I have read the other posts on this thread and would like to offer the following contribution for consideration. I am only trying to be helpful, do not want to interfere and do not want to make myself unpopular with others. I am more than happy to be corrected on any aspect.
On the Council website, the Minutes state (my emphasis):
S/1930/08/F Land South West of Wallers Close, Mr D Collings, Removal of Condition 1 to allow permanent use as a rabbit sanctuary.
The Clerk read out a letter from residents of Wallers Close which illustrated their concerns about the planning application. A discussion took place as to the past and current problems associated with the rabbit sanctuary. It was unanimously decided to recommend refusal for this application due to reasons including the traffic and parking issues in Wallers Close (as reported and hi-lighted by Mr Rutland from the housing department), problems associated with waste and its removal, the size and management structure of the site and the fact that these issues have been causing problems for three years and never improve.
It was noted that no member of the Collings family was present to present their case for the Planning Permission.
On the Rabbit Residence's own website, the situation is described somewhat differently.
http://bunniestotherescue.blogspot.com/2010/02/save-rescue-2010.html
The following is an extract.
As friends of the Rescue will be aware, we have been required annually to re-apply for planning permission to remain on our current site. This is largely due to our proximity to (and access through) a residential area.
Recently, in preparation for the current application, we contacted the local residents and asked them to let us know of any concerns they had so that we could address them. Most of the people we spoke to were very positive. The only concern we encountered was with the way in which waste was removed from the site and as a result we implemented a new system which eliminated all of the problems highlighted.
So having met the conditions of last years planning approval (limiting the vehicles on site in number and to volunteers only, visitors only on Saturday and only appointment etc) and addressing the only concerns expressed to us by the local residents, we were understandably surprised to hear that the Parish Council decided to recommend that the application this year be denied.
These improvements are all set out in detail in Caroline's application to the council.
http://scambs.jdi-consult.net/devcon/pa.php?paid=144197
The areas of concern expressed by the council were:
- traffic and parking
- waste disposal
- management
- lack of improvement over three years
In her proposals, Caroline appears to have addressed each one of these areas.
She has
restricted traffic and access times.
Volunteers on the site are limited, visitors can only visit on Saturdays and are told to park in the village car park and walk, waste disposal is undertaken once a week in quiet periods.
I am not a lawyer but believe that residents of a street only have the "right" to unhindered access to their property to/from the public highway. They do not have the "right" to make the street outside their house their "personal parking space" for themselves and their friends and cannot limit others from using the street to access their properties. (I happen to live near a school and the street becomes a massive car park at least twice a day. People just accept this and live with any personal inconvenience at these times. The users are not residents and simply park here because it is convenient to go to/from the school with their children. This is orders of magnitude greater than any amount of traffic that a rabbit rescue could generate).
She has
improved waste disposal procedures.
Regular collection using a covered vehicle.
She has
improved the management of the site.
Traffic, waste, buildings and storage.
She has made a
number of improvements over the three years indicated.
Furthermore, she has consulted with her neighbours regarding any concerns they may have and sought to address them. I note that no mention of this fact was made in the council minutes. A letter from the residents of Wallers Close was mentioned but its precise contents were not minuted. As a formal piece of minuted correspondence, a copy of this letter should be made available and should have been provided to Caroline for her to comment upon it.
Were, I wonder, the objections in the letter consistent with those advised to Caroline previously when she sought the views of her neighbours? Alternatively, were the objections just part of a series of "progressive" complaints to get rid of the rescue so that as each one was dealt with a "new complaint" was created? I see that "traffic and parking" and "waste management" have already been used. Then, when the electricity failed and required a temporary generator, a "noise complaint" suddenly appeared.
I also believe that, when objecting to a planning application, the council advises those that wish to object that their identity will be placed in the public domain. Is it known how many people actually objected, who they are and whether they were among those that Caroline sought to consult?
As, I believe, these are "draft" minutes, perhaps they could be challenged as an inaccurate record of the facts? They cannot be claimed to be an accurate record of the facts. They are not accurate on the basis of the submissions that Caroline had already made prior to the council meeting.
On the basis of the application, Caroline appears to have done all that could reasonably be expected of her (and more) in order to minimise the impact of the rescue on its neighbours and to be a "good neighbour". If you look at the photographs accompanying the application, the rescue is barely even visible from the houses. In most areas I think that she and the rescue would be viewed as exemplary occupants of the land and welcomed accordingly. In comparison to other uses to which the land could possibly be put, occupation by 100 rabbits is a much better outcome for the residents.
I believe that, at the next meeting with the council, Caroline could claim that she has done everything that could "reasonably" be expected of her in minimising the impact of the rescue and addressing those concerns of her neighbours of which she has been made aware.
If any RU -ers are themselves, or have contacts who are, planning officers, then I think that they would be able to provide more definitive guidance.
I apologise for this long post and hope that it is of assistance.
