Object
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 91897
Received: 30/07/2018
Respondent: Mr R Kelsey
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review: Initial Consultation
I write in response to your letter of 26th June concerning the above subject. I was surprised that you were writing to me.
The site at Haddiscoe (Min25) in the last consultation document received objections from 175 Haddiscoe residents. It was turned down by the Parish Council and the District Council, and did not make it on to the County Council's own "preferred list. as it was deemed in your own policy documents of 2011 "inappropriate for allocation due to potential landscape, amenity and highways impacts."
Despite this the proposers pursued the application with support from an officer in your department. The application was rejected by the County Council's planning committee voting against the recommendation of your department.
The applicants appealed, forcing your department into a U turn, as you now had to defend the committee's decision. The appeal was dismissed by Her Majesty's planning Inspector in 2014. All this at considerable cost to the County Council and the residents of Haddiscoe.
Now only four years later you are proposing to put the community through this ridiculous, over elaborate, expensive, and evidently flawed process again.
Hence my surprise.
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review: Initial Consultation
I write in response to your letter of 26th June concerning the above subject. I was surprised that you were writing to me.
The site at Haddiscoe (Min25) in the last consultation document received objections from 175 Haddiscoe residents. It was turned down by the Parish Council and the District Council, and did not make it on to the County Council's own "preferred list. as it was deemed in your own policy documents of 2011 "inappropriate for allocation due to potential landscape, amenity and highways impacts."
Despite this the proposers pursued the application with support from an officer in your department. The application was rejected by the County Council's planning committee voting against the recommendation of your department.
The applicants appealed, forcing your department into a U turn, as you now had to defend the committee's decision. The appeal was dismissed by Her Majesty's planning Inspector in 2014. All this at considerable cost to the County Council and the residents of Haddiscoe.
Now only four years later you are proposing to put the community through this ridiculous, over elaborate, expensive, and evidently flawed process again.
Hence my surprise.