Saturday, 19 July 2008

THE WORRY IS NOT WHAT OUR COUNCILLORS ARE TOLD BUT WHAT THEY ARE NOT TOLD.

This story has been brought to my attention by one of my research team and I hope you will bear with it because it has relevance to China Gateway.

Geoffrey Day & Son of Westgate, I am informed, built some bungalows in Berkeley Rd, Birchington some years ago but ended up with a postage stamp of land at the end of the road. (see the picture above)

They tried desperately over the years to build on this minuscule plot as the series of planning applications to TDC below, shows:

TH//81/349 - detached bungalow- REFUSED -" the plot of land is of insufficient size to accommodate an additional dwelling".

TH/82/0298 - detached bungalow -REFUSED - reasons were as above and in addition 'has a cramped appearance out of character and detrimental to the area'.

TH/83/ 0456 - block of 7 garages - REFUSED - 'unduly obtrusive' ; 'creating noise and other disturbances'.

TH/87/1251 - two storey , two bedroomed dwelling with detached garage - REFUSED - despite the property being 4.2m from the Northern boundary, reasons were as above but 'the property would have inadequate rear amenity space'.

There was then a pause of 17 years, until 2004, when another application appeared:
TH/04/0297 - a two storey dwelling - REFUSED - ' a cramped appearance'.

But this application was then 'appealed' by Geoffrey Day & Son and Mr Jonathon Bore, an Inspector appointed by The Secretary of State, promptly ruled ' THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED' and cited his reasons. (An interesting note is that application F/TH/04/0297 is missing from the http://www.ukplanning.com/ site and therefore cannot be viewed unless you ask for it at TDC and I cannot show you what was envisaged)

Anyway, the Planning Inspector was pretty clear in his statement about building a house on this minuscule plot. He stated " the scheme would appear incongruous in this prominent position within the street and would detract from the character of the area'.......'I am unconvinced that a two bedroom, two storey dwelling can successfully be accommodated on this site.".... 'the overall form and siting ...would still result in a cramped and incongruous building squeezed over into one side of the site with substantial walls close to two boundaries, another substantial wall facing the nearest bungalow and an odd two storey gabled profile to the road".

Well you might say, a pretty clear decision from the Planning Inspector! You would be wrong; because below is a picture of the house taken by my researcher last Thursday morning.

It appears to be everything the Planning Inspector said it would be. So how and why did this inappropriate building get Planning Consent from TDC?

Well, Geoffrey Day & Son made another application in 2006, F/TH/06/0984 that was initially delegated to a Planning Officer. There was a small problem. The application had to go before the Planning Committee ' due to the applicant being a local Councillor and Member of The Planning Committee'. ( Forgive me for not mentioning this earlier but they were referring to Cllr Simon Day who represents Birchington North and who I am told is now Vice Chair of Planning and a member of The Standards Committee; anyway he was noticeable by his absence from the Phase 1 Application Site Visit for China Gateway.)

Well, Simon Day and Geoffrey Day & Son , after 25 years of trying to put a two storey incongruous dwelling on a miniscule piece of land achieved their goal at last and were so confident that their application would be approved that they cleared the site of vegetation in the late Autumn of 2006. You can go and look at it and make up your own mind about whether the Planning Inspector was right in his opinion.
My research assistant popped round the side to look at the back of the building and reported to me that the gap between the back wall of this property is literally a metre from the fence of a neighbouring property and that 'there is no room to even swing a cat or have access for The Fire & Rescue Service should it be required'.
So what you might say?
Having seen how much work our Councillors have to deal with, they rely very much on advice from Officers. My understanding is that this application did not get a formal site visit from the Planning Committee or from Full Council but most importantly the Planning Application was 'recommended to be approved' by the case Planning Officer who I am told was a Junior Officer and recently employed by TDC.
The Planning Officer told our Councillors that, ' Whilst the appeal was dismissed (in 2005), the Inspector did suggest that:
" any dwelling proposed for this small unused rough area at the head of the cul de sac would need to be imaginatively designed ..... (OMITTED BY PLANNING OFFICER WAS - " to ensure that it did not harm the appearance of the area or neighbours living conditions.)...'This is a unique site requiring a one of approach.' (No other quotation was made from The Inspectors Report when he dismissed the application of 2004).
This is in my opinion, is an utter distortion of what the Planning Inspector said in 2005 about this site and how it should have been dealt with and as a result was misleading advice to our Councillors.
If such a travesty and distortion of the 'history' relating to an application can occur in terms of advising our busy , over-worked Councillors, how can we be convinced that China Gateway will not get the same 'treatment' when reported to our Councillors?
How much confidence can we have in these words, concerning China Gateway , recently reported in the press;
"What we should be doing is allowing officers to tell us what is proposed so when ALL THE EVIDENCE IS GATHERED, (my capitals) and it ends up in the chamber at the council, we do it with some knowledge of the area." (Ken Gregory, Chair of Planning)

79 comments:

Anonymous said...

Think you missed out another statement that the Planning Officer made in her report - "....will be of a similar size to the bungalows in the road".

Anonymous said...

This smells really bad.

Anonymous said...

Bertie, tell your research assistant to get a grip. It was also a departure from Thanet Local Plan a in regard to Policy H1. How many copies of the 22 February 2007report to Council are out there?

Anonymous said...

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A COUNCILLOR BEING A PROPERTY DEVELOPER

Anonymous said...

I AM SURE THIS COUNCILLOR PUT THE INTEREST OF HIS WARD BEFORE HIS OWN INTERESTS

Anonymous said...

This issue does not need to be spoken about in public. Just forget about it.

Anonymous said...

He done nothing wrong!!!

Anonymous said...

Me thinks the above posters protest too much lol! Ooooh someone is going to get caught with their pants down.

Anonymous said...

no, its not that. its just that there is no law against a councillor being a property developer or being a planning member. does not mean they can't do a good job

steve said...

14:15, 14:17

You are correct. Nothing wrong with a councillor being a developer, but many things wrong with a councillor sitting on a committee making decisions about their own developments.

Anonymous said...

The point is did the planning officer deliberately misrepresent the case in order to push through planning permission for this build. If there is the slightest suspicion that this could be so, then and internal investigation should be held by TDC. If Cllr Day were to be found to have unduly influenced the planning officer then..........!!!! As 11.14 says - on face value the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Anonymous said...

Looks good and innovative

How much is he asking for it. I could add it to my buy to let portfolio I have a nice family of Roma immigrants waiting as tenants.

Bertie Biggles said...

Let's not get carried away here, everyone!

Firstly, 14.15 and 14.17, please dont use upper case unless to highlight a particular word or phrase in emphasis; it's use is otherwise construed as shouting! You are absolutely right about there being nothing wrong with a Councillor being a developer but no-one has said there is. On the subject of Cllr Day and his duties as a ward councillor, I couldn't possibly comment.

14.21, I am afraid this is an issue that does need to be aired.

19.21, I am sure that Cllr Day would have had to declare interests at any stage of the planning process and would not have been able to comment in Committtee or Full Council.

20.10, you have put your finger on the problem exactly. I found the selective quotation interesting and its use later to emphasise that the application under examination met the spirit of the selective quotation as quite extraordinary. What also worries me is that the application commented on by the Planning Inspector and dismissed is not available on www.ukplanning.com under F/TH/04/0297 and my researcher will now have to go and ask to see it. I am very interested indeed in comparing this application with F/TH/06/0984.

Anonymous said...

I live in Birchington and I never knew we has a cllr called day?

Jay said...

Well you know what they say: If it smells fishy, looks fishy and feels fishy - then it probably is fishy

Anonymous said...

Found this on ukplanning.com/thanet. The Planning Inspectors report ended "Though higher densities are promoted by PPG3, this does not mean that inappropriate schemes should be permitted. The proposal would be contrary to Policies CB1 and H11 of the adopted Isle of Thanet Local Plan which seek to ensure that development is of a high standard which respects the character of the area"
I can't believe that such a large build was allowed pushed up to within a meter of the boundaries. Poor neighbours.

Anonymous said...

Cllr Day has recently applied for planning permission to fit clear windows, rather than frosted ones to the upper storey sides and front of the house. My mother lives in this road and was initially told tghe developmetn was going to be a bungalow.Certainly, it has a cellar large enough and deep enough for a nuclear bunker.

Cllr Day is probably the quietest member of the council. He never has anything to say at meetings and has never said anything in the media. Quite out of character compared to other councillors. here are probably many people in Birchington who fail to realise he si their district councillor.

Anonymous said...

i live in that part of birchington and i've never heard of him

Anonymous said...

That's not all he is applying for he also wants to install a solar panel on the upper roof of the building that will add 0.7 meters to the height of the building at the front and a good meter at the back. Just watch him try to change his permissions bit by bit with the confidence that it is all a done deal.

Anonymous said...

At the end of the DAY who are we to question this? I guess it will all be forgotten next week

Anonymous said...

14.15 - 14.24 and 15.10 I think that it is roger obe 'who protests too much' -. used this one in the paper about a lady councillor a few weeks back. Whoever it is , is clearly sticking up for traditional Thanet values:- there's a long tradition of stitching up cosy little approvals for fellow members of the pl. comittee and chums - so clearly it must be O.K.

Anonymous said...

16:56

how would you know?

Bertie Biggles said...

Could I thank those who have directed me to www.ukplanning/thanet and then to type in Berkeley Rd. The result has been interesting. F/TH/04/0297 can be seen in its modest and small sized splendour.

Readers might be interested in the response one of my research team had this morning when requesting access for the same application from TDC including the appeal file. It seemed to be unavailable and might be able to be studied on Wednesday if it could be found.

Anonymous said...

Dear god, is Bertie telling us the whole file and records are missing, mislaid at TDC why?

Why is the whole planning application not on UK Planning?

Fishy, i smell a whole cargo load?

Matt B said...

Something indeed smells fishy about this. I've written some letters to councilors begging them to investigate but strangely all promises of investigations appear to have been "lost int he post" again. There was one exception (but not terribly insightful but happy to communicate which is better than many) - apparently the planning process relies only on honesty of the applicant is a friend or associate Cllr Day would have had to step from the room during the process.

That does raise other questions of personal influence. For example did all conservatives leave the room? There are even more sinister questions to ask but I shall ask them of people that can give answers and report back.

Anonymous said...

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

Anonymous said...

"Stepping from the chamber" requires that a member, with an interest, places themself beyond sight and earshot of the meeting.

Precedent in Thanet is that nonetheless tory councillors can give High Court evidence of fact of what occurred in their absence without troubling the Judge with the knowledge that it is inadmissible hearsay.

"I wasn't there for the purposes of planning but I was there for purposes of telling a Judge on Oath what went on in my absence"

But hey that is a tory councillor much admired by Biggles.

Anonymous said...

Will there be a china-gateway style meeting to discuss this issue of the DAY?

Anonymous said...

Things won't change while good people just watch things being swept under the JCB

Anonymous said...

Nothing wrong with a councillor being a property developer???
What?? You are joking! What universe do you live in?

Anonymous said...

JCB I agree with what you say, but it's built What can be done now it is built? Bertie perhaps your researcher could find out. Can Day be made to pull it down ? Doubt it. Once it's built all the comments in the world can't change the fact it now exists. What an eyesore, do you think he is going to live in it.

Anonymous said...

the majority of people in Thanet are good people, and if they knew this type of thing was happening I am sure they would want to speak out against it. Bertie is doing a great job in publishing these items unfortunately this one was after the event. Come on Thanet wake up if you hear anything going on that doesn't sit right with you - tell everyone.

Anonymous said...

14.18 - yes it is built - but now he has an application to change his permissions - wants to add a 2.5ft high solar panel to the top. Doesn't even affect me from my house but the whole thing is really p****ing me off.

Anonymous said...

If people wrote letters to Thanet Gazette and YourThanet about this it might help. If the people living down the road in Birchington were shown the information that is on Berties blog, they would be shocked. But I guess there is no way they will get to see the information. is there?

Anonymous said...

As most people that live in that road are old folk, I guess it was thought that the situation would not be looked at in the way it has by Bertie and would just be forgotten. The question that needs to be asked now is. Will Bloggers and residents let it be forgotten?

Can the brown stuff be kept from hitting the fan?

Bertie Biggles said...

14.18,the correct procedures in respect of the Planning Committee Members and the Full Council Members were followed and there is no case for demolition of the property. In a host of decisions made by our Councillors they have to rely on the advice given by Officers.
This house will stand as a constant reminder of the strange interpretation by a professional Planning Officer of a Planning Inspector's reasons for turning an appeal down on the same site, as anyone visiting the road will say for years to come," WHO on earth allowed THAT to be built there?"

Anonymous said...

As someone said above if this was a deliberate act of deception shouldn't some action be taken against thost involved. You cannot just let people get away with things in this way that means such incidents will continue Well done for bringing it all to light.

Anonymous said...

Why not just report it to the local government ombudsman...sorted.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Bertie has a case of the politics of envy.

The size of the plot enforced surely that any structure on it would be of similar size to the bungalows.

If the correct procedures were used and if there is no case for demolition then what exactly is the beef ?

I think Bertie is exhibiting another symptom of his planning syndrome. First it was about allotment fences now it is about innovative design amongst the Bertie approved old person's favoured bungalows.

But as is becoming ever more apparent with Bertie he is publishing against some tory councillors and editing out factual statements about other tory councillors who enjoy Biggles favour. (It is your blog but even Bill hayton's joined at the hip pard Greg the Peg has boycotted the blog)

I have to wonder Bertie just how aware you are of the possible implications (for TDC Planning enforcement and tory councillors favoured by you) of the current Rosemary Nelson Inquiry ?

Even the charity British Irish Rights Watch submission to inquiry implies that more questions should be put to determine the circumstances of Kent Chief constable deploying and just as suddenly disappearing off the case.

(March 99)

Had his force for 25 years been issuing firearms certificates for calibres in excess of TDC Planning consents for a local range. Who thus gained firearms ? To what use were these firearms put ?

And why did TDC fail to enforce planning law ? And why was it that Royal Ulster Constabulary had to expedite Home Office for a decision on a request for compulsion of inquiry at about the time Kent's Chief constable departed from the Rposemary Nelson case ?

And did Cllr William Hayton tell the High Court on oath in 98 that there were no procedures of inquiry in place ?

And did a senior officer of TDC recently get a whiff that these questions might gain admissibility before the current judicial inquiry.

And why did Bill Hayton get pushed so quickly off his perch atop the planning cttee ?

Anonymous said...

18:48 You should be sent a pair of glasses. "The size of the plot enforced surely that any structure on it would be of similar size to the bungalows" Have you looked at the photograph. Does it look remotely similar in size to the bungalows?

Anonymous said...

He is a good ward councillor that works hard for his ward at least once a year

Bertie Biggles said...

Nice of you to join in Rick(18.48).The public procedure was correct in respect of this Planning Application. The question I am raising is the remarkable interpretation by the Planning Officer and the subsequent advice given to Councillors.

I am not 'favouring' anyone out as you put it. I cannot repeat allegations that I have no substantial evidence for.As I have asked you to consider before, on a number of occasions, the issues you are constantly raising are for you to pursue and not for 'Strfe' at the moment. I wish you well in your pursuit of the truth.

Anonymous said...

If the facts of this case are irrefutable, which they appear to be, then any defense of these actions or sidetracking from the issue at hand amounts to collusion, you would then have to question motives. TDC has been defending this case for a year using bullying tactics, again ask yourself why?

James Maskell said...

Cllr Day was not a member of the Planning Committee when they dealt with the application you bring up last. 15th November 2006, a site visit was agreed by the Committee (and apparently occured on 1st December 2006). The next Planning meeting on 13th December refered it to Full Council as per the rules because its a departure from the Local Plan.

When it came to Full Council on the 22nd February 2007 Cllr Day declared an interest to the application (and would have had to leave the room). It was given approval but he mustve left the room since it was a personal prejudicial interest. Any Cllr with a perjudicial interest cannot be part of the discussion and must leave the Chamber until the application is decided. I recall former Cllr Jack Cohen did so when he had an interest in one application and a bunch had to leave over Westwood Cross (it was a joke since so many had to leave).

Sorry Bertie but the process seemed to be followed properly. You may disagree with the decision the Committee made, but as far as Cllr Simon Day is concerned, hes done absolutely nothing wrong in my book.

Anonymous said...

James

Nice of you to drop in for a chat. You would side with the devil if it wore a blue rosette.

The issue here is a lack of probity withing TDC and the planning department and a lack of proper reporting.

James since you are so closely aligned to the Blue Rinsers perhaps you could tell us all where this mystical planning file is?

Just thought i would ask.

James Maskell said...

Check the TDC website. council democracy->council meetings->minutes and agendas

Click on Library link and check the minutes for the relevant times.

Adrian said...

Have you noticed the shortage of brown envelopes in Thanet lately!

Anonymous said...

And the case officers' careful use, no distortion of the Planning Inspector's report, stating "It will be of a similar size to the bungalows in the road", "will not impact on neighbours outlook"?????

Adrian said...

James - Minutes of a planning committee meeting held on 17th May 2006 shows that Cllr Day was present - he therefore must have been a member of the planning committee at that time:
PLANNING COMMITTEE

17 MAY 2006

Present:-
Councillor Hayton (Chairman); Councillors Ms Aldred, Archard, Mrs Chater, Mrs Cook, Day, Fullarton, Mrs Gore, Goodwin, A K Gregory, C Hart, Mrs E Poole, Sullivan, Mrs Tomlinson and Ward.

Anonymous said...

Hi James yes the library is a good resource shows DAY was also present at a meeting held in January 2007. As for a site inspection being made by the either the planning committee or full council there is nothing to suggest this, I suspect the site inspection referred to was made by the case planning officer.

Michael Child said...

Sticking to the letter of the rules, missing planning documents, councillors integrity in question, more bad publicity, another unsympathetic development too large for the space available. As our environment gets progressively more unpleasant, whereas once I used to think what a pity someone was probably doing there best and made a mistake, now my first thought is who gains.

Anonymous said...

he only wants to make a killing - he should be left to get away with it?

Anonymous said...

Concrete Triumphs when bloggers Do Nothing !!!

Anonymous said...

i clicked on the photo. it has no gardens

Bertie Biggles said...

James, I think other inquisitive parties have replied most effectively to your posts and would indicate a great deal of interest has been generated by this item.
The plan TH/04/0297 could not be found on UK Planning by typing in its serial number but exists there if you type in Berkeley Road. (See previous comments). My researcher informs me the file was available at TDC today but its whereabouts on Monday was 'not known'.

I am surprised that a candidate for TDC at the last elections does not address the issue that is central to the posting - what councillors are not told by officers that they, as very busy civic minded 'volunteers', rely on to come to a correct and proper decision.

The procedure by the planning committee and full council was never questioned, nor Cllr Day's correct declaration of interest to the committe and full council. The decision Councillors made was on the basis of advice given by professional planning officers; it is that advice that is questioned, given the very odd and selective interpretation of the Planning Inspectors dismissal of the previous application and the case history of dismissals. Go and look at Appeal Ref:APP/Z2260/A/04/1153019 and Jonathon Bore's Decision and more importantly reasons and compare it with the planning officer's advice to members. Then please come back and comment on it to readers of 'Strife'.

Anonymous said...

23 July 2008 17:59
Perhaps he is hoping to get his hands on neighbours gardens. This looks really bad hope the press pick up on this

Anonymous said...

This stinks and should be reported in them local press, reported to Roger Gale and taken to the government ombudsman. They said teh site is too small and then they build something huge and not in-keeping with the other properties.

It doesn't surprise me at all. the Council have recently granted permission for something else in Thanet without following their own Thanet Local Plan and refuse to get back to me on the matter.

I won't let it drop. They can't treat the residents of Thanet like this.

James Maskell said...

Adrian is right, Cllr Day was a member of the committee but didnt not sit on the Planning Committee for the meetings where his application was considered (quite rightly). I take it back. There was a Site Inspection by the Members of the Planning Committee which Cllrs Archard and Gore proposed and seconded (1st December 2006). The minutes of the second planning meeting show there was.

At Planning meetings Members can question the relevant officers as to the details of the application to inform the decision and the Members arent arm barred into following the recommendation. Ive seen the Members overrule Officers before. Its not a take it or leave it without question situation.

The process was followed correctly with the applicant declaring interest and staying out. Given the tone of your post, this seems to be more a case of you not liking the decision the Council came to, rather than there being anything untoward happening.

Anonymous said...

John Healey MP
Minister of State (Local Government)
Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU

john.healey@communities.gsi.gov.uk

Bertie Biggles said...

I can remember Simon Moores writing on Thanelife, that once 'comments'pass the 40+ stage, the point gets lost and James, you illustrate his point well.

How many times do I have to point out that the issue is not whether I agree with the decision ( I don't) or whether the Councillor's public process of this application was in order (I am sure it was.) The issue is the advice given to Councillor's by officers and the extraordinary interpretation of the independent Planning Inspectors comments about the site, when he also dismissed an appeal on this site. Why were Councillor's not given the whole report so that they could see that the Inspector said " I am unconvinced that a two storey dwelling can successfully be accommodated on this site".
If you have time James, take my advice from my comment at 23.20 then come back with a comment on the core point of my original strand if you care to.

Anonymous said...

Bertie,

It's interesting how James Maskell has graciously climbed down after saying, in an adamant tone, that Cllr. Day wasn't on Planning at the time etc. Was he hoping no-one would check and that the issue would quietly die?

James, you forget that a huge amount of information is easily accessible these days via the internet.

As Bertie has said repeatedly, it's not whether Cllr. Day did anything wrong but the way the whole thing was handled. The property looks hideous and reminds me of a two-storey monstrosity built in Tunis Row in Broadstairs on a tiny plot. Futuristic building in an old setting, looking totally out of place with a balcony facing the rear of the three-storey properties in Nelson Place. It looks like a glass cube and has nothing to commend it in my view (and a view is what it hasn't got!!)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bertie Biggles said...

I am sorry, 17.06 but I have to remove your post. I am happy to leave 'generalisations' on Strife but your implication is quite clear and therefore potentially libellous. If you have evidence that all is not well in respect of a serious matter, please direct it to the appropriate authority.

Matt B said...

Sorry to be dense (if indeed that is what I am being) but that house on the end... how would a fire truck or ambulance get anywhere near it?

That doesn't seem right.

Anonymous said...

With extreme difficulty?

Anonymous said...

We still have the unanswered question of why? Why would a case planning officer so obviously misrepresent facts in their report? Why would they recommend a build much larger than one that had recently been dismissed by a government planning inspector on the grounds that it was inappropriate in size for the plot? None of it makes any sense at all.

James Maskell said...

You say its not about Cllr Day yet by the article you seem to imply there is something funny going on with him deeply involved in. Looking at the comments a lot of them are aimed at Cllr Day not the Officers who you now profess to be criticising.

You admit you didnt like the decision, so its hardly a suprize you will find any excuse to attack the decision. The Planning Committee looked at the application twice including a site visit and Full Council looked at it and they both voted in favour of the aplication. Why is only Cllr Day singled out? You say the process appears to have been followed prioperly and yet you still argue it hasnt. Ive told you that Members can question Officers about the application and if they dislike the application are within their power to overturn the officer's recommendation (in that case I think it has to go back to Planning at a later date with changed recommendation for further consideration). If they dont ask the questions they wont get the answers. Id be very suprized indeed if the Officers didnt mention the site history since they usually do.

Anonymous said...

Yada yada yada.

Anonymous said...

James

I am right in thinking that you believe that residents should not feel that they have been taken for a ride regarding this issue.

? ? ? ?

Why wou£d a ward councillor be allowed to have such a lazy approach towards the duties that the tax payer pays him to attend to?

James Maskell said...

If the decision of the council is contrary to local objections then they will think theyve been taken for a ride, even when they havent. If due process is followed then there shouldnt be a problem. If it hasnt, then the Ombudsman can be called to investigate.

Your second point I think is about the conflict of interests meaning he has to withdraw from the process and therefore cannot deal with the local complaints? Seeing as there are two councillors for Birchington North, I dont really see a problem, as Cllr Latchford can receive the complaints that arent sent direct to the Council. Public speaking at Planning Committee allows local residents to give their objections in person and complaints in writing appear in the report given to Members. His conflict of interest means he cannot interfere in anyway through his role as Ward Councillor. It would be a blatant breach of the rules were he to do so.

Anonymous said...

Yes James it would be a blatent breach of the rules. From what a neighbour told me Cllr Latchford was approached about concern over this particular build and they told by him that he was too busy. I think my neighbour also wrote to Roger Gale who referred it as a matter of urgency to Cllr Latchford who never did anything further. So much for local democracy.

Anonymous said...

James,

At planning meetings only one person can speak against an application for the grand total of three minutes. That person must be a Thanet resident and the first person to get his/her name down is the person who speaks. For an application it seems the rule about being local doesn't apply. I don't know if you've ever spoken at any council meeting as a proposer or objector but I have and, if you're not used to speaking in public, it is a daunting prospect especially as there is a microphone and two lights on the stand. Many people would baulk at such a prospect but would have expected their ward councillor to have followed up on the issue on the resident's behalf

Yet again you are being an apologist for the ward councillors and you should stop and ask yourself why so many are on this blog with real concerns about the way TDC's Planning Committee and Department have operated in the past. I've lived here for some time and have heard many similar stories in the past but had hoped thhey'd been relegated to history.

Anonymous said...

James you have also changed!

Just like Simon Moores, you have gone from putting up an observed viewpoint, allbeit a naive, young persons view, at least you had your own thoughts!

But now, like Moores, you are just spouting the Tory councils mantra!

What a shame! You might just have been a breath of fresh air, now your just as bad as the rest of them. And your not even in!

Anonymous said...

We must inform JM, that he has been awarded the SIB (A) (Second Irritating Bloke award).

This award is for the most irritating bloggers in Thanet, Our Ken was up for this award but failed to blog enough - for the month of June/July that is?

Anonymous said...

This building should never have been been given planning permission let alone built,THE OMBUDSMAN SHOULD BE CALLED IN AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.
Why did the ward councillors allow this to be built?

Anonymous said...

FUNNY,PLANNING PERMISSION WAS FOR FROSTED GLASS...NOW PLAIN CLEAR GLASS HAS BEEN FITTED..THE BUILDERS ARE ASKING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR CLEAR.WELL WELL WILL THE LOCAL WARD COUNCILLRS .DAY and LATCHFORD SUPPORT THE RESIDENTS OR THE BUILDERS? OR IGNORE THEIR WISHES LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE DONE ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.OR MAKE THEM TAKE OUT THE CLEAR GLASS AND REPLACE IT WITH FROSTED.

Anonymous said...

With the local press now active in probing the whole thing .If they can dig up and provide the evidence to back the objectors case then I Would not be suprised if one or more Councillors will have to resign.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Birchingtons WHITE KNIGHT
this has now made front page news.
Fuller in depth research into how this large building was ever passed in the beginning is now about to emerge..
Watch out for a posible Councillor resignation.

Anonymous said...

Just popping in to say nice site.