The saga of Michael Jennings‘ St Joseph’s development in Ventnor continues …..
As you may be aware, Michael Jennings has developed well beyond the agreed planning permission and as well as the planning department slapping a temporary stop notice on the site (which sadly he ignored and planning has done nothing about), they also requested amended plans from Jennings detailing all the changes.
On Christmas Eve, we received a letter from Planning stating that we could view these amendments online and had 21 days in which to comment.
Unfortunately/strangely, the letter didn’t detail the actual date the reply was needed by (9th January) as every other planning letter we’ve had previously did. It also only gave the option of looking at it online, forgetting to state that plans are available at the council.
Understandably it was a busy time, the day before Christmas, but we took a very quick look online and found it was very hard to determine which were the new plans and what the amendments actually were.
The holidays, being away and a prolonged illness got in the way of returning to try and make head nor tail of the plans until Monday this week.
Holiday hijack
Judging by the ‘date received’ stamps on the plans, it took the architect, Duncan Gayler almost three and a half months to get these amendments to the planning department. Just in time to slip into what is referred to in the industry as ‘holiday hijack’ – a co-incidence?
The ‘holiday hijack’ trick is to submit plans over the holiday season, when people are away and the planning office is closed to the public, making it very hard for the public to have their say about schemes – you’d be amazed (or not) how many planning applications were put in that day.
No chance of response
The same day, we received phone calls from residents in the surrounding area who had also received the letter, but did not have Internet access and were unable to view the plans. They were also confused as to if the letter had been sent in error, as it looked like the original planning application.
Many of the residents were also away over the whole holiday period and only aware of the letter when they returned home on Sunday night (6th Jan) – leaving them only 2-3 days to figure out what the heck it was all about; suss out what the differences were; decide their reaction and reply. Unfortunately, in addition, the letter gave no provision for plans to be viewed in person, which is the norm – something that, even if they’d found the letter, would have been impossible as the planning offices were closed until 2th Jan.
Website: closed to comments
Whilst trying to leave a comment to that effect on the website, we found that we were unable to make comments online (still the case as we write). This meant that not only would residents would not be able to post their comments, but would miss out viewing other people’s comments, losing the advantage of better informing themselves.
Planning unresponsive
After taking another look at the plans, we were still in the dark as to what the actual changes were and what their implications could be.
So we wrote to Andrew Pegram, the case officer and Bill Murphy (head of planning) – given all of the above, requested that an extension of 21 days be added to the case.
We heard nothing back on Monday, so wrote again on Tuesday, this time receiving a reply stating that it had been discussed with Bill Murphy, but before an extension could be confirmed that he would be
“… looking into the process that has been implemented so far.”
Despite informing us that he would reply the same day, and us chasing again this morning (phone call and email), as of 2.30pm on the deadline date for comments, we have still not had any response from the planning department.
We appreciate that Andrew Pegram is a busy man and that the department have made some steps towards enforcement of this site, so we’re sure that we’ll will receive an email shortly advising that an extension will be granted – there’s no other option but an extension given what’s happened to date.
Damned as we don’t
Planning really doesn’t do itself any favours does it? They can’t trot out the “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” excuse if they put themselves in the position of being damned.
For those of us who are finding it hard to interpret the changes, perhaps a good PR move for the planning department would be to hold a session at Seaclose Park where they can explain the changes to the residents?
We’re sure the interested residents would be more than happy to arrange transport and if it meant that residents could make informed decisions on the amendments. Let’s not forget that this is a contentious application that many felt should NOT have been decided under delegated powers in the first place.
