Dover District Council / Kent Highways - Air your views - Leave comments

8 comments:

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Roger Frayne, DD Councillor was the only person who took the time and effort to help us object to The Avenue planning applications over the past few years.

He very kindly spoke up & put forward objections on the behalf of the locally affected residents at a DDC planning meeting.

Well done Roger, at least someone tried to look after the village environment.

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Kinnoul Plot - Tree felling actioned by Nick Delaney (Senior Ecologist) of Dover District Council.

We were not impressed with the way it has been handled by the Council in that:

1) No response to our original enquiry regarding trees.

2) No notification to local residents that major tree works were to be undertaken.

3) No clear indication of remedial work for trees covered by TPO (Tree Preservation Order).

4) A recommendation was made to cut down trees that were rotten. Once felled it was apparent they were not! Only one tree required work because it had split at it's crown. This caused the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) great concern, and they have written to the DDC. Natural England also queried the felling of the tree.

5) Additional bark damage to another 3 trees was noted, which could ultimately lead to infection and death.

Building developments are eroding the country side, particularly in this area where woodland has a TPO (photo in the Gallery)

Various photos are available in my Photo Gallery located down the right hand side of the Blog - see for yourself!

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Government Ombudsman letter.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We feel very strongly about the significant issues surrounding this case in respect to communication issues and poor professional service encountered when dealing with senior planning officer Ms Zulu. We are now submitting a list of complaints to ensure corrective actions are recommended for future public involvement of the planning system within Dover District Council.

The complaints are as follows for Ms Tandy Zulu:

1. Ms Zulu as not complied with planning law timelines as recommended by the Government when acting as case officer for Dov/07/01386.

2. The application Dov/07/01386 did not benefit from a design statement (Both submissions) This omission led to a fiasco of misinformation that affected Residents, ward Councillors and Temple Ewell Parish Council. (Even Tim Flisher head of planning DDC was clueless when asked by planning committee member at the committee site meeting. To make matters worse he forgot to bring any documentation!)

3. No communication sent to residents (x7 objectors) explaining why no decision (conclusion) made for the first submission of Dov/07/01386.

4. Ms Zulu has repeatedly ignored communication sent by ourselves and Temple Ewell Parish Council in respect of planning law.

5. Dov/07/01386 was in the planning system for 4+ months, and then the public only had a few days to prepare and ask for assistance from interested Councillors before the committee meeting! Not a very sound democratic system, would you agree?

6. Ms Zulu failed to spot/check boundary discrepancies/validity when the planning application was first submitted.

7. Ms Zulu has chosen to accept the border violation, thus setting precedence for future developers to abuse the planning rules and for DDC to condone them.

Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. S Chattaway.

Mrs H Chattaway.

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Government Ombudsman letter.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We feel very strongly about the significant issues surrounding this case in respect to communication issues and poor professional service encountered when dealing with senior enforcement officer Mr Paul Francis. We are now submitting a list of complaints to ensure corrective actions are recommended for future public involvement of the planning system within Dover District Council.

The complaints are as follows for Mr Paul Francis:

1. Poor communication skills. For the initial query we were not contacted in the promised timelines and consequently had to chase for responses.

2. Subsequently when followed up, Paul Francis stated he was to busy for site visits. However he could find the time to read emails within 15 minutes, and dispute the content - thus he could not have been that busy!

3. He was not prepared to spend 5/10 minutes looking at the relevant plans.

4. He stated we did not know all the facts. Wrong! We live here and can see what is happening!! This is the thanks you get by willingly helping the DDC by pointing out planning violations!

5. Why did it take so long for Paul Francis to finally accept we were correct all along?

6. Why was enforcement not undertaken to return the boundary to the original position – as shown by the dotted line in the attached plan?

7. There has been no communication to date as to why the enforcement was not implemented.

8. No personal apology received to date!

Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. S Chattaway.

Mrs H Chattaway.

Note

Our local ward Councillor is to my knowledge chasing/complaining about wrong factual information supplied again by Mr Paul Francis for a second time. He as obviously not learned from past mistakes!

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Dover Locals forum - interesting articles.

Web link: http://www.doverlocals.co.uk/

ddc-watch.org.uk said...

This sounds very familiar - We are certain that there are so many incidents like this. DDC manage to 'get away' with very unreasonable and often contradictory determinations because singularly we have little hope to make any impact. Together we may have a chance; we at www.ddc-watch.org.uk hope to bring DDC Planning Department to accountability.

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Local Government Ombudsman communication with reference to complaints against DDC (comments 3off posted last year)
Click "correspondence link" to view full documentation.

Jon,

With reference to your final decision letter 28.05.2009 my comments are as follows:

In the UK we like to be part of a democratic society. One of the functions of your job is to correct maladministration. In this case I would give you a mark of only 1%, if that! Personally even if you came and looked at the area in question you would still fail to comprehend the issues. Your system is fundamentally flawed, i.e. the police, policing themselves. It’s a true waste of tax payers money without doubt.

It’s obvious you have not done your homework properly i.e. the trees were planted by Napoleonic Prisoners of War over 200 years ago, so they are not Bonsai or ornamental types. I find it incredible that you have told me to contact DDC about the record keeping, IT’S YOUR JOB – YOU GET PAID!! You are not really interested in correct record keeping because as you know you have merged 3 separate complaints into this case. Therefore you are not truly representing the total number complaints submitted. Therefore it has become a jumbled mess which you have not been able to get your head around on your own!

We note you have not cared to mentioned the “government planning portal” again, do you think it ought to be scrapped because recommendations are not followed are they?

It appears your second attempt (not fully completed) is even more pathetic than your first one! Considering this case was started in January it appears you have been dragging your heels somewhat! I now need a more competent senior manager to revamp your decision. I am sure the 30 attendees at the meeting, plus all people who could not attend on the day will not be very happy when they read your report.

Some departments within DDC can and have done a sterling jobs, examples are personnel in noise control and in particular Martin Leggatt who works in building control. It’s a big shame certain planning personnel are a law unto themselves.

Finally, as I previously stated, a more senior manager must review the case as I am very unhappy with your decision. (I am fully aware it will be a case of you policing yourselves but it needs to be done.) I then would like Tony Redmond to endorse it too.

Regards,
Mr & Mrs Chattaway.

Cc. Local residents and various internet sites.
------------------------
Thank you for your letter received to-day.

Firstly can you advise of the significance of the plans you have provided? One is for a property in Deal!

The other two for the Kinnoul property are meaningless. I would recommend you contact DDC Planning for the drawings with the boundary changes.

Again your conclusions are basically stating that the developer can do whatever he wants, and the Planning department will allow it (retrospectively of course!). I don’t why we bother with planning applications, as we might as well save everybody the time and expense by letting anyone build wherever they like, without any consideration to the local landscape and community.

It appears that all the recommendations made at the Planning Portal Website have been violated. I be surprised it you had ever bothered to look at this. We have been in contact with them and to be honest with you, they provide more realistic advice.

Should you wish to not amend your investigation, be assured it will be posted on various websites including my own? I will also be starting another petition on the Government website like the one I ran for the Standards Board for England. They proved to be a waste of time and unnecessary cost to the public. Reading the internet your department/body is following the same path!!

Regards,
S Chattaway
---------------
Dear Mr & Mrs Chattaway
I attach my provisional view and accompanying documents in electronic form as requested.

Yours sincerely

Jon Stanley

Investigator
Local Government Ombudsman

Mr Stephen Chattaway said...

Kent County Council responce letter Ref: Parking for children's home.

Dear Mr. Heaps,

With reference to your letter dated 6 June 2009 that I assume should be 6 July 2009. You need to be aware of the following facts:

If PCSO Stevens visited the area more often she could see we still have a problem even though the whole frontage is paved hence the wording in the complaint and the supplied photos sent from Fix My Street that I assume you have looked at? The car park is not big enough and they then just park any where they like with no consideration. The effective solution is for the home to have there meetings elsewhere not yellow lines. This is a residential area not the start of a business park.

As past experience as show PCSO Stevens is not an effective traffic warden, thus inappropriate parking continues. PCSO Stevens would prefer to defend the Children’s home. Just recently, she has threatened me by telling me to stop taking photos of the property in respect of garden maintenance and car parking. As you can imagine I am not happy and considering contacting her superior should I hear any more nonsense on the subject.

PCSO Stevens has been known to target cars indiscriminately and then has the pathetic excuse stating they did not know who the vehicle belonged to. (see attached) (Other trivial parking problems, always present in the same area on a daily basis are just ignored. Personally not a great problem to me).

The PCSO has admitted she has not spoken to the local residents on any subject in connection with the impact of the new home!

You will in due course hear about the car from the home careering out of the drive, across the junction and into the fence of my opposite neighbour. (Telephone received on Saturday from my opposite neighbour). She was lucky! Apparently this was met with a load of verbal abuse from the home into the bargain!

Can you please forward this to email to the local highways inspector and approximate personal within DDC for me.

Regards,

S Chattaway

Cc. PCSO Stevens, Parish Council, residents and Temple Ewell Blog.