Note From CRC: Reply letter from CRC to Mr Nelson's previous email

Graham Nelson
Head of Planning & Regeneration Services
Planning Services
City Hall
NORWICH NR2 1NH

8th August 2008


Dear Mr Nelson

Application Number:- 08/00255/O

Thank you for your reply to our e-mail; at last we achieved what it was we set out to achieve in the language used, in that prior to this we had had no acknowledgement or reply to a large number of our e-mails, not to mention telephone messages.

Let us say at the outset, that first and foremost we have no wish or intention to publish misleading information – in fact we have made it one of our specific objectives to be as precise and factual about everything, and in so doing seeking to be courteous in all our dealings with Planning Services, the Chair of the Planning Committee, and its members.

Our neighbours and other local residents may not be au fait with planning laws, policy or procedures, but they are intelligent and more than capable of understanding the shortcomings in both the content and process related to the above planning application. Because of this, there are a great number who are anxious, worried and extremely concerned about their future, primarily due to the atmosphere of rumour and misinformation which has accompanied this entire project, much of this to be laid at the door of the college,

These neighbours and other residents therefore look to us, as one of the groups offering them support, to give some guidance, and it was for just this guidance that we e-mailed your office. Being ourselves a group of people leading busy lives, working whilst trying to deal with the issues raised by this application, it is immensely frustrating that of in excess of 30 e-mails to the local authority to date, yours is only the second personal response, the only other two having been generated automatically. We are sure you will agree this is a totally unacceptable level of service from our locally appointed public services, and we would sincerely hope that such strongly worded messages will not in future be required to evoke some meaningful and communicative response from the appropriate persons to the specific points raised.

We understand from your e-mail received on 6th August 2008, that only elements of the revised application need be addressed by those concerned, and that the validity of residents’ letters of objection already submitted, with exception to references to the two parts of the proposals which have been amended, will be unaffected. We were concerned as to why it took so long to obtain a response to our query in this matter.

Also, as your letter to interested parties, dated 22nd July 2008 was sent by only 2nd Class post, and did not cover the points raised in our original e-mail dated 1st August 2008, this has arguably invalidated the 21-days objection period following re-validation of the original application 08/00255/O, and begs the question as to whether due process has been observed in this connection, and adequate time allowed for neighbours to understand the process, and for any fresh objections to be received and considered.
As your e-mail was received only on 6th August 2008, and those residents who have already submitted letters, will not have had any official notification of the necessity to make further objection – should this in fact be the case – this left only 5 working days for such objections to be made prior to the deadline of 13th August 2008.

We are sure you would agree this would be totally unacceptable, and cause greater confusion amongst neighbours and residents than has already been the case in the whole process of the submission and handling of this planning application.

We would therefore ask for your clarification on the above points as soon as practically possible, in order that we may take advice in other quarters, should this prove necessary, and advise those we represent as to what action they need to take, and in what time-frame, to ensure they are afforded the proper right to have their objections, where they have them, put before the committee in due time for these to be held as valid prior to the Planning Committee at which the revalidated application is to be heard.

We are sure you wish to ensure that every aspect of this application, and the views of local residents, are given full weight, and that there should be no failure in due process which would give rise to difficulty in the hearing in due course of this application, and we therefore look forward to your very prompt reply to this letter.


Yours faithfully





CRC

Email from Graham Nelson Head of Planning and Regeneration Services

Note From CRC: RE: aplications O8/007/F O8/00255/O
For those affected by the revised proposals the reduction of the car park and inner-ring road. For further advice see letter below.

From: Nelson, Graham (GrahamNelson@norwich.gov.uk)
Sent: 06 August 2008 15:16:00
To: College Concerns (collegeconcerns@live.co.uk)
Cc: Campbell, Neil (NeilCampbell@norwich.gov.uk)



Dear Sir/Madam,



Further to my e-mail of 1st Aug in response to yours of the same date I can now respond to the substantive points.

With regard to application 08/00710/F for the excavation of deep bore holes for ground source heat recovery system this application still stands and will be determined sometime after the expiry of the consultation period unless withdrawn by the applicant. The site and press notice expire on 27th August 2008. The fact that application 08/00420/F will be refused following the Planning Applications Committee decision of 31st July does not in anyway invalidate the application. If the local planning authority were minded to approve the application it would impose a condition on any permission to ensure that details of the building housing the heat pumps be agreed before the development is implemented. This would be similar to the condition suggested as part of the conservation area consent (08/00419/C) for the demolition of the existing building on site.

With regard to application 08/00255/O all duly made representations will be taken into account. It will be perfectly possible to describe the representations and how these may have been addressed by the subsequent revisions. In instances where amendments made to the application may reasonably be considered to address an element, but not all, of concerns previously raised it is not necessary for people to write in specifically making clear which elements of their concerns still stand. What is important is that interested parties raise any new concerns they may now have which they believe have been created by the new amendments.

I hope this clarifies matters and gives you sufficient information to update your website appropriately.



Yours sincerely



Graham Nelson

Head of Planning and Regeneration Services



City Hall

Note

Please keep checking this page content will be added very soon!
CRC