Jeremy, Just to be clear, there are two entirely separate processes here, what is happening now is merely a consultation exercise with locals about the proposals, but this process isn't part of the actual consideration and determination of the planning application. This consultation exercise is really more of a notification process, and to be frank it's almost certain that no matter what people say the Council will still proceed to submit a planning application.  I'm often present at these types of exercises when there's a public exhibition of a scheme, and some people do quite get offish and will say "you're just going to tell me how great the scheme is", and my response is always "nope, we're giving you an opportunity to get a heads up about the scheme, nothing more nothing less". Once this initial consultation process is over, the professional team acting on behalf of the Council will then finalise the full planning application, and might make some tweaks to the scheme in light of the consultation responses.  Once the application is formally submitted, the planning department will then go through the statutory notification process and any representations received must then be taken into account as part of the determination of the planning application. Only if planning permission is granted can the development actually be built. Harsh as it may sound, there is no reason why the amount of local opposition to a proposed development should affect its outcome.  2 of 'my' applications in the last 2 years I've had applications of mine attract over 700 and 325 objections (and in the case of the 1 which attracted 700+ objections I warned the client beforehand that the application wouldn't go down well), and in both cases we got an Officer recommendation for approval.  Because, in simple terms, having regarding to planning policies, there was no reason why either application should have been refused. I'm not saying that is or isn't the case here, but as I always advise objectors (and I do something act on behalf of objectors) it's vital to keep emotion and exaggeration out of any objection, the best objections are those which are reasonable and rational in both their tone and presentation - which was kind of why I criticised Raymond earlier, because whilst he often makes valid and credible points once someone goes OTT then it really doesn't do them any favours.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Planning objection	02/07/20 09:10:00	Jeremy Weekes
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 11:14:00	Anne England
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 11:56:00	Raymond Havelock
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 12:42:00	Bernard Allen
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 18:57:00	Jeremy Weekes
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 20:21:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 20:57:00	Raymond Havelock
Re:Planning objection	02/07/20 21:36:00	N V Brooks
Re:Re:Planning objection	03/07/20 07:49:00	Jim Storrar
Re:Planning objection	03/07/20 09:13:00	Jeremy Weekes
Re:Re:Planning objection	03/07/20 12:22:00	Vanessa Smith
Re:Re:Re:Planning objection	03/07/20 16:08:00	Raymond Havelock
Re:Re:Re:Re:Planning objection	05/07/20 17:21:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Planning objection	06/07/20 15:16:00	Steve Allum
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Planning objection	07/07/20 13:14:00	Raymond Havelock
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Planning objection	08/07/20 19:28:00	Jeremy Weekes
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Planning objection	08/07/20 21:10:00	Adam Beamish

Forum Home