Forum Topics

Failure to Display Public Notice on Planning Application

Ever since Ealing Planning Department stopped sending out Notification Letters giving 21 days in which to respond to planning applications nearby, the system of putting up the yellow Public Notices on lampposts has been less than perfect.Disregarding instances where developers have likely pulled them down, the Planning Department itself has not always acted sensibly to ensure that affected neighbours know what it being proposed at close proximity.In a case in Rotherwick Hill (part of the Haymills Estate in Ealing W5), an unneighbourly play tower & platform was erected without planning permission.  Eventually, planning applications were made but the Council did not put up any Notices in the road where the adjoining back garden of an Ashbourne Close neighbour would be badly affected and where the neighbour had previously complained about the unauthorised structure overlooking their garden.Because no yellow Public Notice was put up in Ashbourne Close, the most affected neighbour was unaware of the latest application and therefore did not write in within the usual 21 days - only finding out that an Appeal to The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) had been lodged months later.   Because the neighbour had not filed an objection at first instance, the rules did not allow her to respond to the Appeal!The writer contacted PINS to explain the situation which was made worse as the Appellant's Planning Consultants were stressing that the neighbour had not objected at first instance and therefore there was no problem!PINS however were not satisfied that natural justice was being observed and ruled that the affected neighbour should be allowed to make her objections.The Appeal was dismissed by PINS yesterday  - please see at: result vindicates the objection of the neighbour in Ashbourne Close - the road in which the Planning Department failed to put up a Public Notice!V.Mishiku  - "The Covenant Movement"

Victor Mishiku ● 124d20 Comments ● 58d


Julian Bell Honesty Test.  Update. I asked Bell a simple question over a month ago.  It concerned the circumstances in which Mr Najsarek gained employment with Ealing Council?  It was: “Did you already know anything of what appeared in the press on June 30 2016 in respect of Mr Najsarek’s behaviour in Bolton when you appointed him?”  Bell must have known the answer.  All he needed to say was yes or no.   A dilemma.  If he said “yes”, he would reveal that he had been dishonest with the people of Ealing when he praised Najserak’s wonderful record of public service.  If you said “no”, he would confirm that Mr Najserak had successfully deceived his way into Ealing Council.A test of integrity for a public servant!   Not Bell.   He ignored the email.  He was guilty of a LIE BY OMISSION. As an avowed Christian, Bell, I am sure, would have been familiar with the Epistle of St James, the origin of this concept. It was his obligation as a public servant to make himself accountable.  He failed. It is was his obligation as a public servant to be honest.   It is my opinion and allegation (which I believe is supported by the simple evidence of this case) that he is a public liar and, as such, unfit for public office. I have told him to understand that every working day from now on I am asking the same question.  HOW OFTEN WILL JULIAN BELL LIE TO ANDREW FARMER?  FIVE DAYS SO FAR – AND COUNTING.

Andrew Farmer ● 425d105 Comments ● 59d