Cookham Discussion Board
June 23, 2018, 05:17:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
23 June 2018 - Charity Bake Sale

23 June 2018 - Cookham Dean Primary School Summer Fete

23 June 2018 - Cantorum Choir - Stars of the Summer Night

24 June 2018 - Cookham Dean Charity Croquet and Tennis Tournament

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
Author Topic: Whyteladyes Green Belt Outline Planning Application - Again!!  (Read 21473 times)
JTAP
Newbie
*
Posts: 29


« Reply #45 on: November 30, 2015, 08:39:58 AM »

The point that I was making is that the council doesn't insist on an address being provided. As JJF rightly says there are often valid reasons why an objector wouldn't want to give their address but at the end of the day we all have the choice to do as we see fit.
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


« Reply #46 on: November 30, 2015, 09:04:38 AM »

What's the problem here? If you wish to make your objections known publicly, you should expect your identity to be available to the general public - the proposers, whose identity is known, are making a public application, and you are making a public objection. Otherwise, you risk being seen to have something to hide, which will surely devalue the weight of your objection.

You miss the point.

No worries about names and addresses.

It's when said name and address is used by the Proposer to correspond with the Objector -
whether it be to solicit, to woo, to seek clarification, to object to the objector .... whatever.
THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG.

It is this particular feature that needs to be addressed, with a hefty fine imposed on Proposers
who use the address list attached to the Proposal to solicit Objectors.
Logged
simmie
Newbie
*
Posts: 8


« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2015, 10:45:35 AM »

I'm curious ... why is it wrong?

Separately, Copas farms don't rear turkeys. 
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #48 on: November 30, 2015, 12:18:43 PM »

Put it this way....

Would the Farmer like all the OBJECTORS to go knocking on his door? as this is how it feels when you're sent a letter directly to your home address, from the applicant you are opposing. It feels like the applicant is trying to send a message that they know 'who you are and where you live...' along with the justification of why they are doing what they are doing.

It feels like an invasion of privacy!

Therefore, yes, it is wrong of the applicant to behave in this manner. 
Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


« Reply #49 on: November 30, 2015, 01:20:22 PM »

I'm curious ... why is it wrong?

Basically what JJF said ... however, to clarify ...

The proposal and subsequent objections are through the RBWM Planning office.

Should the proposer see the need to address the concerns raised by the objector,
then he should do so through the RBWM - viz., through the proper channels (RBWM)
at the correct time and place - viz., at the meeting set out to discuss the proposal.

His solicitous correspondence should NOT be directed directly to the objector at his private address
(especially if he has extrapolated said name and address from the RBWM list) as it
could be viewed as trying to suppress or cajole the objector into changing his mind on the issue.

Anyway, the Objector may not wish getting into discussions direct with the Proposer
which is his prerogative in the first place.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 01:22:59 PM by Watchman » Logged
grumpyoldgit
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2015, 12:11:32 AM »

If you ask me, just as the objector has every right to know who the proposer is, so the proposer has every right to know who the objector is; as far as I know, there is nothing to stop objectors writing to the proposer either. However, I do agree that the planning process as laid down makes provision for both proposer and objector to have their say, and it is therefore more appropriate for communication to take place through that channel - it is after all the channel through which the matter will be progressed and a decision reached.

What I do object to is the amount of scaremongering - and even paranoia - that seems to permeate discussions such as this one, and the verbal abuse heaped on anyone who has the temerity to try to change anything in the three Cookhams - especially if he is a local landowner. The planning process exists to allow for proposals to be properly reviewed, and a decision reached, based on the needs of the community as a whole. It may not be perfect, but it's what we have; posts on here which vilify the proposers, and make exaggerated claims about the effects of proposed changes, don't actually achieve anything - and they reflect no credit whatsoever on the person posting.
Logged
jumpingjackflash
Guest
« Reply #51 on: December 01, 2015, 05:36:41 AM »

Grumpyoldgit -

If it was not for the posts on here, a lot of people would not know what is happening in the area. And I don't think they are exaggerated claims, but people are expressing how they feel and wanting people to think about the future, not the here and now.

The Applicant should know better than to be contacting the Objectors directly, this is unwanted pressure on the objector and can be seen as manipulation.

As to your comment of 'scaremongering' - I don't think so!.... People are seeing through what is happening... this person starts from the smallest of changes , tree felling, hedgerows pulled out and replanted (all to widen access), leaving hay bales to get wet, when there are already plenty of barns to store them (but it serves a purpose to let them rot). Changes the surface of a bridle way to create a road, and gets permission for a playing field that never gets created. One barn developed, then creates another barn and it goes on....

Plant the seed and watch it grow£££££££!

The RBWM planners are employed to do a job, but we all forget its the Cllrs that make the over-all decision, but not always the right decision.



« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 05:30:15 PM by jumpingjackflash » Logged
Watchman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 272


« Reply #52 on: December 01, 2015, 09:29:31 AM »

Grumpyoldgit -

Of course both parties should be aware of the others existence in a debate, no denying the fact.
However, one party should NOT unilaterally write to or get in touch with the other
unless it is through the proper channels.
This could definitely be construed as attempting to influence the other party, at the very least.

By the way, what you read on here is not scaremongering.

I would suggest that all the correspondence on here regarding building proposals, change of buildings usage,
erection of chicken farms, altering the surface of bridle paths, removal of hedgerows, alterations of
original barns to be used as retail outlets, closure of livery stables and small businesses, etc - as not scaremongering
but as a genuine concern about what is actually taking place under the noses of RBWM councillors in the Cookhams.


This forum is a small part of this community.
I would hazard a guess that it only reaches out to no more than 30 or 40 percent of the entire population of the Cookhams.
If voices were stilled on it, if criticisms were muffled, if the cause celebre itemising these concern were not raised on it,
then pray tell, who on earth would take on the farmers and developers in this area whose singular purpose in life seems
to be to make more and more money by selling off pockets of their land under the much abused banner of "affordable housing" !

THAT, to me, is an absolute farce that demands a magnifying glass always focused upon their clever intent.

When you see just what one particular farmer and his extended family are up to around the Cookhams, it makes me furious.
They don't farm - as farming goes - anymore.
They set-aside fields (more revenue from the EU); they construct barns for purposes other than storing hay; they convert
bridle paths and destroy hedgerows in order to make space and plans for future proposed housing construction, they convert
barns (as originally approved for specific purpose by the RBWM) at a later stage into retail outlets ... basically they do
everything BUT actually farm their land - which strikes me as not just ironic, but frankly pretty hypocritical!

Basically, they are slowly but very surely eroding and frankly destroying the Cookhams with the surreptitious and stealthy way
they go about their underhanded business of offering their land for building on.

I have several friends dotted across the South East who live in the countryside, and they are, to one person, all aghast
of what the farmers in Cookham are allowed to get up to. They chortle at the fact that the farmers here refer to themselves
as "farmers" rather than what they clearly endeavour to be - viz., constructors or building contractors or retail outlets!!  

This isn't scaremongering Grumpyoldgit - this is being aware of unnecessary changes taking place within our community
and airing our voices against the attempts at implementing those changes to the singular benefit of one section  - the farmers.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 09:33:37 AM by Watchman » Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2015, 12:43:53 PM »

Frankly there ought to be a Law which strictly prohibits Applicants using the
Council website to extract names and addresses in order for them to illegally solicit
or enter into any direct and uninvited correspondence whatsoever with the third party (viz., the objector).

I am utterly surprised that this ruling is not in place - especially with all the concern about
data protection etc etc., and if I received a letter from said farmer/applicant, I know I'd be contacting
my solicitor immediately - as, IMO, the correspondence could be construed as a form of harassment,
irrespective of how sweetly the incoming letter is couched or toned.

I totally agree with this sentiment Watchman.  Names and addresses are provided with objections or support for proposals so that they can be checked and proven to be valid and not fraudulent.  They should not be used to attempt to canvass objectors in order to attempt to persuade those people to withdraw their objections.  I put mine through the shredder to protect the addressee's identity rather than chucking it in the bin; unlike some I do have a sense of what is right and sending a letter to all objectors with another person's details on is just plain wrong in my book. Besides which my objection still stands and I have  no intention of retracting it; and it doesn't matter how many times Mr Copas writes to me, building on that piece of land is just plain wrong when less than 1/2 a mile away is a brownfield site that would be better suited, if cleaned up and the correct infrastructure upgraded.
Logged
Merriman
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 63


« Reply #54 on: December 17, 2015, 04:37:48 PM »

I was quite shocked today to receive yet another letter from Copas Farms. This time it was a copy of a letter sent to Tanya Rushbrooke which starts off. "I congratulate you on your campaign, which I understand it to protect your view from your house"

This all going too far, I find it rather intimidating that they initially chose to right to anyone who complains but to then to copy all 'residents raising concerns' on their reply to an individual is going too far!

Why do we need more homes in Cookham there are 2 off 2 bedroom properties for sale at the back of where I live that would be considered affordable housing, without the need to build new ones and obstruct anyone's view. There always seems to be a bunch of properties for sale on Lower Road that I presume are at the lower end of the market cost wise. So this idea that people have to move away from the area because there are no affordable homes is utter rubbish.

This just makes me even more determined to fight anyone trying to develop green belt land.

This is purely about making the Copas family more money and that is all. Leave Cookham how it is, no need for more development!!

When nature destroys something made by man they call it a disaster. When man destroys something made by nature they call it progress. But it's not.
Leave the green belt alone!!!
Logged
FionaBeaumont
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 67


« Reply #55 on: December 17, 2015, 10:55:11 PM »

I too received a copy of the letter sent to Tanya, at first I assumed they has just put it in the wrong envelope.
When I realised it was an open letter I was shocked, (the first letter that just went in the shredder), as to this amount of direct communication.

However, I was pleased that at least they let me know who I am supporting in this case, well done Tanya, we are all behind you!
I particularly enjoyed the comment about empty properties in Arthur Close though, which proves there is insufficient demand for affordable housing in this location, so why would another housing association another be any different? Unless of course, once built there suddenly there seems to be no need, so they are then sold on at full price...hmmmm...I wonder.

By the way, this letter went in the shredder too.


Logged
forum poster
Newbie
*
Posts: 30


« Reply #56 on: December 18, 2015, 08:43:14 AM »

If this is such a burning issue for the "farmer", maybe he could put the desperately needed rabbit hutches on his own land by his own house and see if he is unaffected by spoiling the view and ruining the immediate environment. Total greedy hypocrite...
Logged
Paris
Guest
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2015, 12:33:28 PM »

I too received a copy of the letter sent to Tanya, at first I assumed they has just put it in the wrong envelope.
When I realised it was an open letter I was shocked, (the first letter that just went in the shredder), as to this amount of direct communication.

However, I was pleased that at least they let me know who I am supporting in this case, well done Tanya, we are all behind you!
I particularly enjoyed the comment about empty properties in Arthur Close though, which proves there is insufficient demand for affordable housing in this location, so why would another housing association another be any different? Unless of course, once built there suddenly there seems to be no need, so they are then sold on at full price...hmmmm...I wonder.

By the way, this letter went in the shredder too.




^^^^ This ^^^^

My sentiments, exactly; my letter went in the shredder too, unlike Mr Copas I am not about to risk someone else's details ending up in the wrong hands.  Surely he or RBWM must be in some breach of data protection?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!