An E Mail Shared is........

Today we received a copy of an email in response to a query about the wrongful use of "bank stabilisation" in the title of our planning application which was refused by the councillors, despite a recommendation for approval from the planning officer. At the planning meeting, one councillor Mr Craig Statham spoke at length to say that the bank had not been stabilised and he was "shocked" at what he believed were trees sliding down the hill. I was pretty shocked that he thought we had applied to stabilise the bank. But then......it was in the re worded application....re worded??? Yep - it was re worded. Was it then changed back? No it wasn't but maybe someone thinks it was - from the e mail today it does suggest it was changed back, but it wasn't. Gosh it's so confusing.

I used to sign of "Change Controls" for the pharmaceutical industry as the QA Manager and a change in the title of a change control would really require another change control!!!!

I like Planning, it reminds me a Change Control and of all the elements in a QMS, Change Control was my favourite. I know, I know, I'm sad......

Here is the e mail sent in by a person who lives in Ironmills Park. I have taken the liberty of deleting the telephone number and address although it is probably public information since the letter was sent to the council.The dates don't seem to make much sense, I think where it has Jan 2010 it should be Jan 2011 and the e mail cannot possibly have been written on 18th July 2010 as the e mail was sent on 18/1/2011 and the application referenced in the e mail didn't exist on 18/7/2010. I think someone typed July and meant January.

It's was tough being in QA - makes it so hard to not nit-pick other peoples mistakes. I get dates wrong as well so lets live and let live with these small errors. Since I retired I no longer wear a watch so now I don't know the time of day any more, I never know the date and sometimes I even have to think what year it is.

Wondering if I have taken leave of my mind? wait until you read on..................



From: WILLIAM BOWIE
Sent: 18 January 2011 16:46
To: Peter Arnsdorf
Subject: 10/00694/DPP RP9

Ph                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Iron Mills Road
Dalkeith 
                                                                                                                                                                        EH22 1JP
                                                                                                                                                                        18th July 2010
 
For the attention of Mr Peter Arnsdorf / Mr Kingsley Drinkwater
 Dear Sir,
 Planning Application  10/00694/DPP  for RP9
 I request that the closing date for comment on this proposal is extended t give a greater time for consideration of the works. The basis of this request is that the scope of work being considered for approval is not clear from the documents currently available to the public. viz:
The description of the works given in the advertisement in the Midlothian Advertiser of 13 January 2010 is at variance with the wording given ‘On Line’. For example the ‘On Line’ edition does not include, “works to stabilise banking”. I am informed by your colleague that only matters that are described in the wording of the application document will be considered during the planning approval process. e.g. such items as the bin store, the original (smaller) viewing platform (previously called wood-store) and the significant amendments to the house “RP9” do not form part of this application. 
Can you please confirm that the extent of the works considered for planning approval in respect of 10/00694/DPP are limited to those covered by the wording in the ‘Application Document’.
Apart from a sketch, there appears to be but one other drawing. This drawing (site plan, location plan and elevations) was removed from the On Line’ site and then replaced yesterday. This is a very convoluted drawing and needs careful examination to ascertain what work is being offered for approval. Because of the removal and replacement the drawing needs to be re-examined to see if changes were made yesterday. The drawing is not dimensioned and thus it is difficult to ascertain the relationship and distance of one structure to another. There is an indication the scale is 1:150, but this is meaning less as it cannot be used when the only copy of the drawing is ‘On Line’, since computer pictures are not scaleable without special programmes. Yesterday I visited your office and asked to have sight of a paper copy of the drawing, but was told this does not exist.
The plan drawing is referenced as being, “site plan, location plan, and elevations”. However the drawing would appear to be incomplete since there are no elevations or a location plan shown. Can we have sight of the missing information?
The drawing is strewn with small circles (approx 43No.) each containing a number. A small arrow attached to each circle. Such a symbol is sometimes used to denote a photograph. The number being the reference of an accompanying photograph and the arrow used to indicate the direction in which the photograph was taken. There are photographs accompanying this application (circa 68 No.), but they do not appear to relate to the numbered circles on the plan and indeed here are many more photographs than numbered circles (43/68). The Photographs attached to the application are not referenced in anyway; by numbers or other wise. Thus it is impossible to correlate the photographs with the work for which the application is made.
A brief examination of the photographs shows a number are taken from the same location. It is also clear that some are current and some are considerably older. (Just what relevance photographs of Iron Mills Park taken in the 70’s might have to a retrospective application for works carried recently, is open to conjecture). However, the real issue is that any photograph supporting a retrospective application needs to be annotated with words that say what the photograph shows and how it is relevant. Also in order to make an informed judgement it is necessary that the photographs are dated so that the reader can ascertain whether the photo was taken before or after the work was carried out. It would also be usual to follow the convention and reference each photograph to the plan showing the position from which it was taken and the direction the photographer was facing. 
I am reliably informed that the application for planning approval for the works covered by 10/00694/DPP was submitted after a separate department (Estates) of Midlothian Council had delivered a letter to the owner of “RP9” asking him to remove items built in contravention of the Feu burden placed on the owner of “RP9”.These works include the work covered by 10/00694/DDP. Would it not be economical to await the outcome of this legal action before  considering works that are the subject of legal action (for removal) by the Council? Should the Council be successful the result would likely be that the works be taken down and the land reinstated?
 
Yours sincerely


William R B Bowie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply from the planning department

Dear Mr Bowie,

I can advise that the description has been amended to its original wording. I had changed this as it was slightly misleading regarding the works to the footpath that runs along the top of the embankment. The works are principally for making the footpath safer and wider, and are not really stabilising the bank. However to avoid confusion it is now as it was when advertised. Nothing has changed in terms of what is proposed. The works are retrospective and they are what they are.

The site plan you mention was removed temporarily in order to make it more accessible to the public as in its original form there were some problems viewing it. this has been resolved. The replacement plan was recorded under the incorrect title and this has now been corrected.

With regards to the bin store, his is principally made up of the fence, though it should really be included as a separate item for completeness. This is likely necessitate the application being re-advertised. In the meantime assume that it is part of the application.

There are no elevation drawings submitted by the applicant. As the application was in retrospect, it was agreed prior to submission that photographs could be submitted rather than drawings, so long as there was a site plan to refer to. This has been done. I am trying to improve the description of the various documents so that those images that show proposed elevations are labelled as such.

Many of the photographs has been submitted as supporting information, and not all are directly relevant to the application. I shall be able to determine those which are material to any decision.

I hope that this has answered your enquiry. if not please let me know and I will answer any further questions you may have.

regards

Kingsley Drinkwater

Senior Planning Officer

Corporate Resources

Midlothian Council

Fairfield House 
8 Lothian Road

Dalkeith               

EH22 3ZN



And the e mail we received today

Gerry,

I have done that now. my apologies for the delay.

I have found the attached note which I came across. Also, I had initially taken it upon myself to change the description, but one of the objectors subsequently complained about the description being changed (see attached correspondence). I was later advised that it should revert back to its original registered description, which I then did.

The members were not directly advised of your concerns with the description. The report however does clearly explain what is proposed, as does your own supporting statement. As had been advised to you earlier, the description in the title was an attempt to simplify the description of the proposed works.

Yes Kingsley and I also gave you the throw away line "they are what they are" after losing the will to live when I raised the concern of calling these works bank stabilisation. I note you used this line in your reply to Mr Bowie and interestingly I never knew about Mr Bowies letter 'til now and I had only e mailed you around the time of his letter to state my disgust at the planning web site holding a letter from Janis Neil stating we did not have approval for the house. I did wonder why your reply strayed into "bank stabilisation" at the time but really couldn't be bothered to ask why.

Here is the correspondance at the time of the "bank stabilisation" debacle. I only asked about a "Small Thing" and got a reply that included concerns about the the works to the path.

Kingsley

Appreciate your focus and I couldn't agree more. Can you pass it up the line ( I am copying to Ian J - maybe he will take some action now) to put the EAS secretary right with the planning permission for the house because this is just not acceptable. We are ignoring all the other sorts of issues but this one has tipped the balance.

Do what you need to with regard the works to the path - they are what they are.

Regards

Susan

Suisan,

My report should make everything very clear. Of course the house has planning permission. I understand that perhaps you are still awaiting a completion certificate from Building Standards and someone has perhaps got the two mixed up?

regards

 Kingsley

From: Kingsley Drinkwater <Kingsley.Drinkwater@midlothian.gov.uk>
To: susan goldwyre <susangoldwyre@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 11:53:50
Subject: RE: Small Thing

Susan,

Thank you. I appreciate that all sorts of issues may be getting aired, but I am trying to focus simply on the few items that you have applied for in your planning application. I shall also be making it extremely clear as to what the works to the path are despite the arguable description in the title of the application.

regards

Kingsley

From: susan goldwyre [mailto:susangoldwyre@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 15 February 2011 15:24
To: Kingsley Drinkwater
Cc: Janis Neil; Mike Armstrong; David Binnie; Donald Marshall; Edythe murie; Edythe Murie; Oliver Haas; Tony Galloway - Iron Mills; Tom Stevenson; Grant O'Connor
Subject: Small Thing

Dear Kingsley

Would do please phone or e mail Janis Neil (or Mike Armstrong) to tell her that the house as shown has planning consent. It is really OK to have an opinion about things and make comments about planning applications but the community in Eskbank and Midlothian is being fed the line that we do not have permsission for our house. That's just not acceptable and so damming we are considering further action against the EAS committee.

I'll cc this e mail to them and the committe as I think it might be but I would prefer if you would call them or e mail in order that they hear it directly from you. I don't have e mail addresses for all, certainly none for Kate Duthie and some may be out of date.

Regards

Susan

So here we are - a planning application that raised so many ridiculous comments I began to wonder at the time if I was part of the same human race. The audacity to state that our house didn't have permission (this was in a letter from the EAS signed by Janis Neil), from a society that purports to "Foster a Good Community Spirit" - That's in their constitution.....I gather one of their committee resigned in Februray when the letter stating the house didn't have approval was written. Interestingly, and since I am on the subject, when we obtained FOI papers last year, our neighbours daughter Dot Dryden had written to the council some months previously after speaking with Ms Neil (at my request) and stating that we were the sort of people who built without planning permission because she knew that the extension on the cottage never had approval back in 1994. I e mailed Dot a copy of the approval for the cottage extension. She claims she never received neighbourhood notification but she was on the list. She never got back to me after I called her. Oh her letter to the council was supposed to have been "In Confidence".....well.......and her letter also stated that "We mix with influential people". I leave you to draw your own conclusions if you haven't already gone to sleep reading this.

Then Dot's allegation appeared in another letter, this time from Mrs Bowie in Ironmills who re stated the allegation that we might build without permission. At least at this point in proceedings a wise councillor stated that there was evidence of "collusion".

It's nice to air all of this for anyone bothered to want to read it. I have had this info for a long time and it really is now all about what to do with it. I have a life and have no wish to stray in the negative. I get something out of every situation in life. So maybe this is what I will take from all of the above;

A councillor is stating that a bank had not been stabilised when we never applied to stabilise a bank. We protested as some length about the inclusion of these words in the title but mothing was done to amend. Despite the report and our own support statement, it was clear to me at the planning meeting that some councillors talk rather than read reports. And so it came to pass that a bunch of councillors decided to reject a planning application (recommended for approval) on the basis that trees were sliding down the hill, that a woodland was in some way damaged (have you read the recent mangement report) and a bank had not been stabilised. But we applied for a sitting out area/store, a fence, path broadening and steps for access.