How to object to planning permission?

Brand_X

davidmcn wrote: »

No, the link doesn't work, but by Googling I presume you're talking about application 08/14/00044? That was granted on 5 December 2014, so you're certainly too late to do anything about it now.

However, I think you've misunderstood what it was. It's a relatively minor variation of application no. 08/12/00143, which was agreed in principle by a committee meeting on 15 January 2013. That includes the permission for 120 houses. I'm not sure what the permission for 2 houses you're referring to is?

There were other people objecting to both applications, so they haven't exactly got it in under the radar.

Sorry Dave, here's a news article from The Bristol Post about the development: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Summerfield-start-construction-120-new-homes/story-22863955-detail/story.html

They look so happy and smiley.

davidmcn

Brand_X wrote: »

Sorry Dave, here's a news article from The Bristol Post about the development: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Summerfield-start-construction-120-new-homes/story-22863955-detail/story.html

That's a news story from last September about them starting work on the 120 house development (on the basis of the planning permission they got 2.5 years ago). What is it you're wanting advice on?

Brand_X

davidmcn wrote: »

No, the link doesn't work, but by Googling I presume you're talking about application 08/14/00044? That was granted on 5 December 2014, so you're certainly too late to do anything about it now.

However, I think you've misunderstood what it was. It's a relatively minor variation of application no. 08/12/00143, which was agreed in principle by a committee meeting on 15 January 2013. That includes the permission for 120 houses. I'm not sure what the permission for 2 houses you're referring to is?

There were other people objecting to both applications, so they haven't exactly got it in under the radar.

This is the planning permission application that was posted at the end of my street:
Application number 08/13/00213 ...

EDIT. Scratch that. For some reason it is displaying a later version. Here's a snapshot picture of the top of the page:






Nobody on this side of the fields heard even a whisper about the approval for "120 residences".

Brand_X

robatwork wrote: »

OP you should edit out those names as you have no proof of them being con men and your interesting thread will just get deleted.

In the meantime contact your (maybe new) MP as they will be flushed from election victory fever and raring to help for a few weeks.

I don't know what else to call them. They tricked and deceived people for money.

AdrianC

"The first show homes are due to open in Spring 2015"...

Brand_X

davidmcn wrote: »

That's a news story from last September about them starting work on the 120 house development (on the basis of the planning permission they got 2.5 years ago). What is it you're wanting advice on?

TBH I doubt there is much that can be done, legally.

It might sound like I should have known what was going on ages ago, but looking out the window it's not so obvious. First it was just a normal building site and then it started growing, and then a little before Xmas we started to get suspicious of the size of the site. It's growing and growing and creeping across a little more each day. It's massive.

AdrianC

Ah... Looking at that two-house application, I can see exactly what's happened...

Look at the location maps.
They're completely separate and different plots. BUT... they adjoin each other.

The 120 house proposal is the fields to the S, SE and E of the two-house proposal - and that's a current house's plot next to the fields. The two-house application was accepted in January 2014, by the way.

The confusion is exacerbated by the two developments being very similar company names, Summerfield Developments (120) and Summerfield Homes (2). Developments is run by two directors who are also on the board of Homes, from the same registered address, but they don't appear to be financially inter-related businesses.

Sorry, OP, this is not the corruption you allege, but entirely confusion on your part.

Brand_X

AdrianC wrote: »

Ah... Looking at that two-house application, I can see exactly what's happened...

Look at the location maps.
They're completely separate and different plots. BUT... they adjoin each other.

The 120 house proposal is the fields to the S, SE and E of the two-house proposal - and that's a current house's plot next to the fields. The two-house application was accepted in January 2014, by the way.

The confusion is exacerbated by the two developments being very similar company names, Summerfield Developments (120) and Summerfield Homes (2). Developments is run by two directors who are also on the board of Homes, from the same registered address, but they don't appear to be financially inter-related businesses.

Sorry, OP, this is not the corruption you allege, but entirely confusion on your part.

Thanks Adrian. Yes, I noticed that there were two different company names but it hardly seems plausible that they would not be related when they are building on the same land and operate out of the same office. Where I come from we call that.. well we call that word I can't type on this forum. Summerfield Homes and Summerfield Developments are the same man wearing a different hat.

KJX

Do you have any evidence that they took money for the decision? If not, it's more than a bit low to fling accusations like that around.

macman

Brand_X wrote: »

I don't know what else to call them. They tricked and deceived people for money.

You have evidence of that, do you? Otherwise your comments are libellous.