Councillor Calver Answers?
We all eagerly opened our copies of the Tenby Observer on Friday 3 Feb to read Clr Calver's answers to the questions posed to him in last week's edition of the paper, but what a disappointment - deathly silence from the member for Manorbier.
Not that we should be too suprised by his silence - a Councillor who could not be bothered to consult his community before making his response to the planning authority is hardly likely to explain his actions.
But wait! What's this! A letter from County Councillor Mike Stoddart, perhaps some answers after all. No, only the same old line that Clr Calver has been plugging all along.
(From Letters to the Editor, Tenby Observer 03/02/06)
Sir,
I have been following with interest the correspondence regarding the planning application for night-firing at Manorbier.
Some of your readers seem to be under the impression that public opinion, alone, may be enough to justify refusal. This is not the case. By law, planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The fact that a lot of people are against the proposal is not a material consideration; there have to be soundly-based planning grounds for refusal. The success of MM02's appeal against the county council's refusal of permission for a Tetra mast at Uzmaston, near Haverfordwest, is a case in point. The residents of Uzmaston, who were unanimously opposed to the plans, were no doubt gratified to hear their local member's impassioned speech to the planning committee which resulted in the application being refused. The upshot is that Uzmaston to have a Tetra mast and the county council is now faced with a large bill for both its own, and MM02's, legal costs. I can't quite see where the benefits lie except to the grandstanding politicians who increase their chances of electoral success. Indeed, come to think about it, is this not a form of electioneering on the rates?
I have been following with interest the correspondence regarding the planning application for night-firing at Manorbier.
Some of your readers seem to be under the impression that public opinion, alone, may be enough to justify refusal. This is not the case. By law, planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The fact that a lot of people are against the proposal is not a material consideration; there have to be soundly-based planning grounds for refusal. The success of MM02's appeal against the county council's refusal of permission for a Tetra mast at Uzmaston, near Haverfordwest, is a case in point. The residents of Uzmaston, who were unanimously opposed to the plans, were no doubt gratified to hear their local member's impassioned speech to the planning committee which resulted in the application being refused. The upshot is that Uzmaston to have a Tetra mast and the county council is now faced with a large bill for both its own, and MM02's, legal costs. I can't quite see where the benefits lie except to the grandstanding politicians who increase their chances of electoral success. Indeed, come to think about it, is this not a form of electioneering on the rates?
Clr Mike Stoddart,
Milford Haven.
Milford Haven.
Powered By Qumana
posted by Manorbier Sam at
3/03/2006 09:36:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home