Viridor responded to seeing their planning application advised for rejection yesterday. Interesting comment on traffic that may have relevance for Buckfastleigh:
Traffic: Viridor was unable to secure the land required to bypass Lee Mill, however provision of a “watchman” speed activated camera on both sides of the road, to alternate signs “30mph” and “SLOW DOWN”; a footway, 1.8m width on the southern side of Western Road; and enhancement of existing road signage and road markings would be undertaken on Western Road.
Certainly something to consider when proposing Section 106 Agreement's (a.k.a. Planning Obligations) alongside your comments to DCC on the planning for Whitecleave Quarry.
excuse my ignorance,I can't even begin to put that into some form of concept i can understand,but it sounds positive..for us.I think the jargon/legalese will 'blunt' a lot of peoples enthusiasm,so sorry to ask but is there anyone who can put this type of information into 'bsasics'?
ReplyDeleteI took from the meeting that 'emotional'(" I love bats,don't kill them") writing letter to DCC etc will only get you so far in term of objecting to the plans and that more measured 'legal' objections will have far more clout,so was wondering if there wae anyone who could set out 'simple' legal arguments we could put forward to county planners etc?
That is exactly what we want to do. You are right emotional arguments carry no weight. They must relate to planning law.
ReplyDeleteWhen we see the planning application we are going to (try at least) to put out simple to follow guidelines - this stuff is pretty complicated (and that is what developers rely on).
Hopefully we'll put out stuff that people can relate to.