Forum Topic

Here are a few notes that might help you frame an objection.  Rosco White has given me a copy of the original 1962 planning permission for this site which had the following conditions:1. That the cement and aggregate batching plant be sited at the southern part of the application site.2. That the premises shall not be used in any manner which is detrimental to the amenities of the locality, whether by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, soot, smoke, ash, dust, grit, or by any other means.  3. That no work be carried out on any Sunday or Bank Holiday nor between the hours of 6.50 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. on any other day.  4. That detailed drawings of the proposed development be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced and that the development be carried out and completed in all respects in accordance with the drawings so approved before the building is occupied (unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise decides) such drawings to show :-(a) The layout of the site, the siting of the building, the means of access and adequate parking and turning space.(b) The design and external appearance of the building.5. That this land required for highway purposes be excluded from the proposed development.  Conditions 1, 4 and 5 are effectively redundant unless the current building is pulled down.  You may want to ask for this but I suspect that it will not happen and the most important thing is to get some new conditions that make the site a better neighbour.  Condition 2 is the most important.  It essentially says that the site should impose no pollution burden on its surroundings.  That seems like the least that the council should demand.  Modern planning conditions should attach (very low) maximum allowable limits and monitoring to each pollution type, including noise.  The hours of operation (condition 3) of the site look generous.  Why operate before 8am?  After 6pm?  Why operate in the afternoon on Saturday?  Builders are expected to limit their hours of operation to 8am and 6pm, Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays and they only bug people on a temporary basis.  For a permanent installation to have such long hours of operation is too much of an imposition on the neighbourhood.  Should the planning conditions limit the number of movements in and out of the site?  We might also think about planning gain.  If the building is to be presented to residents as a fait accompli how can its visual impact and traffic movements be mitigated (there should be no pollution to mitigate!).  Tree planting in Horn Lane and York Road?  Paying for quieter surfacing on Horn Lane to reduce noise from lorries?  Sections of green wall on Horn Lane?  Upgrading of site entrance?   

Phil Taylor ● 4762d

eMail I received today:-Dear Mr White, Thank you for your e-mail of 3 September 2013 regarding the issue of the public consultation process. Having checked with the Council’s bulk mailing service it has become apparent that the letters that were meant to be dispatched on 21 August 2013 were in fact not sent. Firstly, I would wish to thank you for drawing this matter to our attention and secondly I would wish to confirm that the letters will now be sent out on Monday, 9 September 2013. The letters will still specify the statutory 21-day consultation period, ie. running until 30 September 2013. However, I would like to clarify the way the process works. It is Ealing’s adopted procedure that all representations received up to and including the date an application is considered by the Planning Committee will be taken into account in the decision making process and will be reported to the Committee, regardless of whether they were received during the statutory consultation period or not. I note your comments about sending out letters during August but regret that the date an application is received is completely outside of our control and Planning Law requires that applications should be registered and processed immediately upon receipt. Were we to delay sending out notification letters then application processing times would be extended with the risk that appeals could be lodged against the non-determination of applications within the statutory periods laid down by the Government and the decision making process being taken out of local hands. Clearly I would wish to apologise for the delay in sending the neighbour notification letters and I will ensure that our procedures are reviewed to ensure similar issues do not occur in future. In the interim I have asked that formal confirmation is provided that the letters have been sent out when the letters have been posted.  Kind regards, XXXXXXXXXXX

Rosco White ● 4758d