schedule of planning applications

not be resubmitted to the next Committee with the
same report and recommendation and I set out below
the reasons for this viewpoint. I would also clarify that
I am not the representative of all the objectors.
1. The application was only made valid on 27 March
when the D&A Statement was received in response to
your late request for one the day before. I believe that
you can legitimately start the 8 week period again so
there is no inherent need to rush the application to 30
April meeting as the May Committee would give a
decision in 8 weeks bearing in mind you have a
morning Committee and the notice could be dated and
posted that day.
2. The case officer has confirmed that there were
concerns about the accuracy of the plans and on 4
March additional plans were received; you failed to
upload these onto the website or notify neighbours.
You also say that amended plans for the cattery
structures are still awaited. I think that you should
notify objectors of these facts and that they have a
reasonable period of time to respond to them. The
plans may now be scaled more accurately but the
quality leaves a lot to be desired. The amended site
plan has also omitted the front part of the site and the
car park spaces and there is no sign of the existing
shed or large TPO Fir tree to the rear; again this plan
is unacceptable. I am concerned that you believe that
you were previously able to make a recommendation
for approval on the basis of the original inadequate
plans.
3. I am assuming that your recommendation was
made after the receipt of 4 March plans. Your officer
report, however, doesn't list the 4 March plans in the
recommended list of approved documents. Thus, if
the application had been approved as set out it would
not have included the 4 March plans and would have
sanctioned conflicting dimensional plans that would
have been unenforceable.
4. The D&A Statement follows few of the guidelines
set out in the former CABE document and other
appropriate guidance notes and is severely lacking in
detail and useful information. A total disregard for the
purpose of the statement has been shown and to
make a favourable decision on this information is
questionable. There has been no pre-application
consultation with neighbours There is no mention of
the existing business operating from the site or
analysis of the character of the area and the
significance of the SCA.
5. There would appear to be no real understanding or
explanation of how the cattery business will operate
14