Recommendations To Council/Objection Reasons

 

 

 

 

 

 

I firmly believe that care and nursing homes are taking the easy way out by not building from new, but trying to get a ‘quart in a pint pot,’ with the  growth of outsourcing and burgeoning elderly population, this will lead to an explosion in redevelopment of care and nursing homes. Planning permission will be granted or failures made to grant Planning Conditions unless you ‘put up a fight.’ Spode Close and Okebourne Park were able publicise the’ imposition’ on them in the local press…
I speak from personal experience that it is a total injustice that having lost the objection by the Planning Committee that to add insult to injury of failure to impose restrictions on Public Holidays, weekend and 12 hour working. It appears that Wiltshire Council are prepared to act when flaws in procedures are pointed out (such as giving warnings to planning objectors about the laws of libel and additionally the photographing of the posting of planning notices)

Appendix ‘A‘

RECOMMENDATIONS – Addressed to Wiltshire Council

I would suggest that the following be considered which may go some way to reassuring those wishing to see transparency if the Local Authority have a pecuniary ‘interest’ in a care or nursing home (ie have local authority funded resident in the home or may do so) This will insure that the public involved in this process feel that they will get a fair hearing and equal representation so that they do not feel ‘out-gunned.’.

> That a totally independent expert such as a Town and County Planner is assigned to the Planning Application and gives residents free advice before and at the Planning Hearing. As the objectors are in the main paying Council Charge and have not asked for the imposition of this major development in their lives (then the apparent abdication of authority by those imposing it)…why should objectors be financially penalised. This could be recoverable, similarly to a Section 106 agreement paid for indirectly by the applicant.
> In the second instance, should objection at the Planning Meeting fail I suggest that the objector have the ability to make representations as to the hours and days the builders should be permitted to work, about the number of vehicles permitted to be parked, relating to deliveries both during and after building work takes place, together with hours that skips and non-emergency contractors could be on site. I do not suggest that the committee should rule in favour of unreasonable requests.

Objections and Reasons to Have Planning Permission Refused

Martin Goodall, a solicitor and Ruth Allen who appears to have been on the receiving end of planning issues have created websites which are very well written. They give really helpful advice on the stages up to the Planning Committee, the Committee itself and reasons for objecting. My summary is only what I consider may be relevant to objecting to the redevelopment of a care or nursing home:
*Loss of privacy and overlooking
*Impact upon residential amenities (what it will be like to look at, NOT the loss of a view)
*Loss of light (not loss of acquired rights to light) Blocking natural daylight
*Visual impact of a development
*Impact on/ Conflict with the character of the area
*Over-development
*Layout, design and external appearance of buildings and landscaping
*Means of access, road capacity car parking
*Introducing unnatural features
*Incompatible with the design of existing buildings
*Overlooking adjoining properties
*Generating noise, disturbance, smells, pollution
*Unsociable hours of operation
*Dominating nearby buildings
*Better alternative sites available
*Visually damaging in the landscape or in the setting

NOT material planning considerations:-
*Loss of a private view
*Loss of value to your property
*Development contrary to a private covenant. (Although there is generally no difficulty or   argument that the restrictive covenants can be enforced by the original parties. However, many disagreements centre around enforcing restrictive covenants against subsequent owners of the burdened land)
*Loss of acquired rights to light
Mr Goodall helpfully tells us that in respect of phrases such as about ‘Development Plans’ ‘Development plan documents,’ Core Strategy,  the ‘Local Development Framework’ and ‘Local Plan,’ generally speaking those objecting need not be concerned with them. However, if you believe that a proposed development would be in breach of a particular policy, then you might find it helpful to draw attention to this