Author: Sal
St Joseph’s: Consultation Period Extended [updated]
Wednesday, 9th January, 2008 at 5:18 pm, Isle of Wight
Credit where it’s due and it’s not often that we congratulate the planning department, but ‘hurrah’ to Andrew Pegram who eventually got back to us this afternoon, 10 minutes before close of business.
In response to our request that the consultation period on St Josephs be extended, Pegram stated …
I should point out that the 21 day consultation period is a minimum period for comments and we will accept comments beyond the deadline, although failure to meet this deadline may prejudice the opportunity for comments to be taken into account. I do not intend to send additional letters to those people we consulted extending the deadline for comments.
However, in this instance, given that we will be reporting the matter to committee in February, a situation has arisen where we will be able to accept comments beyond the specified deadline, and potentially up to the date of the meeting.
All eyes will be on the Planning Committee on 26 February to hear what they have to say about this serial abuser of the planning process.
It’s still not possible to comment online, but we will post up the response to this issue once we receive it.
Update: Received another email from Andrew Pegram who wishes to state that
I have not actually extended the consultation period, merely confirmed that we will accept comments beyond the specified date.
There will be no facility for commenting online, instead those who wish to comment should email russell(dot)chick(at)iow(dot)gov(dot)uk.
Email This Story To A Friend
January 9th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Is it my imagination or has he just built a balcony in the line of sight of an adjoining window? Perhaps it’s the camera lens giving a false view? Seems an unusual piece of design?
———————————————
If what local gal says below is true, then I’d imagine he’d just shrug it off as an additional expense in the overall build budge, if he gets a fine again.
Local gal Says:
January 5th, 2008 (4 days ago) at 3:32 pm
Someone told me whether it is true or not, that the above person paid a fine for the roof being higher. So instead of him having to change it the fine allows it to stay.
——————————————–
I am surprised that no one has picked up on the comments from Local Gal on this. If they are even vaguely correct, then this is almost a licence to do whatever you like. You just factor in additional contingencies in the budget.
———————————————-
He seems to have no regard for the planning process and system at all. I wonder how he will manage when he starts the project he is running to build a funicular railway from Salisbury Gardens down to the Fishery. I think if I was planning a major project like that, I’d want to get on the right side of planning!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The issue of him building higher than permitted is going before the Planning Committee on 26 February.
More details on the venicular railway would be very welcome.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I live near the site and have been amazed at how shoddy the brickwork on the drive was. Looked like the wall was going to fall over as soon as a high wind hit it.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Well done Simon and Sally for your persitance over
the St Josephs devolpement,the man should not be allowed to get away with it.
The workmanship is very shoddy nothing seems to get completed .