Comment related to 2004 application

FURTHER to the Councillor Daniel letter citing that my remarks about Undercliff and how the residents of the area were not ignored by his ‘thoughtful’ planning committee in the 2008 application to extend the number of units on this site, if Cllr Daniel read my comments carefully he would note that I have never made any reference to the 2008 application which really has nothing to do with the previous planning permission that set this whole catastrophic situation where it is today.

The essence of the problem which he should take responsibility for is insisting the 2004 application to be passed when the site and the immediate area had a record of land instability.

His comments about the 2008 application are merely an excuse in an attempt to deflect that disastrous decision to allow this developer to build there in the first place.

Another example of where the local community who raised objections and concerns of the land stability were totally disregarded.

This was also a failure of the planning department not requesting a structural survey of the area where the previous collapse took place before allowing it to go to the planning committee.

When the application went before this committee Cllr Daniel exerted pressure on the members to pass it by stating the application must be passed as the site was an eyesore.

No doubt he was also concerned there would be an appeal if it was refused and as observers at these meeting will know he has used this justification frequently.

Making out the planning committee was thoughtful when it refused the application to extend this development in 2008 has no relevance at all to its folly in 2004 to pass it. That is when he and his cohorts should have been more thoughtful of the planning history for the site.

What is further interesting is how the council has given two other planning permissions to similar sites off the back of decades old applications where land stability is an issue.


Old Bury Gardens