RE: Arreton18 Oct 2021 18:00
Tony,
In answer to your question, they have no valid planning reasons for refusal, hence the planning officers recommendation to Permit.
However, in considering my earlier view that it will be refused, I considered the merits for refusal with those for:
Wressle
Horse Hill
Loxley * 2
West Newton
And that crappy Angus site that Vonk lied about, that Angs wanted to test for too long a period.
It's easy for a councillor to reject the application and they'll brew up any old BS to do so. Just like they for Loxley on 2 occasions.
It's hard for a councillor to stand behind the recommendation of their planning officer nowadays, because they'll get it in the neck from the public on a regular basis.
Hence, my earlier posts about Loxley, and if you look back in my posts to the 2 Loxley SCC committee dates, then you'll see a flood of posts from me criticising the councillors who voted against it. They had pre-determined mindsets and some were just too plain dumb and too weak of character to stand up and support their planning officer.
IoW - I predict the same, the councillors will show a weak hand, weak character and vote it down on grounds that will not stand up to appeal. But they'll be happy that it is refused because then they can go back to their families and friends and show that they backed the green agenda and climate emergency. It's almost impossible for them to act openly and fairly on a planning decision.
For what it is worth, I think county councils should not be involved with planning applications of this nature. Should be a single central body that does it. And frankly, these things are not that difficult to assess and make judgement on, enough of the pandering to locals / NIMBY on these things. The alternate process I'm putting forward would still give them every opportunity to object and to voice their concerns/issues, but would take away the emotional and practically impossible position that councillors now find themselves.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
