Portacabins – follow up questions to the Council’s planners

With regards to the recent planning application 2016/5912, that being to do with Roehampton University’s portacabin application, the following questions have been asked of the Council;

“With regards to the planning application 2016/5912 can answers to the following questions please be provided:

  1. The number of planning application decisions made in the last five calendar years (2012-2016), and the first two months of 2017.  In many cases, the actual applications will have been submitted the previous year;
  2. The number accepted and rejected in each of those years and 2017 to date;
  3. The number of applications considered by the Planning Committee and the number considered under delegated authority by Council officers alone in each of those years;
  4. An acceptance/rejection comparison between those decided by the Planning Committee and those by Council officers alone in each of those years;
  5. The average (both mode and mean) number of objections made in respect of all the possible options in (b) to (d) above, i.e. acceptance/rejection and committee decision/delegated authority; and
  6. How many decisions were made in each of the five years for which there were more than 50 objections and of these, how many were accepted/rejected and how many decided by Committee/delegated authority.
  7. Please explain why the suggestion of the Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee for one year retention, rather than three, was not selected as the timeframe ?
  8. This first application, 2016/1365, started in March 2016, and this request was for a three year retention, then removed. A Travel Plan was requested and this application was withdrawn and then replaced by 2016/5912 which was also for a three year period. Please explain the reason for allowing the University an additional 11 months (March 2016 to February 2017) on top of the original 3 years?
  9. The number of objections (107) seems low. I have seen an email correspondence from Mr Pierce which confirms that for Hersham Close Residents Association (HCRA) that its objection would count not as one objection but equal to the number of properties it represents, thereby this would make that 48. HCRA did not obtain individual objections based on this understanding. Extending this concept, then Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association would be 49 objections and not one. Please confirm the position regarding how objections are viewed from a numerical point of view when received from non-individuals, for instance, from Residents Associations or The Putney Society.
  10. Referring to question 9, where is the guidance on the Council’s website for how such objections should be reviewed in terms of numbers of objections?
  11. With regards to the comment “in this case, the public benefit is having the contribution of Roehampton University to the economy of the borough, and the communal life of Roehampton” can the following be explained;
  12. Explain in detail, using facts and figures in additional to any comments, what the “contribution” is to the “economy of the borough”?
  13. Explain in detail, using facts and figures in additional to any comments, what the “contribution” is to the “communal life of Roehampton”?
  14. Regarding “noise disturbance”, is the Council stating that even though this noise disturbance was openly challenged with the University at a Roehampton Forum general meeting (attended by Councillor Carpenter) and was noted within the November Let’s Talk meeting Minutes for Roehampton (attended by Council staff and Councillors, including Councillor Ravi Govindia) that these do not count as noise disturbances?
  15. Related to question 14, if the Roehampton Forum meeting does not count then anything the University said at this meeting would equally not be worthy of recognition by the Council?
  16. From question 14, do noise complaints only count if the Environmental Services investigate?
  17. Where it states that “A staged refurbishment of the existing library within the Harvey Building is planned and could provide general teaching space to accommodate the needs of Whitelands College”, to what degree of certainty is this “could” a “will be done”?
  18. Further to this comment, has the Council reviewed the plans from the University regarding the ability to meet the three year period agreed?
  19. How is it possible that the University has been able to build a plethora of student accommodation at the expense of teaching premises which the University obviously requires and does this with various planning permissions granted by the Council?”

To keep an eye on progress click on this sentence.

Related articles (regarding the portacabin application);

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

  • Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk
Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

%d bloggers like this: