10 comments

• Comment Link Monday, 11 March 2013 23:10 posted by Paul F Rasering

  Hazelwood now boarded up I see. I went there as man and boy. Many Thanks London Irish for replacing an amenity used by lots into something that will only be used by few. Very sad.
• Comment Link Tuesday, 17 July 2012 16:14 posted by mark

  I find it very very sad that this new modified application has gone through it seems that the planning laws allow the developers with deep pockets to keep going till they manage to find something that gets around all the so called planning laws this government has. this development was turned down an number of times...It is on protected open space - what does protected mean ...clearly nothing. i'm disgusted at this descision by the council.
• Comment Link Tuesday, 17 July 2012 12:12 posted by Remy Smith

  Finally some coherent long-sighted vision from Spelthorne Planning Committee members.
  
  Hopefully the planning committee will stop trying to appease the soaked in aspic brigade and realise that places like Sunbury and Shepperton need strategic development to prevent them becoming dormitory ghost-towns in slow inexplicable decline.
• Comment Link Monday, 02 July 2012 19:18 posted by John Hirsh

  Alan, I haven't been in touch with Tom O'Keefe but hope do so shortly and after the conditions to the development of Hazelwood have been added to the decision notice. Gerry, regrettably the decision of the planning committee cannot be appealed by a third party. Appeals are only allowed by developers who have their applications refused by Planning Committee
• Comment Link Thursday, 28 June 2012 18:27 posted by Alan Kingsbury

  John,
  Now this has been approved, have you been able to speak to Tom O'Keefe to see if he still intends to take legal action against this as he originally stated?
• Comment Link Monday, 25 June 2012 08:37 posted by Tony Cannings

  I was at the meeting on 21st June and confess to being surprised that individuals who purport to be independant representatives of the people, can submit to the light pressure (and their interpretation) of "This application breaks no planning law". They lack spirit and the connection with the people they represent. Sunbury will be a lesser place because they weren't prepared to look after it.
• Comment Link Saturday, 23 June 2012 12:12 posted by Bob

  Absolutely right to use the ballot box to show your displeasure. But how many will still like sheep vote Conservative, who after all brought in rules completely favouring redevelopment?
• Comment Link Saturday, 23 June 2012 11:18 posted by David Miller

  Councillors are elected to represent their constituents interests, but this representation is within a wider context. Democracy is after all about understanding and debating diverse interests and reaching an acceptable common ground. To blame councillors for this perceived failure is rather unfair.
• Comment Link Friday, 22 June 2012 17:53 posted by Sue Brown

  Very disappointed by the performance of the majority of councillors which at the end of the day we have elected to act on our behalf. Their failure to debate the issues properly and take on board what the Inspector actually stated in his report (did they all read it I wonder), together with their refusal to acknowledge or take into account that he stated the council was under no pressure to develop a site which was not brownfield, was quite frankly unbelievable. Moreover, we have fulfilled our housing quota as Mr Birch and numerous objectors have stated - something which appeared to be of no consequence to the majority of the councillors bar one who proved himself to be a true representative of the majority of residents and whose arguments were valid and concise - he is an example of what I like to see in the debating chamber. Regarding some of the other members I intend to make my point at the ballot box. Very sad day for Sunbury and its village community.
• Comment Link Friday, 22 June 2012 16:06 posted by gerry birch

  We do not elect a council to run roughshod over the obvious wishes of thye community. We were not notified that The Secretary of State advised us that we did not have to approve the planning application as we already had fullfilled our quota. That is the law and we shold be allowed the option to refuse permission and take what comes in future years-which may be nothing or a very long time in comming. It is clear that urban open space should be sacrocant. It is our righjt to appeal this wrongfull decicion and we must do so.