Hundreds of homeowners seeking compensation from Southend Airport (From Southend Standard)

Claims must be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension, on March 8.

r6keith wrote:
Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?

howironic wrote:
Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression? If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it. I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.

howironic wrote:
Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression?

If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it.

I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.

jayman wrote:

r6keith wrote: Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?

that counteracts the very generous position that the echo have had towards the airport. as for house prices, we may as well have an open cast sulphur mine in Southend. it would have had less of an effect.

JNFEnergy wrote:
The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to.

But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.

JNFEnergy wrote:
The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to.

But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.

maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.

Max Impact wrote:

maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.

What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.

maxell wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.

What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.

Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght

r6keith wrote:
I wonder if our local MP the very honourable Mr David Amess has submitted his claim yet, he seems to claim for everything else !

emcee wrote:
It does not matter how many claim compensation but you can rest assured that nearly all will recieve nothing and the others will be sorely disapointed.
It will be astronomically hard to prove loss of value based on the given criteria. Also, everyone concerned in awarding compensation will be fore-armed in the knowledge that these claims are being organised by disgruntled SAEN activists who are only using residents as ammo to try and inflict some kind of injury, after losing their little war.
It will all end in tears, for both SAEN and those residents trying in on.

EastStBoy wrote:
Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.

EastStBoy wrote:
Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.

charwen wrote:
i think we are lucky to have it, it has given Southend/Rochford jobs for people and you are lucky to have a house, there are so many homeless out there, also that airport has always been there so why buy a house by it! being near the hospital is worse hearing the ambulances all the time and how many of you complainants will fly from the airport due to it being easier to travel from near home.

maxell wrote:
most people had the sence to have their houses valuated prior the comencment of operations, so it will be easy to see the diference below national average. A good indicatiuon of this is where prospecting builders want to buy land , as if it is affected by the airport the property resale value will be lower.

jayman wrote:

EastStBoy wrote:
Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.

so that sort of blows out the implication on here about everyone in Southend jumping on a bandwagon to claim compensation. only the most affected 800 who live closest to the airport ect ect.

seems reasonable to me..

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

Joe Wildman wrote:

maxell wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.

What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.

Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght

My apologies I forgot at attach the quote of the comment I was referring to.


Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please.

I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport.

As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information.

I look forward to your response.”

tophatdt wrote:
well said Olivia2847

Thomo100 wrote:
What a waste of time and energy. This will gain nothing and nobody will ever get any money.
I live near a road and cars keep driving past, does anyone want to join me in a group, lets go for it and see what we will get!
ALL members of this stupid group should commit to give the EXTRA money that their houses are likely to be worth to causes that need the money, Children in need tonight just about puts it into context really!

tophatdt wrote:
Greed stops at nothing.

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.

you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.

sensiblelos wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.

you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.

......

Olivia2847 wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.

you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.

......

Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,

sensiblelos wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.

you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.

......

Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,

you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to....

When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl

y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....

Olivia2847 wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?

I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.

you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.

......

Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,

you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to....

When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl


y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....

1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance.
2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what!

This is a roundabout! Why do correspondents keeping going back to talk about landowners, decision makers, tinker, tailor etc it is not going to change anything o 'sensible one of Leigh' is it? The decision to expand was made, I feel with the best intentions of the community as a whole by an elected forum of people who acted on our behalf - it they felt it was necessary, why did they not have a local referendum. I am not going to comment any more - I am becoming akin to Victor Meldrew ........

RichardAC wrote:
the answer to the last point is simple. There has been a public enquiry and Saen asked for a judicial review. Both those confirm the council did everything by the book and there was no case to answer. They considered and consulted with everyone and their dog. The whole planning process from start to finish is a template for how it should be done. In this case the council have been fantastic in considering the overall benefit to the town and not the minor inconvenience of the few. Stobart in addition are a brilliant company.

RichardAC wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Eveyone was consulted. It's too late to start complaining now.

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.

sensiblelos wrote:

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.

you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.

Olivia2847 wrote:

tophatdt wrote:
Greed stops at nothing.

Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?

tophatdt wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

tophatdt wrote:
Greed stops at nothing.

Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?

I was referring more to the legal and personal greed.

sensiblelos wrote:

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.

you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.

Max Impact wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.

you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.

You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.

sensiblelos wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.

you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.

You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.

clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a

nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.

Olivia2847 wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Max Impact wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.

you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.

You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.

clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a


nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.

What is your point please o sensible one, because you have lost me completely! Your talking about planning and house prices in the same context I feel as trying to raise the Titanic and get her back working again - or is It just me .......

Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos:

You said:

"When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?"

So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process.


You then said:

“I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website”


You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it!

Olivia2847 wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos:

You said:

"When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?"

So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process.


You then said:

“I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website”


You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it!

Why a cant you both get to the point?

Olivia2847 wrote:
A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow!

Joe Wildman wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:
A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow!

Old habits die hard, spent years as a contracts negotiator and company spokesperson. waffling on is one of the things I had to do, baffle them with a long winded speech and they would sign the contract just to shut me up!

Same rules for writing a contract, the longer it is people start to skim over it and just sign on the dotted line.

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.

Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.

Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)

Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH

HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?

Olivia2847 wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.

Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)

Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH


HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?

Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure!

Joe Wildman wrote:

Olivia2847 wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:

sensiblelos wrote:

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.

Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)

Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH



HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?

Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure!

.pool ytilasuac laropmet a ni kcuts be ot smees eH

.ti fo edis gninnalp eht etabed ot knalb tniop sesufer tey, ekam ot gniyrt si solelbisnes tniop tahw tuo ot gniyrt struh niarb yM


He seems to be stuck in a temporal causality loop.

My brain hurts trying to work out what point sensiblelos is trying to make, yet refuses point blank to debate the planning side of it.

Joe Wildman wrote:
Nope.

Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.

Joe Wildman wrote:
Nope.

Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.