Feeling brighter thanks, although cold is now a cough.
I note the two comments in my blog post on last night’s planning committee meeting, asking to know more of the error I mentioned, and the person who spotted it. In the officer’s report, click on Reports 26-11-12, and go to page 47. In item 7, it says,
“The development hereby approved shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for 9 cars to be parked in a horizontal arrangement with a central turning area, for 4 cycles to be parked, and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose.”
The first sentence should read,
“The development hereby approved shall NOT be occupied until space has been laid out …
I’ve asked the resident who noticed the error for permission to quote his name here. That person is Warwick Gay, who lives in All Saints Road. Noticing this error demonstrated the careful attention paid to the committee papers by residents, which, in a small way, helped strengthen our case.
This afternoon I visited the planning department as a courtesy follow-up to the meeting. From this I learned that the applicant has six months in which to appeal the refusal of the application.
I also learned about why the bicycle racks were positioned in the area previously identified for servicing vehicles. It’s because half the car parking would be needed for servicing vehicles to reverse into the designated area, and so the applicant’s alternative was to have two rising bollards that would reserve space for servicing vehicle’s. Thereby leaving three free car parking spaces. The cycle racks are on the bottom left, and the two rising bollards are marked in the adjacent two car parking spaces.
Enough said on this topic, till the next time, perhaps.