What's the best way to 'fight' this?

[paulf]

I'm not sure if I would describe less than 3 extra lorries per day as a "massive increase", to be honest. Not unless they all turned up at the same time!

I think the understanding is that yes, that would all turn up at the same time! 1000 lorries over 2 one-week periods. 24/7 during those periods...

[Cjg]

I'm not sure if I would describe less than 3 extra lorries per day as a "massive increase", to be honest. Not unless they all turned up at the same time!

If the objection is valid, then it doesn't matter who pens it. Just because he is a veteran adds nothing to the argument. In fact, it well may work against it.

Thank you for your comment.

The councillor is well versed in planning law as he sat on the planning committee, so his arguments will be better worded than most, the veteran will make the story more attractive to the press. Have you any experience  / evidence that having a veteran write in objection would " it well may work against it."

[Zakalwe]

Thank you for your comment.

The councillor is well versed in planning law as he sat on the planning committee, so his arguments will be better worded than most, the veteran will make the story more attractive to the press. Have you any experience  / evidence that having a veteran write in objection would " it well may work against it."

Well, for a start the person in question is realistically not likely to be around for the anywhere near a significant proportion of the lifespan of the plant. Secondly why would a veteran's opinion carry any more (or less!) weight than any other person? It smacks of cheap tactics, to be honest. No doubt it will work with some sections of the press though.

[Cjg]

Well, for a start the person in question is realistically not likely to be around for the anywhere near a significant proportion of the lifespan of the plant. Secondly why would a veteran's opinion carry any more (or less!) weight than any other person? It smacks of cheap tactics, to be honest. No doubt it will work with some sections of the press though.

Thanks I see, so absolutely no experience or evidence then?

[bomberbaz]

Thanks I see, so absolutely no experience or evidence then?

Don't think there is any need to start this thread turning tetchy chris, Zakalwe was only voicing his opinion!

[Stu]

Yep, let's all play nicely together please [emoji3][emoji3]

Cheers,

Stu

[Zakalwe]

Thanks I see, so absolutely no experience or evidence then?

You are correct. Absolutely none, though I am relying on common sense for this one.

You might want to reconsider the wording of your objection- after all basing the objection on the road surface being unsafe and the increase in traffic being unwelcome and then writing "all our visitors come via car, which on a busy public night could be in excess of 50 vehicles and on group visit nights will often be minibus’ containing children." doesn't seem to tally. It sort of reads like this "It's OK for us to increase traffic and use bad roads, but not someone else".

[michaelmorris]

Being emotive and non-factual with any argument may win you friends in the press (why let the facts get in the way of a good story) and with some councillors. It may even mean that councillors vote to ignore the advice of local planning officers.

However, this tends to be a very high risk strategy.

1 - If it doesn't work, there is a real risk that perfectly valid arguments for objecting to the proposal may get lost in the dross.

2 - If the application is rejected and the applicant appeals (quite likely), the planning inspectorate will simply examine the reasons that the council gave for refusal.  if these grounds were mainly political rather than based on a careful assessment of the facts, then the appeal will probably be upheld and planning permission will be granted.

Ultimately, it's much more sensible to engage with the applicant, your local councillors and the planning department of the local council and find out exactly what is planned and how it will operate.  See if you can come to compromise with the operator and the planners to allow the development to go ahead in a way that doesn't adversely affect you. If you then can't negotiate a satisfactory compromise, set out your case in a carefully considered document that shows how reasonable and measured you are and how you have tried to reach agreement.  Set out your case based on planning law and only covers those issues that the council planners are allowed to take into account when making their decision.  You'll ultimately stand a much better chance of coming out of it with a satisfactory conclusion.

[Astro_Baby]

Its right that a 'personage' wont affect the outcome.  Planning is a very rough and ready democracy and one persons objection wont significantly affect the outcome UNLESS they have some inside track in some way and a connection to the political machine.

Your best bet, from what I have read, would be to engage the developer and get some ground rules don at the start regarding the lights.  Lets face it if they built the plant and turned the lights off after dark you wouldn't be affected and that might very well be the negotiating position that causes least aggro for all involved.

No one wants a fight in these situations and some simple agreements now may make life easier - if you cause a lot of aggro you are risking the developer deciding to put two fingers up at you if he gets permission and you ask after the event.

[bomberbaz]

I go along with what James and Astro-Baby say in that dialogue & negotiation is a bettr way of getting the right outcome than confrontation.

Lets face it and be really honest, hypothetically if you as a person wanted to do something (say build an obs) and someone were to tell you you can't carry out your plans for something you consider to be totally reasonable and within your rights to do, what would your first reaction be? I will tell you, you would say "who the flamin hell do they think they are!"  And then you would do your damn best to do it anyway. 

Steve

[Lowen22]

Have you tried contacting "Look East" 

[bottletopburly]

Is it worth visiting a site that is already running that is the same size as the intended application just too see what their set up is ,may give you a better idea ,talk too the locals in that area may give you a better idea .

[Cjg]

Thanks for the comments, there is now a "fighting fund" set up by the locals whose homes will suffer due to the massive increase in agricultural traffic. I don't think that there will be an opportunity for dialogue due to the way the estates office has rejected an opportunity to consult with the locals; they are by the look of things intent on building where they want.

[101nut]

Just to update contributors to an old thread.

To recap, a planning application for a 20,000 tonne digestate lagoon next to Norwich Astronomical Society's Seething Observatory has been fought for some considerable time, with considerable efforts by NAS, local residents and local parish councils.

We were getting exasperated - we (NAS) wanted to pen a technical objection to the structure, however the applicant refused point blank to answer objector's questions or even speak to us directly. Apparently that's completely legal.

After the planning officer appeared to lose patience last week, yesterday we were told that THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATION! 

I think a tentative "woo" and even a bit of "hoo" is in order  (I even slept ok last night ...)

It's of course possible that a resubmission will be made but at least we've won the first battle! Many thanks to all who gave advice on this thread.

AndyG

[bingevader]

Here's a tentative "fab".

[Cjg]

On 1/26/2016 at 18:50, 101nut said:

Just to update contributors to an old thread.

To recap, a planning application for a 20,000 tonne digestate lagoon next to Norwich Astronomical Society's Seething Observatory has been fought for some considerable time, with considerable efforts by NAS, local residents and local parish councils.

We were getting exasperated - we (NAS) wanted to pen a technical objection to the structure, however the applicant refused point blank to answer objector's questions or even speak to us directly. Apparently that's completely legal.

After the planning officer appeared to lose patience last week, yesterday we were told that THE APPLICANT HAS WITHDRAWN THEIR APPLICATION! 

I think a tentative "woo" and even a bit of "hoo" is in order  (I even slept ok last night ...)

It's of course possible that a resubmission will be made but at least we've won the first battle! Many thanks to all who gave advice on this thread.

AndyG

Just goes to show, that sometimes, galvanised, vociferous opposition against proposals can be effective, especially after reasoned dialogue fails. If and when the landowner does try it again, he knows that he will come across determined opposition from the local community.

Chris

[Mr Spock]

Good news for you. Well done

[Putaendo Patrick]

As I lived in Norwich for several years, I've been following this with interest.

I very much hope congratulations are in order!