OBJECTING that will stop a planning applications

Read through these OBJECTING which ones could be use to stop Brent planning applications

• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account]
• Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ‘garden grabbing’)
• Visual impact of the development
• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood
• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)
• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity
• The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners
• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]
• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]
• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users

I hope the fans kick up as much of a stink as what the majority did when they bombarded Guilfoyles company.....lets see how much they really care

im not sure any of those objections are relevant to home park. i think we're fooked

I think that the purpose of this site, and any non ATD opposition to these plans, is to make the process as honest as possible.

These plans will happen but Damon has already sacrificed a great deal of his personal precious time this morning and uncovered an insight into Brent's motives. Keep asking questions, allow free debate and things will unravel. It may not be enough to stop this development but you will make sure that the main players involved are on their toes and that any concessions possible are delivered.

Mapperley, darling wrote:

im not sure any of those objections are relevant to home park. i think we're fooked

The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users


Visual impact of the development


If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]

Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of green land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ‘garden grabbing’)

highways - its off the outland road, so wont affect that anymoreso than now

visual impact- relates to height mainly and its below the height of the main stand now

conservation area - development right next door in the life centre, so thats out too

high density - relates mainly to housing; green land? -- its on the existing footprint, i think.


im not defending this, just trying to find a chink in the armour and i dont feel any of those arguements will hold up

The access road could be something worth objecting to.

It ruins the visual of the area for a start.

The access road could well be the straw that broke the Camels back , the Trust i strongly suspect is drawing its breath after the latest setback.
Chuck another spanner in the works, anything to de-rail this utter piece of shit

Central Park Area Action Plan

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Chapters 1-5 is the one to look at.

There's plenty in there that it could be argued this proposal doesn't address. Have a read.

Tgwu wrote:

Read through these OBJECTING which ones could be use to stop Brent planning applications

• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account]
• Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ‘garden grabbing’)
• Visual impact of the development
• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood
• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)
• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity
• The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners
• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]
• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]
• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users

Do you believe this or are you just currying favour with the weirdos.

I think you are full of shit.

hairy j wrote:

.........

Do you believe this or are you just currying favour with the weirdos.

I think you are full of shit.

Mr J, of all of your challenging posts (and I mean that in a variety of meanings) this is the most challenging to date.

hairy j wrote:

Do you believe this or are you just currying favour with the weirdos.

I think you are full of shit.

Thanks for that fine input to the debate about the development in the park.
Anyone who has followed Tgwu's posts regarding the park and these developments over the last year will know that he cares about the issues more than most on here. Maybe you haven't been paying your best attention to posts made, or maybe the park, and Argyle's tenancy within it, just ain't your bag.
Just who are the weirdoes you talk of Hairy ? am I one ? Do I not care about the park ? am I just another of those weirdoes ? Are all people tthat object to these proposals weird ?
Read back Tgwu's post again and ask yourself exactly what he was saying.

knecht wrote:

Mr J, of all of your challenging posts (and I mean that in a variety of meanings) this is the most challenging to date.

And it was far more insulting than any challenge it made.

The sort of thing Hypocrite Hairy complains about a lot of the time.

Inconvenient as it is to both parties, Ray, once an application is formally submitted there are a number of channels by which the great unwashed (and other interested parties) may influence the final decision as to the granting of such permission.

Morning everybody, I sorry I am pooing everywhere. If you know me I have two outlets, one do not work the other I can see where the shit is coming from and where it is going, I know where I like to pile it.
Going back to his plan I was inform that a medical centre was being built in the Barn Park corner, that might have change because he realise that more profit and less outlay was to made by building the school

I still feel there's more than a slim chance none of brent's shit will ever be built. This eyesore may be a step too far for many come the formal application process. The NIMBY's of Milehouse and Peverell could yet save Argyle.

All depends whether you consider property price in £ or value in terms of quality of life.

DutchGreen_Ray wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I still feel there's more than a slim chance none of brent's shit will ever be built. This eyesore may be a step too far for many come the formal application process. The NIMBY's of Milehouse and Peverell could yet save Argyle.

I dont think so Freathy
The Development is more likely to possible increase property values in the area than raise objections.

We'll see

If it doesn't get built then we can wave the odious br*nt goodbye forever. What a great day that will be.

DutchGreen_Ray wrote:

Freathy wrote:

I still feel there's more than a slim chance none of brent's shit will ever be built. This eyesore may be a step too far for many come the formal application process. The NIMBY's of Milehouse and Peverell could yet save Argyle.

I dont think so Freathy
The Development is more likely to possible increase property values in the area than raise objections.

I don’t think so; they are trouble by transport noise and pollution all day, now they will get it into early in the morning, which time do the restaurant and cinema close?


The vue last film starts and finish below


15 Scary Movie 5 at Plymouth

For Sunday 05 May 2013 The performance is in Screen 7 , starts 11:40 PM and ends 1:30 AM

I have faith in the good NIMBY's of Peverell and Milehouse to shove it right up br*nts arse!

My objection is the fact that tgwu has simply cut and pasted his OP.

None of these 'issues' came from his keyboard. Most of them are flimsy as hell. Maybe I shouldn't have been so rude but spreading stuff like this around could damage the development.

Stopping a development like this is bad for the city. It'll stop potential jobs, it'll harm local supply businesses, it'll reduce business rate income for the council and it will result in less leisure facilities.

I don't agree with the stand being so small but the development, in my view, is necessary. I've made that clear from day one.

There's a formal list of objections to planning consent that can be considered by the planning committee. T&G's done us all the favour of putting them on here so we don't have to look them up.

You arrogant little shit.

Peggy * wrote:

There's a formal list of objections to planning consent that can be considered by the planning committee. T&G's done us all the favour of putting them on here so we don't have to look them up.

You arrogant little shit.

I'm sorry but if you have to look up an objection, it means you've not thought of it and ergo, it's not a real personal objection.

I'm not little either.

hairy j wrote:

Peggy * wrote:

There's a formal list of objections to planning consent that can be considered by the planning committee. T&G's done us all the favour of putting them on here so we don't have to look them up.

You arrogant little shit.

I'm sorry but if you have to look up an objection, it means you've not thought of it and ergo, it's not a real personal objection.

I'm not little either.

the way i see it is tgwu has shown us that there are ways of objecting, not that they are his personal objections. i think you owe him an apology.

Tgwu wrote:

Morning everybody, I sorry I am pooing everywhere. If you know me I have two outlets, one do not work the other I can see where the shit is coming from and where it is going, I know where I like to pile it.
Going back to his plan I was inform that a medical centre was being built in the Barn Park corner, that might have change because he realise that more profit and less outlay was to made by building the school

you post what you like mate you dont have to run it past hairy cock first, just tell him to fvck off.