Local independant Cllrs Jayne Cowan and Adrian Robson have made their latest thoughts known to Martin Morris in the Planning department at the Council. Here's what they had to say:
Pantmawr thoughts:
1) Paragraph 7.3. It is worth noting that approx 495 people resident in Pantmawr have signed the petition and that there are only approx 510 properties in Pantmawr.
2) The Operational Manager for Transportation makes no comment in paragraph 5.6 about the width of the driveway which is a matter of great concern to many objectors. We would request that this issue is specifically examined should a site visit be granted by the Planning Committee.
3) We are disappointed that the Planning Officer has given attention to the comments as stated in section 8.6. The issues relating to the licence application were some years ago and this issue should be treated as a separate matter, just as every planning application is treated as a separate matter. The comments which are in the Supplementary Planning Statement on behalf of Charles Church Developments limited, which are repeated in subsection 1 of this para 8.6 suggest that the applicant does not believe that residents should have the right to make a representation on an application, whether that be licensing or planning if they have made comments on what is a completely separate matter. The repetition of this in this planning report suggests that this is condoned.
Additionally the comment relating to the recent increase in visitor number as “short term” is short sighted by the applicant.
Cllr Jayne Cowan & Cllr Adrian Robson
1) Paragraph 7.3. It is worth noting that approx 495 people resident in Pantmawr have signed the petition and that there are only approx 510 properties in Pantmawr.
2) The Operational Manager for Transportation makes no comment in paragraph 5.6 about the width of the driveway which is a matter of great concern to many objectors. We would request that this issue is specifically examined should a site visit be granted by the Planning Committee.
3) We are disappointed that the Planning Officer has given attention to the comments as stated in section 8.6. The issues relating to the licence application were some years ago and this issue should be treated as a separate matter, just as every planning application is treated as a separate matter. The comments which are in the Supplementary Planning Statement on behalf of Charles Church Developments limited, which are repeated in subsection 1 of this para 8.6 suggest that the applicant does not believe that residents should have the right to make a representation on an application, whether that be licensing or planning if they have made comments on what is a completely separate matter. The repetition of this in this planning report suggests that this is condoned.
Additionally the comment relating to the recent increase in visitor number as “short term” is short sighted by the applicant.
Cllr Jayne Cowan & Cllr Adrian Robson
0 comments:
Post a Comment