24-01-2024, 09:11 AM
As my old boss used to say, if it came out the ground it can go back when finished! He was rank of squadron leader, office based.
One of the best bosses I ever had.
He threw a wobbly once when he discovered the company was so pc that they were going to pay a lot (per kg!) to have a large wooden drum of 25mm 4 core flexible rubber coated cable disposed of by the weee company.
As of today, the local councillors are still not replying to my calls regarding the planning application and everyone I have spoken to in their ward objecting.
I have found so much false information in the application. Entire multi page documents that the text and photos are unrelated as they are from the earlier food factory application, even the design and access statement refers to it. Pages of it. Then another section uses different non applicable statements from the other application. You couldn't make it up, but the applicant ha it seems and is getting away with it unfortunately. Even has information still missing, stating" To Follow". Surely this cannot be right, as any comments or objections can only deal with the facts as given in the application. If they are missing or from a different application, how can that be right in the public domain of this application. I am going to try speaking to the head of planning today. Will email as well.
Rob
One of the best bosses I ever had.
He threw a wobbly once when he discovered the company was so pc that they were going to pay a lot (per kg!) to have a large wooden drum of 25mm 4 core flexible rubber coated cable disposed of by the weee company.
As of today, the local councillors are still not replying to my calls regarding the planning application and everyone I have spoken to in their ward objecting.
I have found so much false information in the application. Entire multi page documents that the text and photos are unrelated as they are from the earlier food factory application, even the design and access statement refers to it. Pages of it. Then another section uses different non applicable statements from the other application. You couldn't make it up, but the applicant ha it seems and is getting away with it unfortunately. Even has information still missing, stating" To Follow". Surely this cannot be right, as any comments or objections can only deal with the facts as given in the application. If they are missing or from a different application, how can that be right in the public domain of this application. I am going to try speaking to the head of planning today. Will email as well.
Rob







