To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Who gave the inititial approval – and why?
Share this:
From Keith Shaw.
IT has been difficult not to follow this saga over the past six years and I have to admire the efforts of the neighbours in the area opposing what they believe to be an unnecessary development. In many respects many others would agree with them.
However the information clearly outlined in the paper (JEP, 24 Jun) put the whole issue into a totally different perspective.
It was not made clear who had obtained the original permission, the land owner or another person, but when the land was bought by Mr Shepherd in 2004 it already had permission for a house to be built on it. That permission was then maintained a year later despite the land being re-designated.
I have not normally had a great deal of sympathy for developers when, in the past, they have been criticized.
However in this particular case it does look to me as if it is the Planning department who have caused the problems that they now do not want to resolve.
Things could have, and should have, been managed much better. It would be extremely useful to find out exactly why the initial approval was given and by whom.
Related