Small ads

Houses behind The Woodlands

From Martin F

Friday, 1 March 2013

Would everyone who commented on this application (13/000005/FUL) please note that it has been declared invalid by Calderdale, i.e. it is treated as if it had never existed.

A new consultation will be issued by Calderdale on the same subject. However, it is not known when.

Households which received Calderdale’s letter of 9th of January will again be informed.

It is presumed that anyone who commented but did not receive the Calderdale letter will not be informed (i.e. just because they commented), so please consult this forum. As soon as I receive my letter, I will put a note on this forum to advise that the new application is live.

‘Comments’ will not be carried over to the new application – anyone who commented will have to do so again.

From Martin F

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

The application is live again. The same reference number as last time, 13/00005/FUL, applies.

Contrary to what I said last time (following my conversation with Calderdale Planning on the 1st of March) comments will be carried across, so do not have to be submitted again.

If anyone wants to comment for the first time, comment further, or amend what they previously said, the deadline for the receipt of comments is the 12th of July. Please advise anyone you know who may not be aware that this application is live again of this fact.

On the Calderdale Planning page enter 13/00005/FUL

it will be noted that there are six new documents (all dated 6th June), two of which are the ‘Design & access statement’ one of which is listed as having superseded the other.

However, since the document listed as "superseded" has the reference number 381632, and the one that ‘replaces’ it has reference number 381626 - something that seems illogical to me, I have raised the question of which is the latest (correct) document with Gillian Boulton. She has told me that she is going to check and will amend the designation of these two documents on the above webpage, if necessary, within the next few days.

I have compared the original Design and access statement (reference 360121 of 3rd January) with the latest two and the changes appear to be the addition of paragraph 2.13 (on both 381626 and 381632) in relation to water run-off. Also, between 381626 and 381632 there are differences in section 3, line 8 regarding a government document and also in the wording of section 7.1.

This last point is why it is important to know which is the correct Design and access statement.

I have not compared any other documents with any applicable previous versions.

From Martin F

Friday, 26 July 2013

Guess what!
The application has been revised again.

The plans still bear the same number: 13/000005/FUL but now a revised site plan has been submitted with an(other) 'Amended red line'.

The 'red line' now includes three trees, with works relating to the two beech trees being mentioned.

The deadline for submissions is now the 16th of August.

Once again we are told that previously made comments will be taken into account.

Pls make any of your friends, who may not have received a letter from Calderdale, aware of this further change in dates and scope.

Thank you


From Martin F

Thursday, 15 August 2013

Well, well, well……..

I went to the Calderdale Planning website this morning to check on the application and found that, as last March, the application had been removed. I have spoken to Gillian Boulton at Calderdale this morning and she told me that a "minor" change has been made to the red line shown on the application.

At the time of writing this, the application has not reappeared on the website, but it should do so shortly.

I, therefore, cannot state categorically to what the amendment in the red line refers but Gillian Boulton told me it is in relation to a storage area for refuse bins.

People who have objected to the application can draw their own conclusions as to why a storage area may be mentioned on the plans. My personal opinion is that it is a way of getting around the lack of access to the site by large vehicles.

The application will have the same number as it always has and anybody who has commented in the past is not required to do so again, unless they wish to add to or amend their previous comments. The usual advice letters will go out to those who received them before but, once again, could anyone who knows somebody who has commented in the past and who will not receive such a letter please inform them of this latest amendment.

As soon as I get my copy, I will inform readers of the latest date for the submission of comments.

Update: The latest date for comments on the application is the 6th of September.

From Martin F

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

The latest position is that an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State for the Environment and a site visit will be made by an inspector. Representations must be received by the Planning Inspectorate by the 9th of December.

Anyone who has not received their own copy of the Calderdale letter can find a copy here.


From Martin F

Thursday, 30 January 2014

Hopefully this will be my last post on this particular subject.

The appeal has been dismissed and planning permission refused.


The relevant documents are on the Calderdale website.

From Martin F

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

The application is on again. Really!

It now has reference no. 14/00751/FUL.

Anyone who commented before will need to do so again. Comments will not be carried forward from the previous application(s).

Please go to the Calderdale Planning site and get the new documents.

From Martin F

Friday, 25 July 2014

I have just been informed that Hebden Royd council approved the application at their meeting Wednesday night!

In view of the unclear parts of the application pointed out by several objectors, how could approval be given without such points being clarified?

As Private Eye used to say: "I think we should be told".

I bet we won't be though!!


From Eleanor Land

Monday, 28 July 2014

It is a disgrace that the council could not be bothered to comment on the objections, but par for the course.

From Martin F

Wednesday, 8 October 2014

I recently returned from holiday to find that the application has been withdrawn.

Does anyone know why?