My objection this evening to this proposal:
This proposal reeks of corruption/collusion/pre-approval. The faux shell company based in the Isle of Man as applicant. The usual suspects providing the "expert reports" supposedly backing up the application and the ridiculous long-winded justification of pre-consultation, which hilariously even stated that the planners are NOT INTERESTED in the impact on surrounding residents! (For example - Tree Projects is a company that befriended an old man who owned the Beecholme Tennis Club in Thurleigh Road to the extent that it was left to him in his Will, on the "condition" as part of the Will, that he could build one house for him and his family on the land. We all know what happened there under the eye of Councillor Mc Dermott as chair of the Planning Committee at the time and the faux facts and obfuscation of Mr Granger, Cronin, the incumbent developer etc. to that same committee, the Local Government Ombudsman and even the High Court!) Read all about THAT debacle here:
https://www.facebook.com/Beecholme-Tenn ... 737360844/
Montague Jones, the planning consultant in this case, was also involved with that application. It's a very obvious repeat pattern of, on the surface, protocol, rule conformity, yet they post-rationalise and argue ANYTHING, just to waive it through at the planning committee hearing. I feel for your community. The Thurleigh Road Community has been rolled over by Martin, Reilly, Cronin, Granger, McDermott, Sweet et al. Case Officers were made to resign / were made redundant because they were sticking to the rules and applying the law in their decision making process. Look at the pictures here, (scroll down), - this is what they did to a VERY similar backland leisure site - OUR community:
viewtopic.phpf=115&t=95217&p=221539&hil ... ub#p221539
The planners' M/O is that they boast Council Tax is LOW in Wandsworth. The reason this is so is that they sweepingly approve mass development BECAUSE they GET PAYED in the form of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), millions of pounds, meaning, they are incentivised to APPROVE controversial schemes. By approving these schemes, many many more Council Tax payers are created. The applicant will be jumping through hoops like "we have consulted the locals" and "the land hasn't been used for leisure for ages" etc etc (within the planning proposal document), and will be arguing that this is a great use of the land ... of course, FOR THEM, because they stand to make multi-millions of pounds profit from the scheme, and the Council will make in a realistic estimate 2/3 million pounds from CIL. WHAT of the local residents? What are they left with? And all of this in a Conservation Area which have, supposedly, more restrictive policies guarding development which is aimed at preserving the character of the area. This scheme will be approved by the planners because they have SOLD OFF the actual bowling club building and split the freehold. NOW, the bowling green area is SEPARATED from the club building. This ENABLES planners to faux-justify that this is just a disused/overgrown underused site and that it is NOT a leisure facility, DESPITE it still having land classification as such. NOTE: on the application form it STATES that once bulit, the land WILL STILL BE a LEISURE FACILITY CLASSIFICATION, and residential/dwelling usage. This is what they do - obfuscate and mislead - so when Granger presents this to the planning committee it LOOKS LIKE all is well and that there will still be some kind of LEISURE facility as part of the development - THERE WILL NOT BE! Look at the plans. There will be a very poor bunch of flower beds in and amongst inadequate car-parking provision. The specifics of the scheme which do not and WON'T work will be things like trash collection and car parking, landscaping etc. These issues get pushed into "conditions", i.e. the permission WILL be granted, "subject to conditions". This effectively means the planners wash their hands of anything contentious. The developer is then charged with applying to release the conditions, which, down the line, the planners hope by then that the local community is worn out by the challenge process, and just waive them through if they at all can. Wandsworth planners are blighting the borough with no REAL/TRUE/APPROPRIATE/PROPORTIONATE vision for the next generation who will have to live here.