Comments from Interested Parties_Dr Thomson Appendix 1
Argyll and Bute Council · 24 June 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 24 June 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Re: Notice for Review Request - 50 Charlotte Street, Helensburgh, G84 7SR (Ref: 24/0005/LRB) Mon 13/05/2024 10:55 Good morning Lynsey and colleagues, Yes, I would like to take up your offer to view the mee ng scheduled for this Thursday and look forward to receiving joining instruc ons, thanks. Please allow me a few comments on the April submission from the appellant's agent which I had not seen: 1) A simple wordsearch of the whole 442-page pack for 'dishonest' returns just 3 hits and all were made by the appellant's agent himself on page-441. His word, not mine. 2) The appellant's agent further claims there is no evidence to assess the applicant's approach and atude to the Planning and Appeal processes. I think two Enforcement Noces alone says it all. I would suggest this is a case of not (adming to) seeing the wood from the trees. 3) He himself makes statements and then contradicts himself with his own photographic hard evidence submissions. For example, he states that it is an “unlikely event of a car being parked on the driveway” then submits independent Google street-view photos showing the owners' cars so parked (if Google do a street-view once every 10 years, let's say, then the odds being defied by this claim are up to 3650-to-1 ie 3649 mes out of 3650 days the Google photo should show the right-of-way/driveway being free of parked cars, but it does not). As another example, he submits hard evidence photographs of four other nearby rights-of-way/driveways (all free of parked cars) which again contradict his claims about other precedent maers as previously covered. I would suggest this may be in the hope that Planning then and now the LRB itself do not have the me to drill down into the detail and cross-match claims with hard evidence...even hard evidence supplied by the appellant's agent himself. 4) The appellant's agent asks that 23/01046/PP be treated in isolaon. I suggest the said four planning applicaons be treated as a box-set in regard to what this agent now seems to me to be calling 'dishonesty'. 5) Even on its own 23/01046/PP is premised on the prior unauthorised and therefore unlawful removal and relocaon of a public streetlight, from a known dangerous blind corner at the top of Charloe Street, as a pre-requisite to widen the said driveway. 23/01046/PP is worded as if these unlawful events (incurring enforcement noces) had not already taken place and were all sll at the applicaon stage. I would have called that out as a pretence but as the applicant/appellant perpetuate this pretence through this appeal then maybe the appellant's agent's terminology of 'dishonesty' may have to be considered as more appropriate by the LRB. 6) Earlier applicaons by this applicant also requested the removal of this lamppost which was refused...hence my box-set request. 7) This agent's claim in secon 3.2 on page 442 that I did not use any point of material consideraon in my objecon is incorrect. Just by way of example, I cited loss of amenity (ours and the safety of the public) and the unauthorised removal of said lamppost as a fundamental pre-requisite to widen the driveway (which was falsely represented in the applicaon as noted above). I have also quoted Highway Code Rule 243 to which there has been no response. The Code is more relevant now that the agent has again shied the goalposts of argument from driveway parking precedent to disability provision to now majoring on street parking consideraons. 8) I am not clear why Carroll v Scosh Borders Council (2015) is now being quoted at all as it is to do with an objecon to a specific LRB decision about a windfarm. My objecon is to this appeal not to any decision of the LRB. Simply, we have not even got to that stage. I ask the LRB to
Page 2
consider if this is just more 'legalese' (sic) grandstanding. I was equally unclear why the only other court case quoted in the appeal itself was that of an internaonal shipyard. 9) So, please be very circumspect with this appeal for the sake of the integrity of the Planning and Appeal processes. 10) Please, if and as you find appropriate, send out a clear and unequivocal message by example that the Planning and Appeal processes must be respected. I hope the process allows you to forward this email to the LRB members ahead of the review. I look forward to hearing from you with joining instrucons. Kind regards, Dr Robert Thomson ps my understanding is that a house name change is governed by Planning Policy contrary to this agent's claim on page 442
Page 3
Argyll and Bute – Realising our potenal together For informaon on how we manage your data under the General Data Protecon Regulaons please click on the following link:- hps://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/data-protecon Argyll and Bute Council's e-mail system (also used by LiveArgyll) classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. All communications sent to or from Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. This email has been scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content.