Thursday, 16 February 2012

TDC Planning Cmte Feb 2012

Short and sharp Planning Committee meeting last night so this will be a brief recap rather than an actual report. I do feel like I'm short-changing you guys on this so Ill try to get another blog done later today to make up for it. We shall see.

- Richborough Power Station's alternative condition wording accepted.
- Chambers Wall Farm refused unanimously after a little discussion.
-Solar panels at Thanet Crematorium and Council Offices approved.
-Embassy Hotel, Cliftonville approved without debate.

The only one with a serious debate was Bramble Lane. As I said before, it comes with planning history including appeals and Inspector reports, so there was arguments both ways. There were concerns about side issues relating to this, but they didn't really count as part of the application themselves. Eventually it was approved on Chairman's second vote.

On public speaking, if doing a speech for the Committee its really important to stick to planning reasons and to have prepared something beforehand. Basically you get three minutes to speak. There's a clock on the Chairman's bench and once the red light hits you have 30 seconds left. You cannot defer to let other speakers go first and respond later.


Anonymous said...

Does TDC pray at meetings?

James Maskell said...

No they don't.

Anonymous said...

They've got some fucking sense then.

Graham Cotterill said...

I spoke at the planning meeting against the Bramble Lane application, and was quite surprised at the committee's seeming indifference to the fact that the ground underneath the concrete and turf that has been laid is probably contaminated after being used for 3 years as a groundworks company's yard. I was also dismayed to find that openly flouting a holiday let (maximum of 28 days occupation at a time) by living there permanently for 10 months does not even get a mention or indeed influence the committee's decision.

James Maskell said...

A couple of Members commented on the contamination issue and one asked about it to an Officer who said it had been dealt with in the past. There was no mention of it in the report.

The 28 day rule was a condition of previous planning consent and is a matter for Enforcement rather than the Committee.

Rather than indifference, it was more avoiding a court case which the Committee expected it would lose. I know what you mean though, Graham.