ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on May 17, 2017 18:22:35 GMT
MoneyThing: Thanks for the VR which I've just had a quick read through. I'm concerned about the boundary question that VR raises in the site section (pages 6 and 7). Is that something you have been able to clarify?
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on May 17, 2017 18:25:33 GMT
If it was prepared in October 2016 why is it only just now uploaded I wonder.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,845
Likes: 11,072
|
Post by ilmoro on May 17, 2017 18:28:49 GMT
If it was prepared in October 2016 why is it only just now uploaded I wonder. Its taken them a while to type the new address and run replace all on the references to the current lender. Edit One reason that I didnt bother waiting to invest as I knew it was highly likely to be a readdress with little new info.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on May 17, 2017 18:34:58 GMT
If it was prepared in October 2016 why is it only just now uploaded I wonder. Its taken them a while to type the new address and run replace all on the references to the current lender. Edit One reason that I didnt bother waiting to invest as I knew it was highly likely to be a readdress with little new info. The funniest bit for me is that they changed the address and FAO on the letter but forgot the date, or perhaps they didn't, maybe that was deliberate.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,189
Likes: 5,996
|
Post by registerme on May 17, 2017 18:53:04 GMT
Another VR I am unhappy with .
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on May 17, 2017 21:03:12 GMT
MoneyThing : Thanks for the VR which I've just had a quick read through. I'm concerned about the boundary question that VR raises in the site section (pages 6 and 7). Is that something you have been able to clarify? Is this connected perhaps with a requirement to remodel part of the roadway as a part of the development works? Clarification would indeed be welcome.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,845
Likes: 11,072
|
Post by ilmoro on May 17, 2017 21:04:50 GMT
MoneyThing : Thanks for the VR which I've just had a quick read through. I'm concerned about the boundary question that VR raises in the site section (pages 6 and 7). Is that something you have been able to clarify? ISTM Its because they have asked the council to make that on-street parking as part of the application so althought the development is within the ownership boundaries they have to include that bit of road in the application boundaries. In the sub-committee report for the refused application they were expected to pay £2000 contribution to the redisignation of the footpaths & highway. it would be for general use, not specifically for residents of the block and there would be some parking restrictions. Does need a separate permission.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on May 17, 2017 21:16:59 GMT
MoneyThing : Thanks for the VR which I've just had a quick read through. I'm concerned about the boundary question that VR raises in the site section (pages 6 and 7). Is that something you have been able to clarify? ISTM Its because they have asked the council to make that on-street parking as part of the application so althought the development is within the ownership boundaries they have to include that bit of road in the application boundaries. In the decision notice for the rfused application they were expected to pay £2000 contribution to the redisignation of the footpaths & highway. it would be for general use, not specifically for residents of the block. Thanks ilmoro. You've clearly got a better understanding of this than I have yet. But as I understand it, the planning application includes work done outside the ownership boundary. Specifically, resurfacing of part of the highway with porous paving. My concern is that the council originally refused the application and it was only passed by appeal to some higher authority. Would it be possible for one part of the council to refuse permission to do the work on the highway and another to say that the conditions of the planning application weren't met. I've met this kind of double speak from councils before!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,845
Likes: 11,072
|
Post by ilmoro on May 17, 2017 21:42:55 GMT
ISTM Its because they have asked the council to make that on-street parking as part of the application so althought the development is within the ownership boundaries they have to include that bit of road in the application boundaries. In the decision notice for the rfused application they were expected to pay £2000 contribution to the redisignation of the footpaths & highway. it would be for general use, not specifically for residents of the block. Thanks ilmoro . You've clearly got a better understanding of this than I have yet. But as I understand it, the planning application includes work done outside the ownership boundary. Specifically, resurfacing of part of the highway with porous paving. My concern is that the council originally refused the application and it was only passed by appeal to some higher authority. Would it be possible for one part of the council to refuse permission to do the work on the highway and another to say that the conditions of the planning application weren't met. I've met this kind of double speak from councils before! Just trawled the docs to see if the logical explanation was referenced in any way. The actual initial rejection was on the grounds of the council misinterpreting own policy and because it was seen as impacting on local residents too much, especially noise/air quality ... the appeal officer pretty comprehensively dismissed all the reasons as not really based on fact or too cautious interpretation, the road related bits werent mentioned. Most of the cosnitions refer to this work on the road. I suppose technically the Road Construction Consent could be refused but seems unlikely.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on May 17, 2017 21:50:32 GMT
Thanks ilmoro . You've clearly got a better understanding of this than I have yet. But as I understand it, the planning application includes work done outside the ownership boundary. Specifically, resurfacing of part of the highway with porous paving. My concern is that the council originally refused the application and it was only passed by appeal to some higher authority. Would it be possible for one part of the council to refuse permission to do the work on the highway and another to say that the conditions of the planning application weren't met. I've met this kind of double speak from councils before! Just trawled the docs to see if the logical explanation was referenced in any way. The actual initial rejection was on the grounds of the council misinterpreting own policy and because it was seen as impacting on local residents too much, especially noise/air quality ... the appeal officer pretty comprehensively dismissed all the reasons as not really based on fact or too cautious interpretation, the road related bits werent mentioned. Most of the cosnitions refer to this work on the road. I suppose technically the Road Construction Consent could be refused but seems unlikely. Many thanks ilmoro. It's just clicked that the council can't just capriciously refuse permission for the work on the highway. Or at least, they can, but it can be appealed and would presumably be overridden. I think I've just been persuaded to invest
|
|
|
Post by sannytwist on May 17, 2017 23:18:21 GMT
Hi all, with more than 50% of the loan still to be taken l was wondering how much the 2nd bidding limit might be..... another £3250 perhaps?
Hope everyone is doing well.
SannyTwist
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on May 17, 2017 23:20:22 GMT
Hi all, with more than 50% of the loan still to be taken l was wondering how much the 2nd bidding limit might be..... another £3250 perhaps? Hope everyone is doing well. SannyTwist Yup. Already announced in their email notification (and no doubt elsewhere).
|
|
|
Post by sannytwist on May 18, 2017 0:14:53 GMT
I didn't get this email, what should l do ?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on May 18, 2017 0:49:30 GMT
I didn't get this email, what should l do ? Check your junk and email MT support to confirm your address.
|
|
|
Post by sannytwist on May 18, 2017 1:26:10 GMT
I checked my email. When l deposit or withdraw money MT does email me but not for anything else.
|
|