wpbf1b8d3e.png
wp3bf02513.png
banner10_white.jpg
wp8c78dbee.png
Look into my eyes . . Look into my
eyes . .Look into my eyes . . You do not
see MAC’S Fish & Chips - Chinese Food
To Take Away at no 253 . . . Five doors
along . . When I snap my fingers you
will see a flower shop and find
£500 in your briefcase” . . .
Pre planning “officer report” of Croydon
Council planners presented to the planning committee “. Application No 03/01860/P
243 Portland Rd week of 13/08/03
item 6.2 “there are no other A3 (take away) uses on the parade of 9 units.”
REALLY?
IS THAT HOW IT WENT TONY?
wp2b421770.png

Mr Colin Cole
Saturday, April 23, 2005

Tony Richardson
Planning Control Support Manager.
Croydon Council

Dear Tony . . . . Re A3 Planning 243 Portland Road. SE25 4XB
My Solicitor has now passed on your belated reply to his requests. I am pleased that you acknowledge ” that the reply (one month) has taken longer than it should.” . . . I do hope your reply to this letter will not do so. . . . and I expect the answers to these questions if you don’t mind.
So let’s examine the rest of it shall we? You write  “The planning situation is, as you know, that the planning permission for the use of the ground floor shop as an A3 food and drink included a condition requiring the installation of ducting in accordance with details approved by the Council. That installed is not as approved. In our dealings with the occupier of the shop we have advised her that any solution in environmental terms must be contained within her own property.”
Which of course is correct . . . but what you do not say, is that, in addition to that . . . .  the planning SPECIFICALLY states that the shop would not be allowed to trade until an approved flue has been installed. . . . . .

SO WHY ARE THEY TRADING? . . . Question 1.
“Not that we are taking upon ourselves any responsibility for enforcing compliance with the covenants you mention, but in the knowledge of your clients expectations in this regard any arrangement which continued with the present siting of the flue would clearly not be a solution. We have had some response from her to the effect that changes to the flue are to be carried out but it would appear that she is having some problems with her contractors which is delaying the remedial work.” . . . . . I bet she is. Given that whoever installed it committed a criminal offense . . probably more if he wasn’t CORGI registered its not surprising is it?
If that turns out to be the case . .

are you going to prosecute them as you are required to do by LAW. . . . Question 2.
“ recent inspection showed that there was still a nuisance and that the ducting is still extended beyond her property and thus is still unauthorised. A notice under the Environmental Protection Act has been served requiring the nuisance to be terminated.” . . . .

What time scale do you envisage for the implementation of this notice or are you expecting it to run concurrently with the other remedial work in which case

have we got to put up with it for still longer? . . . . Question 3.
“The option of serving an enforcement notice is, of course, still open but all the while the operator of the shop is making meaningful moves to resolve the problem we are likely to continue to negotiate rather than serve a planning enforcement or breach of condition notice. The stage may well come when a notice will have to be served, notwithstanding her efforts, in order to put more pressure on her. You will understand that such a notice carries rights of appeal which could delay proceedings and is why we are currently thinking we should achieve a successful conclusion more quickly by pursuing discussion.”

How nice. . . . quite frankly that is totally unacceptable. I suspect that the reason you will not issue that notice . . . and bear in mind it should have been issued a year ago . . is for the reason you give . . . “such a notice carries rights of appeal” . . . . No it doesn’t . . . she’s not supposed to be trading in the 1st place. Right of appeal  would only apply. . . . bearing in mind they have to remove it anyway because of the covenants . . . if she has grounds for appeal.
So what could they be?
Can you assure me that the reason is not that she has got the goods on Croydon Council because they allowed her to break the law in the 1st place?  .   . . . . Question 4
A yes or no answer will NOT suffice.

SO GET THAT BLOODY FLUE DOWN OFF MY PROPERTY  . . . . NOW.
Yours Colin Clifford Cole.
TO DATE TONY HAS NOT MANAGED A REPLY TO ANY OF THE ABOVE . . . . IS ANYONE SURPRISED?
But there’s more . . Not only did the Planners lie to the planning committee about there not being any other take-aways in the parade. They also lied about sending out notifications of planning request. . . . >>>>>
wp6fc2c94d.png
wp3e377757.png
The Law Society’s Dirty Tricks Page.
In association with Richard “The Chair” Hegarty of Hegarty & Co Peterborough. Consulting Matt Jacob of  Willoughby & Ptnrs London EC14
Richard Hegarty is Chair of the Solicitors Compliance Board for The Law Society.
Contact me  . . info@ingramwintergreen.co.uk
ON THIS PAGE . . SEE CROYDON COUNCIL PLANNING OFFICERS make a Chinese Fish and Chip Shop disappear and then lie about it to the Planning Committee
wpc434d29c.png
THE TOTALLY UNAUTHORISED SITE  THAT TELLS YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT REGIME @  THE LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDON.   . . . WWW.CROYDONCOUNCIL.INFO
THE Croydon Planning Information Site
NOT
London MET Police give whole new meaning to . . . “Getting a Brazilian
Have I Got News For Croydon
wp5f07ea04.jpg
It’s official  . Croydon Council NOT responsible for Planning Control.
Aiden McManus Divisional Development Services & Management Sysytems says “Croydon Council was not responsible for the initial incorrect installation . . . “ . . . Click here.
Croydon Ratepayers against Croydon Council
http://www.cracc.co.uk
Colin’ newest site.
The Great british gas home care con. See if you can guess what that’s all about?
http://www.british-gas.org