CRC - Correspondence Local Authority

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