More deceitful planning applications and another helping hand from the Head of Planning E Bowen?
Just as before when someone influenced the Planning Inspector in order to obtain the first enormous shed for my neighbours, (no doubts who that would have been) the Head of Planning simply ignored the Planning committee's decision to refuse planning for another shed of the same size and told the neighbours to build it anyway. No worries for them putting in an appeal to the Inspectorate, that's for others who are not 'friends' of the council, they might just not uphold another appeal. This shed has no planning permission, but no concerns for Head of Planning as it only affects us - it only imposes upon us - it only affects the value of our property. What can I do about it? Tell my M. P. my A. M. my councillor? I did!
This shed when built, was used for all manner of unauthorised activities of course, as there was zero agriculture at Blaenpant only industrial activities and that is precisely what this shed was built for and used for. Upon informing E Bowen that this shed was not used for agriculture only noisy industrial activities, I was informed he'd carried out a site visit and that I was making 'unfounded accusations'.
In between times, the neighbours had already erected another substantial building (stable for the stallion) alongside their dutch barn, (without planning) again ignored by E Bowen, and were putting in yet another application to build on its thumbprint. (replacement building). Of course, as the substantial stable was now included in the overall size it meant this building could be much larger than it's original size! I pointed out to the council that yet another building had been erected without planning (stable) I was informed "it is not another building it is just an extension"? Amazingly when the plans were drawn up, they clearly indicated the extra building as a 'stable' not just an extension.
E Bowen knew this land opposite us was a Special Area of Conservation, was being raised enormously with tonnes of concrete being poured onto it, knowing precisely how high these sheds would ultimately be and were obviously going to tower over us.
 |
| These three imposing monsters are within 50 meters of our cottage and built on a SSSI/SAC area. |
I've learned so much about Carmarthen Council's planning and enforcement department over these years, and it's shocking conduct by officers who are paid to uphold planning regulations, abide by the law, their codes of conduct and indeed the Nolan Principles; how they abuse the system for some, and destroy those who attempt to defend their own investment, their quality of life, in exposing the obvious flaws in planning.
These three sheds were all built under agricultural justifications. First shed - used for stabling of the many horses being bred and sold plus other activities not associated with any form of agriculture. The second shed used for the haulage businesss many HGVs and cutting of scrap The third shed houses a pit, and used for maintenance on HGVs, other vehicles and also used for welding.
As I was accused so many times of making 'unfounded and malicious accusations' I filmed the activities in order to prove I was not malicious nor was I making unfounded accusations. I was simply trying to protect our quality of life, our financial investment, and our plans for our future.
When the Ombudsman interviewed twelve officers following my complaints to him in 2012, unsurprisingly not one could could provide any evidence of their accusations that I was being 'malicious'. These accusations came from Brian Canning (Enforcement Manager) E Bowen (Head of Planning) and the CEO Mark James. The Ombudsman went on to say that all of their 'malicious' accusations against me were passed onto every other agency who became involved in this case.
Carmarthen council have a lot of explaining to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment