| Who lives near the mega shed on 23:54 - Mar 21 with 1094 views | NeedhamChris |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 23:49 - Mar 21 by bournemouthblue |
So you're not going to provide the information
You seem so proud you were involved with this, I'm surprised you aren't willing to dig the link out, I'd expect better frankly but clearly my expectations are too high |
I'm not going to defend his style in this, but it's not unreasonable to expect anyone to put in the minimal effort required to log onto East Suffolks planning portal and have a look for themselves.
DC/21/3486/FUL is the application number. Go ahead. [Post edited 21 Mar 23:58]
|  |
|  |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 07:59 - Mar 22 with 959 views | bournemouthblue |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 23:54 - Mar 21 by NeedhamChris |
I'm not going to defend his style in this, but it's not unreasonable to expect anyone to put in the minimal effort required to log onto East Suffolks planning portal and have a look for themselves.
DC/21/3486/FUL is the application number. Go ahead. [Post edited 21 Mar 23:58]
|
I'd expect the planning team to freely distribute the link frankly but well done for being the bigger person and actually sharing it |  |
| |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 10:24 - Mar 22 with 842 views | leitrimblue |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 23:20 - Mar 19 by football |
I'm happy to take stick - part of my job which I routinely get stick for! We cannot insist on such trees as part of planning permission |
So your planning department can not make suggestions or recommendations concerning efforts to minimise the visual impact?
Surely small adjustments such as the stratigic planting of native trees. Or attempting to lower the buildings silhouette on the skyline. Or even changes to the colour or finish of the building may have slightly helped lessen the visual impact for people living near by without holding up the original planning proposal? |  | | |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 11:36 - Mar 22 with 796 views | bournemouthblue |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 10:24 - Mar 22 by leitrimblue |
So your planning department can not make suggestions or recommendations concerning efforts to minimise the visual impact?
Surely small adjustments such as the stratigic planting of native trees. Or attempting to lower the buildings silhouette on the skyline. Or even changes to the colour or finish of the building may have slightly helped lessen the visual impact for people living near by without holding up the original planning proposal? |
If this warehouse was set back another 20 - 40 metres I don't think this would have made it into the media
The warehouses further down which are across the road also have houses on it as an example and for my money have have no real argument against those warehouses but this warehouse here is pretty shocking
When you drive up Felixstowe Road you do think how on earth that was approved
I think the planner claims to have gone there and viewed it, saying they disagreed with the neighbours views on this, before seeing the actual thing in the flesh I would add
I'd be interested to know how they understood that visually, it's fine going to place and looking where something is going to be but how do you appreciate the view without an accurate reconstruction of it
The technology is there now, it could be done with VR
I appreciate under planning law, devaluation of a property which this will certainly do may not be allowed to be taken into consideration and/or the right to a view
It's the view I wouldn't be worried about so much morally, it's light and these south facing gardens, it's surely got to have an impact on the light going into their gardens
I'd suggest you have some right to light, morally at least, it may not be legally
I'd also add, that this thread would only be a page or two long if the planner (and I am assuming they are planner here) hadn't waded in showing no empathy, humility or seemingly any social awareness on the situation. I guess there's a reason they don't work in PR, marketing, politics or customer services etc [Post edited 22 Mar 11:41]
| |
| |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 13:02 - Mar 22 with 717 views | Mullet |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 10:24 - Mar 22 by leitrimblue |
So your planning department can not make suggestions or recommendations concerning efforts to minimise the visual impact?
Surely small adjustments such as the stratigic planting of native trees. Or attempting to lower the buildings silhouette on the skyline. Or even changes to the colour or finish of the building may have slightly helped lessen the visual impact for people living near by without holding up the original planning proposal? |
They’d probably end up doing it in those WW1 dazzle patterns to confuse boats |  |
| |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 17:52 - Mar 22 with 629 views | football |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 23:49 - Mar 21 by bournemouthblue |
So you're not going to provide the information
You seem so proud you were involved with this, I'm surprised you aren't willing to dig the link out, I'd expect better frankly but clearly my expectations are too high |
Surely you can find this out yourself? Everything is accessible publicly on the councils website - stop being lazy and if you really care you'd do the very easy map based search | | | |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 17:59 - Mar 22 with 591 views | football |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 11:36 - Mar 22 by bournemouthblue |
If this warehouse was set back another 20 - 40 metres I don't think this would have made it into the media
The warehouses further down which are across the road also have houses on it as an example and for my money have have no real argument against those warehouses but this warehouse here is pretty shocking
When you drive up Felixstowe Road you do think how on earth that was approved
I think the planner claims to have gone there and viewed it, saying they disagreed with the neighbours views on this, before seeing the actual thing in the flesh I would add
I'd be interested to know how they understood that visually, it's fine going to place and looking where something is going to be but how do you appreciate the view without an accurate reconstruction of it
The technology is there now, it could be done with VR
I appreciate under planning law, devaluation of a property which this will certainly do may not be allowed to be taken into consideration and/or the right to a view
It's the view I wouldn't be worried about so much morally, it's light and these south facing gardens, it's surely got to have an impact on the light going into their gardens
I'd suggest you have some right to light, morally at least, it may not be legally
I'd also add, that this thread would only be a page or two long if the planner (and I am assuming they are planner here) hadn't waded in showing no empathy, humility or seemingly any social awareness on the situation. I guess there's a reason they don't work in PR, marketing, politics or customer services etc [Post edited 22 Mar 11:41]
|
I am a planner and have been for many years. I get planning is very emotive but there are rules and regulations in our decision making. We cannot take private views into account, the impact on light met all policy tests. Any decision contrary to the one made would not have been defendable at appeal.
You talk of empathy - me and my team go in every day to do our job to the best we can set within legal parameters. We are constantly slated, accused, berated from people who do not understand planning or how we have to work and you wonder why we have put up defences? when good people are constantly accused of taking back handers openly in public its hard to take so yes we turn on work mode.
As I have said the impact on light and amenity from the warehouse met tests, we cannot protect private views and the site was allocated for that exact use (ie it has permission in principle for large sheds)
We cannot act morally - sometimes I wish we could, but we are bound by regulation and law | | | |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 18:39 - Mar 22 with 501 views | bournemouthblue |
| Who lives near the mega shed on 17:59 - Mar 22 by football |
I am a planner and have been for many years. I get planning is very emotive but there are rules and regulations in our decision making. We cannot take private views into account, the impact on light met all policy tests. Any decision contrary to the one made would not have been defendable at appeal.
You talk of empathy - me and my team go in every day to do our job to the best we can set within legal parameters. We are constantly slated, accused, berated from people who do not understand planning or how we have to work and you wonder why we have put up defences? when good people are constantly accused of taking back handers openly in public its hard to take so yes we turn on work mode.
As I have said the impact on light and amenity from the warehouse met tests, we cannot protect private views and the site was allocated for that exact use (ie it has permission in principle for large sheds)
We cannot act morally - sometimes I wish we could, but we are bound by regulation and law |
I'm not questioning much of what you say here and I don't subscribe to the backhanders suggestions, fashionable as that is to suggest, I am fully aware that is complete nonsense
It's the way you have come across on this thread which has done very little for East Suffolk's reputation I'm afraid
You have shown zero empathy, humility or any real social awareness add in some stubborn, sarcastic, unhelpful tones and it's not a great recipe pal
I'm quite staggered you have waded in on the thread at all, is this you first week on the internet? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
