have quite enjoyment of my property have been compromised by your departments failure to adequately control this development or deal with legitimate queries.
You will note that I have copied this to John Anglin and John Wood and I’m aware that other residents are asking similar questions.
Please consider these issues immediately and supply a response to all of the points raised by return.
Yours in frustration,
David Routledge