All
references quoted below are taken from the Appeal
Decision Document.
Having taken the time to absorb the full
details of the Inspector's report (by Clive Hughes) I am convinced
that had more consideration been given by B.D.C. to vital missed
opportunities and with a more forthright approach, the appeal
would have been dismissed.
Below you will find my personal responses
to the Inspectors findings in the Appeal
Decision Document
Page 2 Item 8 'reasons - Pattern of Development'
"I saw no examples of tandem or backland developing in the
vicinity of the appeal", then for certain
if he wants to revisit in a few years time I feel sure that this
will have changed dramatically as a precedent has now been created
(also see Conclusions - Page 4 Item 18)
There are some limitations to the granting
of this appeal (I refer to the `Formal Decision section on page
5 of the Inspectors report) and this states `No caravans shall
be brought on to the site until details have been submitted
and approved in writing by the local planning authority' yet
here we are on Tuesday 10th July and a touring caravan has already
been sited at the rear of his property!
Page 3 Item 11 'Effects of living conditions of occupiers
of adjoining properties'
Concerning the effect on my own property
(ignoring the massive loss in value) with the residential caravans
being situated three metres from the fencing it means that these
will be even more visible from both landing and bedroom areas,
as they will be positioned further towards the centre of Mr.
Maloney’s land. Furthermore, they will be only metres
away from the patio area where I like to sit out, and right
next to a purpose built brick BBQ. "I do not consider
that the visual impact would be unduly overbearing." Well
it wouldn't from Bristol, where Mr Hughes lives, would it?
Page 3 Item 13 - 'Effects on living
conditions of future occupiers...)
BDC have completely overlooked a crucial
aspect and in fact seemed totally unaware of the exact position
regarding the M1 Motorway plans. The Inspector accepted
Philip Brown's argument "There is no timescale for plans
for the motorway." This of course
in totally untrue, and it took Professor Malcolm Fox (acting
on behalf of LFE Parish Council) to intervene and advise that
it was not a case of 'if' but 'when' the work commences.
As you may well be aware, Highways have
already announced the two preferred options and the chosen final
option is to be announced in approximately November this year
with the anticipated work to commence in 2010 and completion
in 2017.
The works will of course
create massive disruption at the bridge, right next to Mr Maloney's
house and of course the end product is an extra M1 lane even
closer to his property. It seems unbelievable that neither of
the two officials from BDC were fully aware of the situation,
bearing in mind they were Development Control Manager and Environmental
Health Officer. It is also unbelievable that the Inspector totally
failed to take any account of Professor Fox's correction on
this matter.
Page 3 Item 14 - 'other material considerations'
B.D.C. did not dispute the appellant's (Mr. Maloney's) gypsy
status.
It does seem strange
that right from day one Mr. Maloney's address is shown as No.
77 Hinckley Road. On land registry documents dated 29th July
2004, the letter from Mr. Maloney's GP, Dr. Mistry of Birmingham
supporting his application dated 14th February 2005, both refer
to the address as above. However, according to Philip Brown's
evidence (he is Mr. Maloney's agent), the whole family all live
on an unauthorised encampment (page 4 item 15) What? - For THREE
YEARS !!!
Page 4 Item 17 - Conclusions
I am disappointed over the inspector's
reference to the objections raised by almost 700 residents,
where he states, "Many of these are copies of a
standard letter which cites local planning policies R1 and R7."
We are talking here about not only the
number of concerned residents, but also individuals who may
find themselves in a similar situation. The fact that these
letters may have appeared stereotyped is mainly irrelevant,
as no one was forced to object. We were told that specific guidelines
had to be met to justify a correct format of objection. How
many letters of support were there?
Page 4 Item 19 - Conclusions
Yet another crucial missed opportunity
was the pollution aspect that was not even raised or considered
by B.D.C. I would have expected a greater emphasis to be placed
on this to the extent that an expert should have been present.
After all, the B.D.C. have concerns NOW over the current pollution
levels, hence the hiring of the grey monitoring box outside
the Kathleen Rutland Home.
Page 5 Item 20 - Conclusions
The Inspector states, "I have also taken into the balance
the fact there is an identified unmet need for gypsies and travellers
in the area. "Why did B.D.C. not
point out that there are already eighteen sites in our region,
and yet another is in appeal at Countesthorpe?
We also have City Council
sites at Golf Course Lane, and still the threat of a transit
site at Ratby Lane. Overall, the lack of care over the presentation
of the case has cost L.F.E. and districts a crucial case, and
will no doubt have created a precedent for the future.
Professor Fox and myself
have been accused of not helping at the hearing, by bringing
"too much emotion" to the occasion and by deviating
from planning issues. In fact, the two of us were alone in bringing
certain planning issues to light, which the B.D.C should have
been fully aware of but overlooked.
To be personally criticised
for supporting our own interests and the community adds insult
to injury. It is a shame that B.D.C. did not have the same sort
of spirit.
These are my observations
as a layman and homeowner that I feel are justifiable criticisms
of the case. I do not have the qualifications of the B.D.C.
officials who are supposed to represent you and I as taxpayers.
Perhaps it is no surprise to learn that the Council has now
lost the last SEVEN cases that have gone to appeal. This shows
that there is an appalling shortage of knowledge and expertise
in dealing with these cases?
Finally, I would like to thank everyone
who has in the past given great help and support in numerous
ways to fight this application. Particularly the Leicester Forest
East Parish Council who have always opposed it, and Councillors
Malcolm Fox and David Parsons and all those individuals who
helped with delivering leaflets to keep fellow residents informed.
For me personally, one big thing that
has come out of this is the number of friends I have made during
and following the campaign.
My sincere gratitude and thanks go out
to one and all.
Gerry
| 
