Author: Sal and Simon
Hazelhurst, Freshwater: Planning Department Aware of Covenants
Tuesday, 17th June, 2008 at 1:50 pm, Isle of Wight
It appears that there’s another twist in planning peculiarities relating to the recommendation and subsequent approval of a development at Hazelhurst in Freshwater (previous).
Among the 226 comments submitted to the planning department, there is a letter sent by Anthony Robson, the owner of Blenheim House - a neighbouring property. It is dated 8th May and informs the planning officers of inaccuracies on the plans.
Mr Robson points out that according to the plans submitted by the architect of the proposed development, the building line in front of the property has been moved.
He goes onto say that there is also an annotation to this drawing by the architect, which states that the building line was based upon information supplied by the owner of Blenheim House.
In his letter Mr Robson states categorically that he did not provide this information. Strange that it should be added surely?
IW Planning Department Aware of Right to Wreck
In the same letter, stamped as being received by the planning department on 9th May (22 days before the Planning Committee), he also drew attention to the Right to Wreck covenant.
This covenant was not raised during discussions at the Planning Committee, so was the letter not read by the planning officer who addressed the Committee, or did they decide that it was not sufficiently important to point it out?
We know that each of the officers in planning has a number of cases on the go at once, but let’s hope we haven’t got to the situation where the workload on each individual planning officer is so high, that they have to rely on the public to point out problems with applications.
But if they do, it would be useful for them not to have to deal with those members of the public so dismissively, as has been suggested to us by some.
Email This Story To A Friend
June 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
If Mr. Robson is sure of his facts, he should take legal proceedings against those who have misrepresented him.
I have just listened to the transcript of the DCC hearing and I have to say that I find it impossible to believe that when Cllr Mosdell said ” I am proposing acceptance unless someone can advise me of a material consideration worthy of this committee can be produced here and now”. someone did not come forward with the Right to Wreck Covenant.
I shall be contacting Mr. Robson this week.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am
It sounds as if Mr. Robson did make them aware of a ‘material consideration’, like so many others did. Sadly they were not, and are not, in a mood to listen.
This is a real scandal unfolding before our eyes and the ordinary residents of this Island are powerless to stop it. It’s a disgrace to the Isle of Wight that things like this happen again and again.
Isn’t there an ombudsman that can stop them like there is for gas supply?
June 18th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Simone, yes, there is a local government ombudsman to whom you could complain.
However, when you research the outcomes of such complaints, the absolute best is a fine, usually in the lower hundreds and the applicable slap on the wrist, e.g. “bad boy, naughty boy, don’t do it again”, which of course they promptly ignore and do it again in the hope that people will give up
This course of action is a waste of time. The only thing these bozos understand is a prolonged campaign against them and legal action. Watch this space.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
People Power. All the best.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I was in the public gallery for the debate on Hazlehurst. Our group opposing this application were allowed 3 minutes to speak and Vic Jennings spoke on our behalf. When Mosdell asked his questions we were not allowed to answer him. Only the planning officers have this privelidge and they seemed to offer no balanced arguments.
When asked for reasoons to save Hazelhurst they had no information despite 226 letters of explanation. When asked whether the poposed flat roof ould be visible from Tennyson Down they had several photographs to support the view that it would not be so bad after all. A very biased presentation from the planning department.
In fact the planners were selling the development. And where I come from sales people work for their paymaster and their commissions. It does make one wonder….
Be glad to talk to you Bertie…..
July 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“When Mosdell asked his questions we were not allowed to answer him. Only the planning officers have this privelidge and they seemed to offer no balanced arguments.”
They call this democratic!!! I think not, this planning section is totally out of control…as some of you will know we two have had problems with this sort of thing… how long is it going to go on one wonders??