Cost of appeal should not be a factor in giving permission
Monday 1st August 2011
A little while ago, in reply to a letter about the Market Hall development, your correspondent Mr Hornby, the former chairman of the planning committee, said that the committee’s hands had been tied.
This needs clarification for future applications.
Let us make it clear — the hands of the planning committee are tied by planning policy and nothing else.
This planning policy is embedded in the Bolton Core Strategy — devised and developed by Bolton Council, consulted upon, examined by the Government Inspector and adopted at the beginning of this year.
If a planning application meets planning policy then it should usually be approved. If it contravenes planning policy then it should be on all occasions be refused.
Money should not come into it.
If the applicant appeals against a refusal, that is his right. The council has an undeniable duty to defend its decision and its own policies and if this costs money, so be it.
The cost of a possible appeal should not be a factor in the decision to refuse.
Planning officers have no business in saying to the committee, prior to the decision, that if they refused it would go to appeal and cost the council a lot of money — implying that they should approve it whatever.
Equally, there is a fear in the planning committee that if a refusal is overturned on appeal, any Section 106 monies would be lost.
Section 106 monies, whilst very welcome in an approved planning application, should not be a reason for granting an application where there are planning grounds to refuse it.
As I have said before, the planning committee are too much in thrall to Section 106 money. Even on this matter they’re constantly being had on a butty.
Take the Tesco Longcauseway development. The committee managed to negotiate Section 106 money to the value of £325,000.This off a development with a projected annual turnover of £51million. At this rate, the value of thirty pieces of silver for the Tesco Little Lever proposal would be less than 100 grand.
A further point which might interest your readers is that if the competing Wainhomes development for 88 houses went ahead at Pennine Pets, the council would receive the sum of some £730,000 spread over six years from the Government’s New homes Bonus Scheme.
This in addition to the £325,000 Section 106 monies previously agreed with Wainhomes — plus the Council Tax revenue from the householders — plus their spending power for the village.
No contest — surely.
Paul Richardson Little Lever
................................................................................................
Time to shed light on plan
Monday 1st August 2011
I have heard rumours that Bolton Council are keeping the people of Little Lever in the dark concerning some of the issues surrounding Tesco's Planning application for a new store in Little Lever.
The issues are regarding the traffic problems that will be created by the building of such a large store.
Apparently the council organised a survey of the roads around the junction on Church Street, where the present zebra crossing is on the sharp bend, four to five years ago, just to see what could be done to alleviate traffic problems then, well before the Tesco plan.
They came to two conclusions at that time. The first being the compulsory purchase of the shops and buildings around the junction so that a roundabout could be built.
The second concept being the siting of Traffic Lights, which would drive even more traffic onto Mytham, Aintree, and Redcar Roads so as to avoid any traffic hold-ups.
These roads have infant and junior schools on them as well as being main routes for school children at Little Lever High School.
The first was doomed because of the high cost and the second because of dangers to school children. Will Tesco’s worry about cost or danger to school children so long as they get their store built Is there any truth in these rumours?
Desmond Magurk Bolton
...................................................................................................
Councillors gave no opinions on new Tesco store
Tuesday 2nd August 2011
In response the letter in Friday’s paper “No one wants or needs Tesco” (name and address supplied) I would like to ask the writer where he/she gets the impression that the Conservative Councillor is in favour of the scheme.
I sat next to cllrs Woodward (Conservative) and Connell (Labour) at the meeting and at no time did either of them express their view either in favour or against the scheme.
Both Tony and Mary are not permitted to air their comments as both sit on the planning committee and if they did so they would have to leave the room when the application is being heard.
Surely it is better to have both councillors in the meeting in order that they can make the views of the public known.
As for no one wanting the Tesco scheme, I for one am in favour of the scheme in principle as I said at the meeting. However, the traffic issues would need to be resolved prior to my support being confirmed in writing if they are not you can rest assured that I will object to the scheme on the basis of traffic.
Chris Lord Haseley Close Bradley Fold
.............................................................................................
And finally - one from me not yet printed.
Dear Sir,
In respect of the letter ‘No one wants or needs Tesco’ (Friday 29th July), I empathise with many of the points your anonymous correspondent makes. However I must take him or her to task on the assertion that the ‘Tory Councillor is in favour of Tesco taking the world over’
The lady referred to is Councillor Mrs Woodward who is a member of the planning committee and one of the people who will have to vote for or against an application should it arise. A person in such a position is akin to a member of a jury and must make her judgement solely on whether or not such an application satisfies planning policy.
It is incumbent upon Tesco to prove the case for this development.
They must prove the quantative and qualitative need for such a development measured against the Policies contained in the Bolton Core Strategy.
They must convince the Committee that the development does not impact adversely on the vitality and viability of other stores in the existing Village Centre.
They must produce an up to date survey of the condition of the land both on the surface and underneath and a plan to deal with any contaminants left over from previous usages.
They must address the Environmental impact of the development in terms of noise, light and air pollution and the effect on the amenity of nearby residents.
And finally and most difficult of all, they must come forward with a realistic solution to the Traffic Management at the critical Junction based on contemporary Traffic Data.
Such a solution must improve the already difficult traffic flow issues as well as catering for the extra traffic generated by the development. This - without throwing an increase of traffic onto the other residential roads across the Village - otherwise known as ‘rat-runs’.
Such a solution has, to date, defied the best brains and financial resources of the Council and there is no doubt that if it could be achieved it would involve horrendous cost and temporarily much disruption. They might even ask ‘Is it worth it?’
My view is that they are a heck of a long way from achieving any of the above.
Paul Richardson
Ripon Close
Little Lever
No comments:
Post a Comment