CLEARLY THE AMENITY AND THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF LOCAL RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENTThe Planning Enforcement Officer visited the site and agrees that the majority of open space has now been tarmacced.
- it's proposed as a temporary arrangement for resident parking
- the open space will be re-instated in accordance with the planning permission granted when this phase of the development is implemented.
What MERA Thinks
- Coniston residents now suffer a LOSS OF AMENITY AND SIGNICANT GREEN SPACE for an indefinite period.
- Coniston House residents were NOT CONSULTED about this specific development
- Coniston House residents received NO COMMUNICATION in advance of the development
- The rationale for this development - temporary or otherwise - is NOT EXPLAINED in any of the documents submitted to LBTH Planning to date
- Consequently there is no reference to this development in the Decision Notice - ie it is NOT PERMITTED
- Which residents parking spaces does this relate to?
- Why do these need to be relocated and reprovided on green open space?
- Why do they need to be reprovided at all given that there has always been a plan to reduce the number of available parking spaces on the Estate?
- Why does the Schedule of Works - not as yet provided to LBTH Planning - not address this issue without the need to remove green open space?
- How long is this green space required to act as a car park
- Where is the open space amenity to replace the amenity lost by Coniston Residents?
- Why is Open Space 2 not referenced in the Enforcement Letter under Breach of Condition 3 (Contamination)? Soil was excavated without any of the safeguards in place.
- Why is Open Space 2 not referenced under the Breach of Condition 5? Trucks were photographed behaving in an unsafe way on EastendHomes land (ie NOT a public highways matter).