|
Post by Croc on May 19, 2016 15:10:40 GMT
Just checked the City Council Planning Portal again - and it states on the Application: Case Officer: Mr A N Coleman Received: 16-04-14 Validated: 09-03-15 Decision By : 31-07-16 Can it be validated if (as a spokesman says) if there are some reports not submitted? And the fact that there is a "Decision By" date also on there suggests to me that the plans are complete and in to be going before the Planning Committee before the end of July (which is what I take the "Decision By" date to be?
|
|
|
Post by alwaysnextyear on May 19, 2016 15:13:22 GMT
Thatloudbloke - apology accepted. I know that you support the City with a passion.
|
|
|
Post by wcfcnb82 on May 19, 2016 16:15:13 GMT
Please, everyone. Don't panic. What difference does the change in leadership actually make? Have a read hereIs it true that 3 essential aspects have yet to be submitted?
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on May 19, 2016 16:30:49 GMT
Please, everyone. Don't panic. What difference does the change in leadership actually make? Have a read hereIs it true that 3 essential aspects have yet to be submitted? That is the exact reason I came on here today, after reading that with horror. It is stated that further public consultation will be needed after their submission. This is very, very concerning, so can someone who knows confirm one way or the other. Steve
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 19, 2016 16:30:57 GMT
Please, everyone. Don't panic. What difference does the change in leadership actually make? Have a read hereIs it true that 3 essential aspects have yet to be submitted? No, just one. We were asked for an amendment to one report which is with the consultants we originally commissioned. It is frustrating but we always said our application has to be as robust as we can make it before it goes to committee. No short cuts being taken I assure you.
|
|
steves
Squad Member
Posts: 180
|
Post by steves on May 19, 2016 16:31:56 GMT
Thanks for that confirmation Rob.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 19, 2016 16:37:45 GMT
Is it true that 3 essential aspects have yet to be submitted? No, just one. We were asked for an amendment to one report which is with the consultants we originally commissioned. It is frustrating but we always said our application has to be as robust as we can make it before it goes to committee. No short cuts being taken I assure you. It's a mandatory 3 week consultation, part of the planning process I'm afraid. I can assure you we are doing all we can but it has be done correctly, the first sign of not following the correct procedure and someone will call foul and it would then be all for nought.
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on May 19, 2016 18:01:27 GMT
To clarify, this 3 week public consultation:
Is that a case of us all writing into the portal again? Will past public letters written in count to anything?
|
|
|
Post by creaner on May 19, 2016 18:20:28 GMT
To clarify, this 3 week public consultation: Is that a case of us all writing into the portal again? Will past public letters written in count to anything? As far as I understand this is the last piece of the jigsaw where all the updated reports and responses from us to all the statutory consultees are in the public domain. I'll check though!
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 19, 2016 18:49:57 GMT
I will apologize for the wording i have used eg stupid, it was bad grammatically, what was meant was that any comments put on her or any other social media will be grabbed by reporters & send out a message that is not what we or the club really need, i may come over wrong but i wear my heart on my sleeve, again apologies for my wording. Apology accepted. Now let's move on. We have important matters to attend to.
|
|