Planning Permission

matt-dublin

the official handover of the estate has not happened yet, thus they can still do pretty much what they want with access.

woodser

matt-dublin wrote:

the official handover of the estate has not happened yet, thus they can still do pretty much what they want with access.

Correct matt they still own the common areas and strictly speakin can apply for planning to build on them.Also from what I've read and studied of all the leases from all the Management Companies in Charlesland Grove, Wood ,Park, Court,Fairways,Seabourne View,Spine Road,Commercial,and overall umbrella Company over the whole estate I dont believe the estate can ever wholly be handed back.To the residents as each Company has juristiction over parts of the estate that others have:mad: :mad:

Emma A

Hi my sister is a solicitor and has drafted a really good objection letter for me. Anyone want a copy of details pls send me a pm thx

woodser

Checked it all out.The land is zoned residential so some housing will go there.What is proposed is way O.T.T.Lodging an objection on the access from Charlesland Spine Road on the basis of parking on North side .ie wood and Court side of the spine road has reduced it to one lane.Also objecting to when and if any construction starts that all construction traffic be banned from spine road as .If that doesnt work then just park both sides of the spine road -no double yellows then h.g.v.s wont be able to get upWhile cars can.:D

MuffinsDa

woodser wrote:

.If that doesnt work then just park both sides of the spine road -no double yellows then h.g.v.s wont be able to get upWhile cars can.:D

slightly off topic, but just to warn you: not a good idea at all! Because then ambulances and fire trucks won't be able to get through as well. So never do that under any circumstance!

pelemcg

Hi Emma A, could you pm me the draft for objection letter? Thanks!

neets

if you could pm me too emma a, that would be great.

Emma A

hi objections have to be in by 7th June and it costs 20 euro to lodge one thx

future_plans

When I was passing yesterday I noticed that there was work going on in the old Zapi marketing suite beside the Fairways. I was just wondering if they are now removing it, or building new models and redecorating for the new development? Does anybody know whats going on there? Or has anybody asked?

matt-dublin

the marketing suite is being removed and shipped off to sweden as far as i know.

Emma can you send me the address and any information on where the objections need to be sent to?

Marcais

Submissions can be sent by e-mail to:

plandev@wicklowcoco.ie

As far as I know, you will have a €25 fee to pay, so you should make sure that that your submissions are as relevant and coherent as possible. Evelyn Cawley assisted us with submissions on the last rezoning and has already met with committees on this issue. She has a post-graduate degree in palnning so knows her stuff (ps. not an election promise, she will help regardless!)

A public meeting sometime after 24th May might be the best way to go about this.

Also, very important to let Dail candidates and local "representatives" know your views on this now and ask for their support...BUT get it in writing!! they will (and have) tell you anything on your doorstep or on the phone.

About 100 submissions form Charlesland went in against the rezoning behind Charlesland. FG and FF councillors insisted in Wicklow Times etc. that Charlesland and Greystones were all behind the rezoning, withhout even acknowledging the objections which they were very much aware of. So it may be a good idea to let local media know about all concerns also.

MOSK

First time user of Boards - So don't know where this'll end up!

The zoning of the land above Charlesland Park is 'R2' - Residential with max of 17.4 residential units per Hectare (as defined in Greystones / Delagany Local Area Plan, and still zoned as such under proposed amendments of September 2006 - If this info. has been superseded could someone let me know?) - The proposal for 91 units into 2.9 Ha represents well over 30 units per Hectare, more than doube the zond max and which exceeds even the 'R1' zoning (max 22.2 / Ha). This (if my info is correct) is a serious material contravention of the LAP, which in itself is grounds for objection, but which may be supplemented on basis we bought houses in knowledge of zoning, but this is now being (or at least proposed to be) ignored.

Other grounds for objection might overshadowing (loss of light), Overviewing (direct sight into back garden), Visual obtrusion, loss of view / prospect 'P02' that was set as an objective for preservation under LAP (subject to zoning objectives), provision for 'Green corridor' (cycle / pedestrian path planned to run through the land- haven't seen the plans so don't know if this has been provided for), adequacy of exisiting water supply / waste water disposal systems to cope with increased demand (an issue raised in EIS of LAP variation, but not sure if addressed, so maybe query for confirmation rather than basis of objection), Childcare facilities (agian don't know if provided for in plans, but there's an objective of 20 places per 75 residential units, and of course traffic (local and N11).

If anyone's got the plans for the development in digital format, could they 'pm' to me as well (don't know what 'pm'-ing is yet, but I assume it'll turn up in my Email?)

Tom Bombadillo

In 2003 Zapi Properties Ltd. were refused planning permission for 4 Storey and Penthouse level apartment scheme arranged in 6 blocks with lower ground level car parking. The development consists of 1) 144 No 2 bed apartments, 2) 24 No 2 bed Penthouse apartments 3) lower ground level car park at the same location. Wicklow County Council gave 8 reasons for its refusal. http://www.wicklow.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewApplicDetails.asp?validFileNum=1&app_num_file=038233

The decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanala and only 2 of these reasons were upheld.
http://www.pleanala.ie/data1/searchdetails.asp?id=9066128&caseno=203001

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS of An Bord Pleanala

1. It is a stated objective of the current Greystones/Delgany Development Plan to realign/improve the R761 road in the vicinity of the site. Therefore development of the kind proposed would be premature pending the determination by Wicklow County Council of a road layout for the area.

2. It is considered that the proposed development by reason of its bulk and height would be visually dominant and out of character with the pattern of development in the area, and would seriously injure the amenities of existing and permitted residential property in the vicinity by reason of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.




In the current submission for planning, the plans include realignment of the R761 and the proposed development has been scaled down from the previous one.

I intend to object to the development on the following grounds:

1: Endanger public safety by reason of serious traffic hazard in Charlesland, as there are not sufficient parking spaces currently around the crescent and the park, and the proposed development is going to remove 8 parking spaces from the crescent. Although the proposed development is providing the minimum number of car parking spaces under the Greystones/Delgany Local Area Plan; the reality is that currently there are not enough parking spaces around the Crescent and the Park. This results in residents parking their cars on the roadside between the spine road and the entrance to the underground car park in the proposed development.

2. The proposal may result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of residential amenity to occupants to the east and a loss of light to existing adjoining properties.

3. The public open space associated with the proposed development appears not be an integral part of the development as it is located on the opposite side of the proposed realignment of R761. This also may endanger public safety by reason of serious traffic hazard for pedestrians crossing the R761.

Are there any residents committees formed to object against the proposed development?

matt-dublin

I think a lot of the committees are objecting,

1.You can probably also throw in that the crescent will also lose 6 parking spaces and their waste/bin shed

2. Most or all of the reasons for original objection have not been satisfied.

3. the 84 spaces assigned to the proposal apartment blocks is not sufficient for the amount of residential units and will result in an overflow to the crescent car park which will be overflowing due to the loss of six parking spaces resulting in illegal parking and a danger to general public safety.

4. This was not considered for the 2007 local area plan which was decided at christmas.

5. The N11 is currently up to capacity and public transport is sparse and overwhelmed proving that the current infrastructure cannot handle further increase in population

6. Unnacceptable noise levels, as proven before with the last phase of charlesland would create an unacceptable level of disturbance in the mornings and weekend.

7. Unnacceptable levels of drainage from the proposal, including waste drainage, water supply etc would be significantly affected resulting in potential overwhelming of waste drainage systems and water pressure through charlesland.

I would also suggest everyone get onto your local TDs

I also think that everyone should post up their reasons for objecting and that way our objections will have more reasons each if you know what i mean.

neets

My neighbours showed me the plans last night, including the side elevation. For anyone who is in the back row of Charlesland Park, the new houses will be at least 2 and a half storeys and because they are built on land which is already considerably higher than the foundations of our houses, they will literally tower over us. We will lose all sunlight in our back gardens and the new houses will be looking right into us, taking away any privacy we have. Does anyone know what the minimum required distance is between residential dwellings so as not to impinge or over shadow. Could this be another reason for objection?

Basil Brush

The plans are for 2 rows of houses behind the last row of Charlesland Park - which is just way too many and with being 2.5/3 storeys high they will definetly block our sunlight out.

I urge everyone on the back row to object - the more people the better. Everyone needs to object to original application - deadline June 6th. When it comes to the later appeal process depending on decision, you will only be able to object again if you made an objection to original planning application.

neets

Basil Brush wrote:

The plans are for 2 rows of houses behind the last row of Charlesland Park - which is just way too many and with being 2.5/3 storeys high they will definetly block our sunlight out.

I urge everyone on the back row to object - the more people the better. Everyone needs to object to original application - deadline June 6th. When it comes to the later appeal process depending on decision, you will only be able to object again if you made an objection to original planning application.

I know this is a dumb question as I've never objected before, but how do I object to the original application? How do I find out what the original application is?

Jun Wan

Same question, how can we object the original planning? By sending the objection letter to Wicklow County Council? Thanks.

Basil Brush

if you pop down to the wicklow county council offices in Wicklow Town (near Grand Hotel) you can get the plans for EUR10 - they'll photocopy what you want. Then you need to put in writing by June 6th your objection to Wicklow County Council. If every house does this individually.

Plans look a disgrace - houses way too high. To be honest, I do think that the land needs to be developed as it is just wasteland at the moment but I think large bungalowes or something like that would be perfect - they wouldn't overlook us or block out our sunlight. But obviously you wouldn't fit in as many large bungalowes as you would 3 storey houses (going high instead of going wide). The applicants could just be going all out on the first planning application knowing that they wont get it and will have to scale back. Also, I reckon the estate with the lovely bungalowes across the road at the back of us (they would be facing the land) will object heavily as well as their sea views could be in question

matt-dublin

whats the procedure for sending an objection by post?

address?
send cheque?

neets

my neighbour has just called wicklow county council. you can object by fax - the number is 0404 69462 and then you need to also call them on 0404 20100 to pay your fee of €20 by credit or debit card. By post I assume you just include your objection letter and your cheque - making reference to the planning app code.

does anyone know if you can make more than one objection per household. oh, and btw, my neighbour also checked in terms of objecting to the original application and this is now not possible. you an only object to the most recent application.

dubsgirl

neets wrote:

my neighbour has just called wicklow county council. you can object by fax - the number is 0404 69462 and then you need to also call them on 0404 20100 to pay your fee of €20 by credit or debit card. By post I assume you just include your objection letter and your cheque - making reference to the planning app code.

Can someone give me the planning app code?

Thanks

matt-dublin

dubsgirl wrote:

Can someone give me the planning app code?

Thanks

07/956

dubsgirl

Thanks Matt

matt-dublin

MOSK wrote:

First time user of Boards - So don't know where this'll end up!

The zoning of the land above Charlesland Park is 'R2' - Residential with max of 17.4 residential units per Hectare (as defined in Greystones / Delagany Local Area Plan, and still zoned as such under proposed amendments of September 2006 - If this info. has been superseded could someone let me know?) - The proposal for 91 units into 2.9 Ha represents well over 30 units per Hectare, more than doube the zond max and which exceeds even the 'R1' zoning (max 22.2 / Ha). This (if my info is correct) is a serious material contravention of the LAP, which in itself is grounds for objection, but which may be supplemented on basis we bought houses in knowledge of zoning, but this is now being (or at least proposed to be) ignored.

Other grounds for objection might overshadowing (loss of light), Overviewing (direct sight into back garden), Visual obtrusion, loss of view / prospect 'P02' that was set as an objective for preservation under LAP (subject to zoning objectives), provision for 'Green corridor' (cycle / pedestrian path planned to run through the land- haven't seen the plans so don't know if this has been provided for), adequacy of exisiting water supply / waste water disposal systems to cope with increased demand (an issue raised in EIS of LAP variation, but not sure if addressed, so maybe query for confirmation rather than basis of objection), Childcare facilities (agian don't know if provided for in plans, but there's an objective of 20 places per 75 residential units, and of course traffic (local and N11).

If anyone's got the plans for the development in digital format, could they 'pm' to me as well (don't know what 'pm'-ing is yet, but I assume it'll turn up in my Email?)

latest document i could find:
page 26

http://www.wicklow.ie/publications/Planning/GreyDelgany%20LAP/Adopted%20Plan/GDLAP_4.pdf
http://www.wicklow.ie/PUBLICATIONS/Planning/GreyDelgany%20LAP/Amendments/Feb%2007/GDLAP%20MapB-Rev.pdf

AntKing

This objection letter was lodged by myself today. I notice that to date there is only 1 noted submission on the web file! Feel free to utilise this if you agree with my stance;

The Planning Officer
Planning Department
Wicklow County Council
County Buildings
Whitegates
Wicklow Town
County Wicklow


Re: Planning Objection to Planning Application Ref: 07/956 on lands at Charlesland by Zapi Properties Ltd.


I, name, of Address, Greystones, County Wicklow wish to strongly object to the above development on the grounds of the following:

1. Material Contravention of Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan – Zoning Objective R2; To preserve and improve residential amenity, maximum 17.3 Units/Ha – the current proposal for 91 units on 2.9Ha is at a density of 31.4 Units/Ha. This gross neglect (exceeds objective by 80%) for the Zoning Objective will cause unnecessary damage to the residential amenity.

2. Material Contravention of Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan – Views and Prospects; PO2 – The prospect of the coast and sea from the R761 from the junction with the Southern Access Route northwards to the northern boundary of Glenbrook – the proposed bulk and height of the development is visually dominant to such an extent that the prospect from the R761 to the sea will be eliminated. This is particularly evident at the southern half of the site where lands adjacent to the R761 have been filled, and hence so too any proposed development.

3. Overshadowing / Loss of Light - the height of the proposed development completely lacks consideration to the adjacent existing dwellings, particularly when the relative floor levels are concerned. This is particularly evident at the southern extent of the site where proposed ground floor levels are at 1 ½ to 2 storeys above those of the existing 2 storey dwellings. Subsequently the proposed 2 ½ and 3 storey houses equate relatively to a 4 to 5 storey bulk in this context. This will cause a completely unacceptable level of overshadowing. It is hoped that the Planning Officer applies the 25o guideline to limit overshadowing to acceptable levels.

4. Overlooking / Loss of Privacy – the proximity of the proposed development completely lacks consideration to the adjacent existing dwellings. The context of a raised site exaggerates the loss of privacy through overlooking. It is hoped that the Planning Officer exceeds the 22m guideline for back-to-back development. Adherence to the 25o guideline mentioned above in Objection #3 should lead to any proposed development being situated and appropriate distance from the existing dwellings.


5. Adequacy of Existing Water Supply – as previously highlighted in various planning studies & policy documents particular this area, there is an excessive demand on the existing water supply. It is hoped that Wicklow County Council Drainage Department give this issue due consideration.

6. Adequacy of Waste Water Disposal – as previously highlighted in various planning studies & policy documents particular this area, there is an excessive demand on the existing waste water drainage and disposal system. It is hoped that Wicklow County Council Drainage Department give this issue due consideration.

7. Adequacy of Transport Infrastructure – as previously highlighted in various planning studies & policy documents particular this area as well as on a regional scale; there is an excessive demand on the existing transport infrastructure. This is particularly evident when one considers the current strain on the N11 and the limited public transport routes serving the vicinity. The continued perpetuation of dwellings in close proximity to this limited infrastructure without the provision of localised employment opportunities merely contributes additional commuters to an already strained infrastructure. It is understood that these reasons have previously constituted grounds for refusal for other residential developments in Bray, County Wicklow.

8. Lack of Childcare Facilities – it is hoped that Wicklow County Council Planning Department enforce the guidelines for provision of childcare facilities.

9. Health & Safety Issue with Public Open Space - it is noted that the provision of public open space associated with the proposed development occurs on the opposite side of the R761. As a major arterial road traffic route, this poses a potential safety issue to pedestrian traffic seeking to utilise the provided public open space.

10. Health & Safety Issue with Noise Levels – in the event of any future development, it is hoped that Wicklow County Council stipulate that noise levels are limited to those stipulated within current Health & Safety legislation, and that all construction work is limited to weekday working hours.

Furthermore, based on the Site History and the previous decision (Planning ref: 03/8233), where the same applicant sought 168 units at an astounding 57.9 Units/Ha, it is quite apparent that the applicant exhibits a flagrant disregard for Planning guidelines and fully intends to seek the over-development of the site. This is exaggerated by the fact that the applicant has made minimal efforts towards meeting the previous grounds for refusal of permission. In the greater context it is not understood how the continued perpetuation of urban sprawl meets the objective 2to improve residential amenity”.

As a concerned local resident one can only implore Wicklow County Council Planning Department to represent the concerns of local residents and ensure that any development of this site meets the policies & objectives created through public consultation as outlined in both the Wicklow County Development Plan 2004-2010, and particularly the Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan 2006-2012.


Yours sincerely,

woodser

Just a few advisory points
The right to light since 2001 is not grounds for Objection.Proximity 180 feet 60 metres is the actual distance 22m is only aguideline and not Planning Law -from looking at the plans thats not going to work either.Overlooking and privacy its actually 60 metres from the plan- 22 is only a guideline and not planning law again and also depends on what windows go to the rear of the proposed houses/apts . Again none of the above apply to the Crescent as they overlook no Gardens or Freehold PropretyThe N11 capacity will have no bearing and is ill informed.Dont get me wrong I'm on your side but would advise you to revise your objection.Point 10 is also very weak grounds the developer can easily get around this .Its not really firm grounds for objection however all the other points are firm and sound.Best of Luck.

matt-dublin

just sent this in now, slightly ammended from ant king's objection:

my objection wrote:

Re: Planning Objection to Planning Application Ref: 07/956 on lands at Charlesland by Zapi Properties Ltd.


I, xxx of xxx, Greystones, County Wicklow and also representing the Crescent Management Company as chairman, wish to strongly object to the above development on the grounds of the following:

1. Material Contravention of Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan – Zoning Objective R2; To preserve and improve residential amenity, maximum 17.3 Units/Ha – the current proposal for 91 units on 2.9Ha is at a density of 31.4 Units/Ha. This gross neglect (exceeds objective by 80%) for the Zoning Objective will cause unnecessary damage to the residential amenity.

2. Material Contravention of Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan – Views and Prospects; PO2 – The prospect of the coast and sea from the R761 from the junction with the Southern Access Route northwards to the northern boundary of Glenbrook – the proposed bulk and height of the development is visually dominant to such an extent that the prospect from the R761 to the sea will be eliminated. This is particularly evident at the southern half of the site where lands adjacent to the R761 have been filed, and hence so too any proposed development.

3. Overshadowing / Loss of Light - the height of the proposed development completely lacks consideration to the adjacent existing dwellings, particularly when the relative floor levels are concerned. This is particularly evident at the southern extent of the site where proposed ground floor levels are at 1 ½ to 2 storeys above those of the existing 2 storey dwellings. Subsequently the proposed 2 ½ and 3 storey houses equate relatively to a 4 to 5 storey bulk in this context. This will cause a completely unacceptable level of overshadowing. It is hoped that the Planning Officer applies the 25o guideline to limit overshadowing to acceptable levels.

4. Overlooking / Loss of Privacy – the proximity of the proposed development completely lacks consideration to the adjacent existing dwellings. The context of a raised site exaggerates the loss of privacy through overlooking. It is hoped that the Planning Officer exceeds the 22m guideline for back-to-back development. Adherence to the 25o guideline mentioned above in Objection #3 should lead to any proposed development being situated and appropriate distance from the existing dwellings. All new apartment type dwellings will overlook directly into all bedrooms of Charlesland Crescent resulting in little or no privacy for the majority of all residents.

5. Adequacy of Existing Water Supply – as previously highlighted in various planning studies & policy documents particular this area; there is an excessive demand on the existing water supply. It is hoped that Wicklow County Council Drainage Department give this issue due consideration.

6. Adequacy of Waste Water Disposal – as previously highlighted in various planning studies & policy documents particular this area; there is an excessive demand on the existing waste water drainage and disposal system. It is hoped that Wicklow County Council Drainage Department give this issue due consideration.

7. Adequacy of Transport Infrastructure – as previously highlighted in various planning studies & policy documents particular this area as well as on a regional scale; there is an excessive demand on the existing transport infrastructure. This is particularly evident when one considers the current strain on the N11 and the limited public transport routes serving the vicinity. The continued perpetuation of dwellings in close proximity to this limited infrastructure without the provision of localised employment opportunities merely contributes additional commuters to an already strained infrastructure. It is understood that these reasons have previously constituted grounds for refusal for other residential developments in Bray, County Wicklow.

8. Lack of Childcare Facilities – it is hoped that Wicklow County Council Planning Department enforce the guidelines for provision of childcare facilities.

9. Health & Safety Issue with Public Open Space - it is noted that the provision of public open space associated with the proposed development occurs on the opposite side of the R761. As a major arterial road traffic route, this poses a potential safety issue to pedestrian traffic seeking to utilise the provided public open space.

10. Health & Safety Issue with Noise Levels – in the event of any future development, it is hoped that Wicklow County Council stipulate that noise levels are limited to those stipulated within current Health & Safety legislation, and that all construction work is limited to weekday working hours.
11. The Proposal contravenes previous planning permission given for Charlesland Crescent, which stands to lose six parking spaces and domestic waste/bin shed with the new proposal.
12. The Proposal does not provide adequate parking for the proposed apartments. There will be a proposed 84 spaces for 60 units. On Average, as recorded by the majority of dwellings in Charlesland, apartment dwellers have between one and three cars. Allowing for this and estimating that all one bedroom apartments will have 1.4 cars and all two bedroom apartments in the proposal will have 1.8 cars. There is a proposed amount of 48 to bedroom apartments and 15 one bedroom apartments which would require over 100 parking spaces in order not to result in overflowing into the surrounding estates which are currently experiencing parking difficulty and traffic issues which have not yet been resolved by Zapi Properties.
13. Health and safety issues of construction traffic. The proposal will cause general public health and safety issues with construction traffic passing through the Charlesland estate. Traffic problems are already a problem within Charlesland; Construction traffic will further endanger the safety of playing children and pedestrians.
14. The proposal would be visually dominant in the Charlesland estate and would be out of character with current dwellings in the estate.
15. Previous objections on Application 03/8233 has objections noted that have not been resolved by the current proposal. Including the following:
• The Proposal would endanger public safety by reason serious traffic hazard because of the proposed means of access to the site would necessitate an undesirable level of vehicular movements through a residential area.
• The Proposal would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of residential amenity of future occupants of an approved development to the east and loss of light to existing adjoining properties.
• The proposal would constitute an intrusive and obtrusive feature particularly viewed from the R761 and would interfere with the open aspect to the coast.
• The Proposal would materially contravene development plan objectives of the Greystones/Delgany Development plan on grounds of density, level of development and level of apartment provision.
• The proposal constitutes an excessive density on a site which lacks a high quality public transport with no specific plans and commitments to this regard
• The Proposal would be premature due to the existing deficiencies in the adjoining road network and pending the determination of a road layout for the area. It would also prejudice the future realignment of the R761 Killencarrig By-Pass
Although the Above objections were not all upheld by the board, they still are relevant objections to the current proposal. And of the two objections upheld by the board one is still relevant:
• It is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its bulk, height and repetitive design, would be visually dominant and out of character with the pattern of development in the area and would seriously injure the amenities of existing and permitted residential property in the vicinity by reason of overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Furthermore, based on the Site History and the previous decision (Planning ref: 03/8233), where the same applicant sought 168 units at an astounding 57.9 Units/Ha, it is quite apparent that the applicant exhibits a flagrant disregard for Planning guidelines and fully intends to seek the over-development of the site. This is exaggerated by the fact that the applicant has made minimal efforts towards meeting the previous grounds for refusal of permission. In the greater context it is not understood how the continued perpetuation of urban sprawl meets the objective 2to improve residential amenity".

As a concerned local resident one can only implore Wicklow County Council Planning Department to represent the concerns of local residents and ensure that any development of this site meets the policies & objectives created through public consultation as outlined in both the Wicklow County Development Plan 2004-2010, and particularly the Greystones / Delgany Local Area Plan 2006-2012.

matt-dublin

fyi 47 objections went in

http://www.wicklow.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewObjectorDetails.asp?file_number=07956&page_num=2&Op=0

Charlie-Bravo

matt-dublin wrote:

fyi 47 objections went in

http://www.wicklow.ie/ePlan/InternetEnquiry/rpt_ViewObjectorDetails.asp?file_number=07956&page_num=2&Op=0

I see Derek Mitchell and Evelyn Cawley are listed as objectors/observers. It'd be interesting to see their comments on the proposal!

I do notice that some people are listed twice on the list!??! I don't think 47 is a true figure here (I ain't going to analyse it to get the real figure; maybe someone with a little time on their hands can have a look)