EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 11 May, 2016
The developer at Castle Maltings in Lower Street, Stansted has applied for the second time for apartment residents to have an amenity area on the roof of the four-storey development.
THE PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 9 of UTT/1522/12/FUL – to allow use of the roof as residential amenity space with associated works and erection of a bin store.
I haven’t yet studied the detail as I was only notified this afternoon in this letter.
This is the first time that public comments have been invited on this roof-top proposal, though it was refused in April as a so-called non-material change following widespread public discontent at the way the developer has changed the appearance of the building.
Details of the application can be seen and comments can be made here.
8 Comments
Absolutely not. The permission should not be granted. the builder should be ashamed of himself for the state of the building. Even a child with Leggo could have got the windows central in the arches.
No No No, This development has already been changed from the original, and along with the visual look, due to poor workmanship , all, of which has made local planning and building control, as well as the conservation side , look totally stupid, allowing, what looks like underhanded dealing, to be carried on, a full enquiry, should be called, and the developer and builder to be made to foot the bill, as well as change all of illegal items that have been listed, to show that we will not, be part of this inappropriate behaviour, especially in a conservation area, with the amount of development going on in the area, we must show that planning permission is granted to be conformed to, and not an open affair.
I put the following questions to council officers just over a week ago:
1. When was UDC first informed by the developer of intended changes to the internal structure of the building?
2. When were the implications of this first investigated by UDC officers?
3. What form did the investigation take?
4. When was it first apparent that the changes would have external implications? How were these considered?
5. What evidence is there that the NHS insisted on the elimination of Georgian-style widows? What form and reasoning did this insistence take? Did the developer and UDC Planning suggest sealed units with Georgian bars that would enable the NHS’s criteria to be met? Please provide copies of correspondence associated with the changes to the windows?
6. Why are the window apertures not symmetrical with the brick arches above some of them?
I want answers to these questions as a preliminary step in a publicly accountable and transparent review of both the council’s and the developer’s role in this unacceptable way of doing business.
When are people going to recognise that UDC planning is a joke? The officers leave much to be desired while the planning committee in its current form is so pro-developer as to defy parody. Mutton-heads like H***s and R****r should not be allowed within a mile of a committee with statutory powers and their decisions clearly demonstrate their partiality.
Still, they were elected, so presumably residents are comfortable with incompetent management of one of the few important aspects of district council responsibility.
I shed no tears for Stansted, their member on the planning committee was all too willing to push through a totally inappropriate and unwanted development in Dunmow on wholly spurious grounds. I believe the appropriate phrase might be ‘ reap what you sow’.
Last May gave residents the opportunity to kick out a discredited and incompetent administration and allow a new team the chance to try and put things to rights. The past 12 months has clearly demonstrated the consequences of failing to take that opportunity. Suck it up people, YOU voted for it.
Calm down. It’s only bin storage, not the apocalypse!
Actually it’s all about principle but apparently that nuance escapes you.
Stand for UDC, you are obviously a natural Tory!
Makes you cry doesn’t it !
Some young friends of ours are doing a self build locally, everything is in place and agreed, but they need the planning permission for a temporary mobile home on site to live in while the work commences -like now ! Cannot be looked at until next committee sits in AUGUST, Erstwhile they and their dogs are homeless ! Where is common sense and logic here ??? Is it because it is a lone build ?
The new health centre building looks an abomination and no way in keeping with the locality, who on earth agreed it and why have they let the builder get away with all the changes they have made ? When a mobile home that will be temporary is delayed out of all proportion ???
Nuts !
Next committee in August?
What happened to June and July, let alone emergency committee meetings which can be called at the discretion of members.