Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,573,962 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

'You failed us by approving flats scheme' Group lodges a formal complaint with council.


Byline: SIMON Simon, in the Bible.

1 One of the Maccabees.

2 or Simon Peter: see Peter, Saint.

3 See Simon, Saint.

4 Kinsman of Jesus.

5 Leper of Bethany in whose house a woman anointed Jesus' feet.
 DUDMAN

A RESIDENTS' group has made a formal complaint to the city council after planning permission planning permission
Noun

formal permission granted by a local authority for the construction, alteration, or change of use of a building

planning permission nlicencia de obras 
 was granted for a block of flats in a conservation area.

The site - within the Craven CRAVEN. A word of obloquy, which in trials by battle, was pronounced by the vanquished; upon which judgment was rendered against him.  Street conservation area - was occupied by a Texaco garage but developer Hollier and Bloor has now been given approval to build 33 flats, with 41 parking spaces.

People living in Allesley Old Road, Chapelfields, and in neighbouring streets, had complained that the planned U-shaped block in Allesley Old Road, between Lord Street and Mount Street, was too imposing and would aggravate parking problems.

Now they are even more angry because they feel the council failed them and gave preference to developers.

They also claim the decision was made to avoid legal costs if the developer had appealed against a refusal of permission.

The Chapelfields Area Residents' and Traders' Association (CARTA) has now submitted a complaint to the chairman of the planning committee planning committee n (in local government) → comité m de planificación  Cllr Kieran Mulhall, authority chief executive Stella Manzie and John McGuigan, director of city development.

In the letter, Lynne Wilkins, CARTA chairman, said: "We do not think that Coventry City Council, elected members and officers have represented our interests in granting permission.

"You have dismissed our concerns to give more weight to developers because of your fear of picking up any legal costs connected to appeals against the council.

"We feel that advice given to the planning committee has been faulty, and we feel that despite statements about wanting to involve local residents from priority neighbourhoods in local decisions, the council failed to take notice of our priorities expressed though the neighbourhood plan, through petitions and individual representations. If you will not represent our interests who will?"

The option now open to the group is to seek a judicial review of the decision.

A council spokesman said they were unable to comment.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Coventry Newpapers
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Coventry Evening Telegraph (England)
Date:Mar 24, 2004
Words:308
Previous Article:Chocs away for appeal; EGGS 4 KIDS.
Next Article:New rules to protect our kids.



Related Articles
Flats bid wins approval.
Rubbish row not over yet.
Campaigners keep up battle for pub.
RETHINK CALL OVER GRASSLAND HOMES; Protect city 'green lung' say residents.
City planners urge battle over huge housing scheme.
Appeal on plans for flats; STONE.
Move to silence fears on housing.
Probe into flats plan.
Homes row is heating up.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles