Am Corpgreen Bd Discussion Threads

[goodgrief] 07/1/2013 23:08

Good luck with your campaign...

[zorija] 11/11/2011 23:36

A very dodgy application...
ZZZ

[zorija] 27/9/2011 21:46

We'll see if 'Private Eye' can publicise this then...
ZZZ

[zorija] 25/9/2011 16:17

Am I the only one that thinks this proposal stinks...
ZZZ

[zorija] 24/9/2011 19:50

Does anyone have any ideas that I haven't explored yet to kill off this development please???
ZZZ

[zorija] 24/9/2011 19:39

There is a highly questionable planning application to build log cabins.

This is a copy of an email I sent to Sir Michael Pitt, after our local M.P. Heather Wheeler has done absolutely nothing to help our cause.

( Sir Michael Edward Pitt DL is chair of the Infrastructure Planning Commission )

Dear Sir Michael Pitt,

I have been advised to contact you since I have had no feedback from my local M.P.

Briefly there is a planning application to build 8 log cabins on 1.75 acres, to further the need of tourism. The applicant, a farmer, has already diversified his farm and has sold off most of his land , converted his barns and build industrial units over the years. He has therefore had alot of dealing with the planning department and officers.

The application was submitted to the council last year and it is still pending.

I have provided a brief synopsis of the history of this application :-

1) Given the history of the site I suspected that the council was keen to allow these log cabins. The farmer came down to see us before he submitted the application and implied that he would receive planning permission to build 3 log cabins. At the time I was alarmed at this statement and his confidence of the outcome.

2) Our original planning officer MM, deemed that the siting of log cabins in this location would appear to be contrary to sustainability objectives as it is not located within easy reach of a village or town. Planning Policy Statement 7 also says that new or additional facilities should normally be provided in, or close to, service centres or villages. However for unknown reasons MM was removed from this case and replaced by another planning officer TB, who thinks that sustainability is not a problem. From our perspective what exactly has changed from MM stating there will be sustainability issues to now TB thinking that the project will be sustainable. For some reason TB is very much in favour of this project.

3) There was a site visit earlier this year and it was engineered to mitigate the gross invasion of privacy to our property. These log cabins would be situated 22 metres from our primary windows at the back of our house. The site has an upward gradient of 1:10 so that all these cabins would look directly into these windows inc. our daughter's bedroom, the family bathroom and my son's bedroom. I sent an email out BEFORE this visit to the planning committee members to express my concern that the site visit would preclude some essential points. The actual site visit, even given my concerns, ignored all of these five points.

4) The barrister's report was emailed to the planning committee members late afternoon on the day of the hearing. It stated that the planner's report was UNLAWFUL. As a result the hearing was withdrawn. In the meantime I have noticed that there has been no update to the council's website for the last 6 months. It should be stated that the discharge from this site would be to an unnamed brook that drains into the River Mease ( An SAC/SSSI site ) . One of the key areas that it was deemed unlawful was that the planning officer deemed that the level of phosphates being discharged ( 66 times the SAC conservation levels ) would be UNLIKELY to affect the River Mease - this is not the true test. I have attached the barrister's report that details the other issues, but it masks our gross invasion of privacy and our residential amenities. It also ignores material considerations that we highlighted in 3 independent planning reports.

5) With no new information on the council's website I decided to request all information pertaining to this application under the Freedom of Information Act. After 4 weeks I received a CD with nearly 900 pages. After sifting through this I noticed that the applicant has not sent one email in connection with this application. We are constantly trying to raise valid concerns to the planning officer, all of which seem to be ignored. I strongly suspect that the council are biased towards the application going ahead and refusing to acknowledge clear evidence identifying the environmental impact to the contrary. On the CD I came acrosss a report commissioned by the applicant by a hydrologist that states that the discharge would not affect the River Mease. Having already been informed that all information on this application would be updated on the website ( email from Head of planning available ). I commissioned a report from another water and drainage specialist that refuted this report. It stated that it was 'absurd' to conclude that the River Mease would not be compromised.

6) Other information on this CD included that there was no need for an E.I.A. even though correspondence was sent to the council from the International Otter Survival Fund stating that an E.I.A. was a legal requirement where otters would/could be effected. I am concerned that there may be new information available but not in the public domain. I have rung up the council on several occasions to review the file but was informed that it was 'out'. A Scoping Checklist has been undertaken rather than an E.I.A. This Scoping Checklist states the project will lead to risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants onto the ground or into ground or water, surface waters. This contamination is unquantified and therefore could well be detrimental to this highly protected River Mease.

7) Also embedded in this CD was a revised Appropriate Assessment that was subsequently deemed misleading by our commissioned report ( that refuted the applicant's hydrologist report.) plus a Landscape Assessment which was underaken by the applicant's architect (MCIAT) which means that this architect is not qualified to undertake a landscape assessment. It is therefore to no surprise that the landscape assessment concluded that this application would have no impact on the landscape.

8) There are still outstanding issues with regard to highways safety, and there will be a report, in progess of being written, to refute evidence already presented to the council.

9) The area is classified as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. Therefore more nitrates that will be discharged from the package treatment process plant into the adjacent brook could well be detrimental to the surrounding environment. We have raised this issue but yet again it has been ignored.

10) Natural England originally objected to this planning application. However they lifted their objection with nothing having changed and for no good reasons. As I am aware competent authorities must be absolutely convinced that a European site such as the River Mease will not face adverse effects from an application. I feel that our commissioned report proves that this application will most certainly pose a risk to the River Mease and therefore struggle to understand Natural Englands current position in not placing an objection to this application.

11) The Environment Agency have not objected to this application. I notice on their website and as stated by DEFRA that discharges must only be made to receiving waters which hold water throughout the year. However the adjacent brook which is being discharged into does not hold water throughout the year and therefore can't be considered as being a receiving water. We have taken photo's of this brook over several months of this year showing the brook full of soil and containing no water. We sent the photo's to the EA and a couple of weeks later I was informed that the E.A. had granted a permit license - so all our evidence was ignored.

12) It is worth mentioning that this application has been extremely controversial. There have been over 160 written objections from residents plus an objection from the local Parish Council. There have also been objections from over 30 external organisations all of which raise valid concerns. Some of these organisations include the Angling Trust, Peoples Trust for Endangered Species, the Salmon and Trout Association and the International Otter Survival Fund. We have also recently got the support from WWF, who are one of the largest wildlife conservation organisations in the world.

I was advised that you might be able to help me. This application seems to be very questionable in many areas and so I would be very grateful if you could review the information above before the next hearing. If you require any further information then please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards


Zorija.................

[energyi] 14/4/2005 07:07

PGI, hope some of you got it

[yopi] 12/4/2005 21:10

Hopi - 12 Apr'05 - 20:44 - 6639 of 6642


No maestro I still think the risk outweighs the reward. Good luck to you though. I mean it.. Even you deserve a break now and then :o)

[energyi] 05/7/2004 15:10

Camellia (CAM): 3 years


Linton Park (LPK)

[energyi] 05/7/2004 15:07

Symbol Company---------- Price -NAV- P/Nav MktCap.
AEP--- Anglo-Eastern.... 164.5 154.0 x.xxx £64.9Mn
BTM--- Bertam .......... 255.0 167.0 x.xxx £68.6Mn
CAM--- Camellia......... 50.00 93.16 x.xxx £1.31Mn
LPK--- Linton Park...... 395.0 803.0 x.xxx £75.2Mn
PGI--- Plantations &Genl 18.00 21.00 x.xxx £9.32Mn
RWEV-- Rowe Evans....... 142.5 99.47 x.xxx £68.5Mn
TEA--- Tea Plantations.. 35.50 54.61 x.xxx £3.75Mn
xxx.Of Moran Holdings...
xxx.Of Williamson.......

[energyi] 05/7/2004 10:24

SOME CHARTS

Plantation & General (UK:PGI)


Tea Plantations (UK:TEA)


Golden Hope Plantations (GNHCF)


Anglo Eastern Plantation (AEPLF)


Great Southern Plantations (GSPLF)


Great Sthn Plantat (SYDNEY : AU:GTP) Aus.Quote


Perlis Plantations Berhad (PEPL)


Australian Plantations (SYDNEY: AU:APL)


Union Planters Corporation (UPC)

[energyi] 05/7/2004 10:19

Search from BigCharts:

86% Style Plantation SYDNEY ASX AU:SYP
85% Plantation & Gen UK:0710741
85% Plantation & Gen LSE UK:PGI
84% Plantation Finl Corp NQB PLNF
79% Plantation & Genl Invstmnt OTHER OTC PLGNF
78% Unico Desa Plantation Bhd OTHER OTC UDPHF
78% Golden Hope Plantation Bhd OTHER OTC GNHCF
77% Anglo Eastern Plantation Plc OTHER OTC AEPLF
69% Tea Plantations In LSE UK:TEA
66% Tea Plantations Invt OTHER OTC TPLTF
65% Great Southn Plantations Ltd OTHER OTC GSPLF
64% Perlis Plantations Berhad OTHER OTC PEPL
64% Perlis Plantations Berhad OTHER OTC PPBHF
52% Great Sthn Plantat SYDNEY ASX AU:GTP
52% Australian Plantat SYDNEY ASX AU:APL
38% Union Planters Cp FRANKFURT DE:878633
37% Union Planters Corporation NYSE UPC
27% Palmetto Real Estate Tr OTHER OTC PTTTS
26% Plymouth Rubber Co. AMEX PLRB
26% Plymouth Rubber Co. AMEX PLRA

[energyi] 05/7/2004 10:15

I am listening to the Financial Sense interview with Dr.Marc Faber...


and he is talking about real estate in Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.) as
his favorite investment. He is also talking about how Sugar, Coffee, etc.
looks deeply undervalued. /

Link:

Might PLANtation-oriented stocks be a good investment here?

SOME CHARTS (see posting #2, for non-UK quoted charts)
Plantation & General (UK:PGI)


Tea Plantations (UK:TEA)



I would like to find some, and gather some opinions on this thread

- - - - -
Symbol Company---------- Price -NAV- P/Nav MktCap.
AEP--- Anglo-Eastern.... 164.5 154.0 x.xxx £64.9Mn
BTM--- Bertam .......... 255.0 167.0 x.xxx £68.6Mn
CAM--- Camellia......... 50.00 93.16 x.xxx £1.31Mn
LPK--- Linton Park...... 395.0 803.0 x.xxx £75.2Mn
PGI--- Plantations &Genl 18.00 21.00 x.xxx £9.32Mn
RWEV-- Rowe Evans....... 142.5 99.47 x.xxx £68.5Mn
TEA--- Tea Plantations.. 35.50 54.61 x.xxx £3.75Mn
xxx.Of Moran Holdings...
xxx.Of Williamson.......

= = = = =
LINKS:
LPK thread.......:
TEA thread.......:
PGI thread.......:

[yen] 27/10/2001 10:20

try the individual councils - they may have web based info.

[dulay] 27/10/2001 07:43

Is there a Uk website indicating what planning submissions have been made
to the local authority, say, for example, to change the current use of a property?
Any info appreciated.