comms with SSAFA/planning consultant

[MrPVRd]

Are there any comms with SSAFA's planning consultant/agent?

There is a need to co-ordinate what goes on next week in terms of the oral representations to ensure they are not contradictory and cover all relevant bases.

Also, it is worth planning now for the appeal. I am hopeful that this application will succeed and I get the slight impression the recommendation may have been different with hindsight. Nevertheless, it is worth looking at what may happen in a Phase 2 - assuming SSAFA would wish to pursue this in the event of a knock-back (which I would hope they would).

 

[PartTimePongo]

PTP,

I'm sure that you PMs are overflowing, but trawling through the planning doc I see the following relating to ENV22 and thought that COMSEC made a PM a better bet

4.105. These criteria are to preclude developments that would unacceptably affect the amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest. The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It is often difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasions. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest.

Surely the fact that so many objectors claim the near-private road aspect as underpinning their arguments (I think particularly of the bloke opposite that has been to the Council counter at least 5 times, for example) means that the issues they are raising are not in the public interest. They can't have their cake and eat it.

Every other aspect of ENV22 should have been addressed, as far as I can see, during the original conversion work or has been well countered publicly on ARRSE already.

Cashbar, maybe your planners need to really sit down and look at what is going on?

It seems to be beoing confirmed by every other planning officer out there, that she is rushing to refuse using the wrong guidelines.

I do wonder why she is doing that?

 

[MrPVRd]

In my view, the refusal is likely to be based on precedent, citing ENV22. Decisions regarding other changes of use need to be looked at, which I will do tonight. The cattery springs to mind, for example, although that involved an additional structure.

I don't think the planning decision is explicitly wrong as such, but the issue of injury to the amenity of the neighbourhood is subjective and open to argument - also, doesn't consider the need for, and support for, the facility.

 

[MrPVRd]

What I meant to say abve (but forgot) - it has been stated that the fact there is no building on the site means that it isn't covered by ENV22. Not true (in my opinion) as "development" includes changes of use (development has a long, boring and legal definition that covers pretty much everything!).

Having said that, it can be argued that the development (a use class of its own, judged on the basis of the rehabilitation facility policy CF3 and not a hostel) is such a minor change, with little impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood that is outweighed in any case by the demonstrated need for the facility and the lack of an alternative site.

We need to be in step with what the planning consultant is arguing. If we set up an argument that is at variance, this will detract from the debate.

I can be contacted urgently on iain.paton@fife.gov.uk (please don't let this out in public (I don't mind about my Hotmail) - I know you won't!)

 

[piespies]

It is worth noting that the Cattery application was not refused, but withdrawn.

 

[cashbar]

PTP,

I'm sure that you PMs are overflowing, but trawling through the planning doc I see the following relating to ENV22 and thought that COMSEC made a PM a better bet

4.105. These criteria are to preclude developments that would unacceptably affect the amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest. The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It is often difficult to distinguish between public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasions. The basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest.

Surely the fact that so many objectors claim the near-private road aspect as underpinning their arguments (I think particularly of the bloke opposite that has been to the Council counter at least 5 times, for example) means that the issues they are raising are not in the public interest. They can't have their cake and eat it.

Every other aspect of ENV22 should have been addressed, as far as I can see, during the original conversion work or has been well countered publicly on ARRSE already.

Cashbar, maybe your planners need to really sit down and look at what is going on?

It seems to be beoing confirmed by every other planning officer out there, that she is rushing to refuse using the wrong guidelines.

I do wonder why she is doing that?

Got that - i'll pass it on