Published and promoted by Paul Mercer, 58A Wards End, Loughborough LE11 3HB This site only uses cookies in order to collect anonymous usage data for Google Analytics and StatCounter. By using this site we assume that you are happy to receive cookies.
Gould appears not to understand planning rules On his new Facebook site, Southfields Labour candidate Arthur Gould has criticised the lights that have appeared on buildings on the Forest Road and remarked “all have Borough Council permission” – with the clear implication that Charnwood’s Plans Committee could have refused permission. This is simply not the case. Local Southfields councillors Paul Mercer and Ted Parton have been vociferous opponents of the branding of student accommodation along Forest Road. On 24 April 2018, Ted wrote to the owner of the Beehive properties to complain about the “level of light pollution currently experienced by residents living opposite the Student Beehive properties on Forest Road, especially since the installation of the new branded illuminated signs”. Residents had complained that the glare was so intrusive it had forced them to keep the curtains shut. The owner, Simon Chamberlain responded by noting – correctly – that Ted had opposed his planning application to convert the Forest Rise Hotel into student flats and noted that they had “undertaken planning permission for these signs and lights through the correct channels”. Separately, Paul raised the issue of the colour and intensity of the lights with planning officers. They responded that although they personally agreed that they were intrusive, there was nothing within planning law that enabled Charnwood to do anything about them. “It is very easy for Arthur Gould to make these criticisms of Charnwood and the work that we do”, commented Ted, “but the reality is that no one could have stopped this development. Despite our attempts to intervene at the planning stage, we were informed by the officers that there were no legitimate planning reasons to prevent the installation of these lights. It is, however, encouraging that Arthur chooses to criticise us without any legitimate grounds for arguing that we have failed in our duty and it is inconceivable that he could have done it any differently.”
Published and promoted by Paul Mercer, 58A Wards End, Loughborough LE11 3HB
This site only uses cookies in order to collect anonymous usage data for Google Analytics and StatCounter. By using this site we assume that you are happy to receive cookies.
Gould appears not to understand planning rules On his new Facebook site, Southfields Labour candidate Arthur Gould has criticised the lights that have appeared on buildings on the Forest Road and remarked “all have Borough Council permission” – with the clear implication that Charnwood’s Plans Committee could have refused permission. This is simply not the case. Local Southfields councillors Paul Mercer and Ted Parton have been vociferous opponents of the branding of student accommodation along Forest Road. On 24 April 2018, Ted wrote to the owner of the Beehive properties to complain about the “level of light pollution currently experienced by residents living opposite the Student Beehive properties on Forest Road, especially since the installation of the new branded illuminated signs”. Residents had complained that the glare was so intrusive it had forced them to keep the curtains shut. The owner, Simon Chamberlain responded by noting – correctly – that Ted had opposed his planning application to convert the Forest Rise Hotel into student flats and noted that they had “undertaken planning permission for these signs and lights through the correct channels”. Separately, Paul raised the issue of the colour and intensity of the lights with planning officers. They responded that although they personally agreed that they were intrusive, there was nothing within planning law that enabled Charnwood to do anything about them. “It is very easy for Arthur Gould to make these criticisms of Charnwood and the work that we do”, commented Ted, “but the reality is that no one could have stopped this development. Despite our attempts to intervene at the planning stage, we were informed by the officers that there were no legitimate planning reasons to prevent the installation of these lights. It is, however, encouraging that Arthur chooses to criticise us without any legitimate grounds for arguing that we have failed in our duty and it is inconceivable that he could have done it any differently.”