Forum Topic

They pulled out because it was made a requirement for pre-commencement of any development that the site would finally have to be assessed for contamination.  Guess what Andy, WBC overlooked that little fact not once, not twice but THREE times to approve three planning applications.  To fail to do it once is careless, but for three applications?  C'mon Andy it's an MOT, car service station and car showroom with petrol tanks beneath the forecourt and they wanted to build homes on it? How could the Council have overlooked the requirement to check for contamination? Secondly, there's an easement running right across the forecourt from my home to the road.  It's a statutory mandatory requirement that planning officers have to note all access points in and out of a development site.  Guess what Andy?  The developer's garden gate - much newer than mine - made it onto every development plan.  But for some strange reason mine didn't.  Now how on earth can that be? Cos it's been there since the 1850s.  So despite WBC doing their very best to overlook their statutory duty thankfully the neighbourhood rallied again and former owners were able to submit evidence to the Land Registry lawyers to prove what the developer and Officer had known all along - my access rights.These two issues were not put to the Ombudsman who was happy to accept excuses like: 'the officer has not kept her notes', or the officer could have been mistaken when she wrongly identified rooms in her report because the housing department gave her the wrong floor plans.  Astonishing but unsurprising.  The could not investigate the 2008 application because it was too long ago.  They couldn't investigate WBC's conduct with the 2010 renewal application because the extension had been refused so no harm done.But harm was done Andy.  Trust gone.  An entire neighbourhood, hundreds of people witness to WBC Planning Authority's disgusting conduct.  Dishonest. Unlawful.  Arrogant.  Uncooperative. Bullies.

Sarah Roberts ● 2688d

From: "Molloy, Cathy" Date: 22 January 2018 at 11:39:25 GMTTo: 'john cameron'  "Martin, Paul" Cc: 'Alison Burmiston' , 'Gordon Reid' Subject: RE: Spencer Benches Application - 2017/5898 - Wimbledon and Putney Commons ConservatorsDear John, Following  the information you have provided and your various e-mails on this matter, I have been advised that the applicant has decided to withdraw the application. I understand that to ensure there is no ambiguity on this matter, the applicant has served notice on the WPCC  on Thursday 11 January and will be submitting a further application in due course.  Given that the application did not reach determination and it was the applicant who signed the application form and not the WPCC, in these circumstances, it would not be prudent for the Council to take any further action in relation to this matter.  Regards, Cathy Cathy MolloySenior Planning OfficerServing Richmond and Wandsworth CouncilsCMolloy@wandsworth.gov.ukwww.richmond.gov.uk / www.wandsworth.gov.ukTel. No: (020) 8871 6913 The views expressed in this email are informal only and do not prejudice any decision the Council may make on any future application which may be submitted in respect of the above property.———————————-From: john cameronSent: 18 January 2018 08:25To: Molloy, Cathy; Martin, PaulCc: 'Alison Burmiston'; 'Gordon Reid'Subject: FW: Spencer Benches Application - 2017/5898 - Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators Dear Cathy Spencer Benches Application - 2017/5898 – Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators I wrote to you last Friday, in respect of the false representation. When may I expect a formal response as to WBC’s position? Kind regards John ————————— From: john cameronSent: 12 January 2018 14:05To: 'Molloy, Cathy'; 'Martin, Paul'Cc: 'Alison Burmiston'; 'Gordon Reid'Subject: Spencer Benches Application - 2017/5898 – Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators Dear Cathy Spencer Benches Application - 2017/5898 – Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators You may be aware that I am an elected Trustee and Board Member of  the WPCC.  I am writing to you in that capacity, as I have not received an adequate response from the WPCC in respect of the false representation.  You will appreciate that as a Trustee I have personal exposure to the actions of the WPCC, which extend to legal and financial liability. I wish to place on the record that the WPCC have made a deliberate false representation to WBC (acting as LPA) in respect of the above planning application.  You are aware what the false representation is, and I believe you have sufficient evidence of the representation to conclude that it is false. Making a false representation as to fact or law may be expressed or implied. Please acknowledge this email and confirmation of what steps WBC intend to take in terms of the false representation. Kind regards John

John Cameron ● 2688d

@ emarisaThanks for you support in the last election, without which residents would not be aware of the misconduct, mismanagement and financial fraud by the WPCC.  It's disappointing that having exposed the misconduct, mismanagement and fraud that you decided not to vote for me this year, but that's your call.I don't consider myself a control freak.  I do take the view that when a planning application is submitted for change of use, (in this case from common to commercial) that the application / WPCC should not make deliberate misrepresentations to the planners.  And that the planners should do their job correctly, rather than take a laissez faire attitude and nod the application through.Lets take a quick look at the new application, (I assume you haven't, if you have please stop reading now) The application states; No pre application advice was sought.    It was.No rights of way are affected.  There are rights of way affected.There is no biodiversity affected.    Self evidently there is.That the land is not 'designated'.    The land is designated, and protected accordingly.That there is no 'existing use'.    The existing use is common, protected by an Act of ParliamentThat the site is not vacant.    The site is self evidently vacant, as common.That the users of the site will not be vulnerable to contamination.    The users will be.That there are no trees on or adjacent to the site.    Wrong on both counts, hard to miss them, (tall, largely made of wood etc).That the site is 240 hectares.    It isn't.Petty? The planning officer received the forms and plans which do not adhere to the guidance, didn't bother to check them, but nevertheless validated them and started the clock.  Rather too casual, much the same as the last time.The licence for the land makes the pub take full legal liability including personal liability for any damages or injury to any property or any person using the land.  This is alienation of the common by the WPCC and unlawful.

John Cameron ● 2689d