PS-38: Planning Consultant Julia Joseph’s correspondence to date

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 38:

02-Jul-2015
(PS-38 Planning Consultant Julia Joseph’s correspondence to date)

I gather the applicants have been very actively using their ‘farm stall’ in Chepstow as a marketing venue to solicit support for their proposed industrialisation of Severndale Farm with potential customers being asked to sign standard petition letters – regardless of their location or involvement with Hanley Hill and Stroat and based upon no clear understanding of the implications or the huge subsidies and dangers nor the inefficiency of Wind Turbines and their damaging environmental costs.

However Julia Joseph, a professional planning consultant has been asking some interesting questions and making further astute and pertinent comments to the Planning Authorities on our behalf!

FROM: Julie Joseph [mailto:julie.joseph@jcpc-ltd.co.uk]
SENT: 08 June 2015 12:01
TO: Stephen Colegate
CC: Tony Pope
SUBJECT: Planning Application Wind Turbine Severndale Farm Tidenham
Chepstow P0365/15/FUL

Dear Mr Colegate

I have been appointed by several local residents to represent them in
relation to the above planning application about which they have strong
objections. It would be helpful if I could understand the proposed
timescale of the application . I understand it appears to be scheduled
for committee in July but at present there are number of key consultees
who to date have not yet responded. It also appears that a number of the
reports including the bird surveys and the screening opinion were
carried out some time ago and as such may well be out of date. The bird
survey in particular was carried out 3 years ago and as such will be
fundamentally flawed and not an appropriate basis for a decision to be
made. I also understand that Historic England have requested more
detailed analysis is carried out.

I have checked your website and to date the comments from your
ecologist, landscape team and Environmental Health officer have not been
provided. (when I clicked on your Sustainability Team Response this came
up as a blank page) These are key in the decision making process and it
would be extremely helpful to have a copy of these for analysis .

I am aware of the recent appeal decision by the same applicant however
would like to point out that this should not set a precedent for other
applications which should be determined on their individual merits.
However I also appreciate you will to a certain extent be guided by the
Inspectors comments.

My understanding of the application is that the Resilience model is
offering community benefits but this is not done through a planning
obligation because this would not meet the required tests for
obligations. I would refer you to a recent decision Planning appeal ref
APP/U3935/V/14/2216792 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77
APPLICATION BY SWINDON COMMERCIAL SERVICES LTD: LAND AT SCIENCE MUSEUM,
WROUGHTON, SWINDON SN4 9LT APPLICATION REF: S/13/0809 which was subject
to a call in by the Secretary of State. Whilst the appeal for solar
panels was approved, the Secretary of State agreed with the inspector
that the proposed financial community benefits in the Undertaking fell
outside the scope of Section 106(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 and that they fail the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended. The Secretary
of State therefore gave no weight to the Undertaking in determining this
planning application. On this basis the community benefits of the
proposed scheme can not be controlled or enforced and carry very limited
weight. As such there is no guarantee that such a scheme will be brought
forward by the applicants as opposed to an alternative energy company
and as such the application should be considered purely on its merits
and not as a community model.

With regard to the economic benefits locally, again these appear to be
largely over stated and the local authority can have no control over the
potential suppliers of the turbines. It should be noted that in many
situations the turbines and motors are imported from Europe. As such we
believe little weight can be given to the economic benefits of such a
scheme.

With regard to the visual impact on the closest residential properties,
the applicants have failed to take into account the fact that there is
an extent approval for 3 live work units at Wibdon Farm, Stroat . The
majority of windows will have significant views of the development and
the report needs to assess this impact accordingly.

Given the above I would be grateful if you could advise me of timings
for the application to be heard by Planning Committee and when you
anticipate further information and your ecologists and landscape
officers comments to be available.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

JULIE JOSEPH BA (HONS) MRTPI

DIRECTOR

JCPC LTD

SPECIALISTS IN RURAL PLANNING

TEL 01989 770258

MOB 07920 770735

FROM: Stephen Colegate [mailto:Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk]
SENT: 15 June 2015 11:30
TO: ‘Julie Joseph’
SUBJECT: P0365/15/FUL

Dear Ms Joseph

RE: P0365/15/FUL

Thank you for your representation to the above application which is
hereby acknowledged and will be recorded appropriately.

Regards

Stephen Colegate

Senior Planning Officer

Forest of Dean District Council

Tel: 01594 812375

Email: stephen.colegate@fdean.gov.uk

Subject: RE: P0365/15/FUL
Date: 2015-07-01 09:35
From: “Julie Joseph” <julie.joseph@jcpc-ltd.co.uk>
To: “‘Stephen Colegate'” <Stephen.Colegate@fdean.gov.uk>
Copy: <Tony.Pope@fdean.gov.uk>,

Thank you for acknowledging my email. It would be helpful if you could
respond to some of the points raised in particular whether any further
up to date reports are being submitted and when it is your intention to
take the matter to the planning committee.

I would also like to draw your attention to the recent ministerial
statement issued by DCLG ON 18 June 2015 which becomes planning policy
and thus a material consideration . This states quite clearly that :

“When determining planning applications for wind energy development
involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should
only grant planning permission if:

· the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind
energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and

· following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning
impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully
addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing.

In applying these new considerations, suitable areas for wind energy
development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or
Neighbourhood Plan. Maps showing the wind resource as favourable to wind
turbines, or similar, will not be sufficient. Whether a proposal has the
backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the
local planning authority.

Where a valid planning application for a wind energy development has
already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development
plan does not identify suitable sites, the following transitional
provision applies. In such instances, local planning authorities can
find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are
satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected
local communities and therefore has their backing.”

Given the high level of objection on this proposal and the comments of
the Parish Council it appears very evident that the proposal does not
satisfy the planning impacts identified by local communities and as such
does not have the community backing. As such the proposal is clearly
contrary to the recently published ministerial statement which in effect
is planning policy and the application should either be withdrawn or
refused.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

JULIE JOSEPH BA (HONS) MRTPI

DIRECTOR

JCPC LTD

SPECIALISTS IN RURAL PLANNING

TEL 01989 770258

MOB 07920 770735

 

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines (WT) to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD) as administered by The Forest of Dean District Council (FoDDC), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB), sites of special scientific interest (SSI) & wildlife habitats.

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies of the ‘Warmists’ & self proclaimed ‘Greens’, which are presented as ‘fact’, regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins (site owner)

If you would like more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

If you would like more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

E&OE

PLEASE NOTE: We do not accept responsibility for material on links and other sources

IF you note ANY errors of fact in this or any other web site or blog I own or manage please bring it to my attention for correction @ Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com – Thank you.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s