| Non-motoring > Mikhail Gorbachev dead | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: sooty123 | Replies: 5 |
|
New Tue 30 Aug 22 21:57
Mikhail Gorbachev dead - sooty123
|
| news.sky.com/story/ukraine-live-updates-international-mission-to-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-to-begin-this-week-as-fears-of-radiation-disaster-mount-12541713?postid=4380175#liveblog-body |
|
New Tue 30 Aug 22 22:49
Mikhail Gorbachev dead - Bobby
|
| another one who I didn't know was still alive. |
|
New Tue 30 Aug 22 23:39
Mikhail Gorbachev dead - henry k
|
|
He is famous in my area www.thefreelibrary.com/Gorby+pops+in+for+pie+and+pint.-a061010961 McDonald's failed to build on the site. ( see RAM protest ) It is now two blocks of flats From the Telegraph 01JUL 2000 YES! We've won. After an 18-month battle, McDonald's has given up trying to convert my local pub into a burger joint and has sold it back to its original owner, which has found a more acceptable developer. True, we face more skirmishes but now it is time to celebrate a famous victory. Raise your glasses: Hinchley Wood villagers celebrate the success of their 18-month campaign In what is a rare rebuff for the multinational giant, McDonald's has walked away from a legally acquired property and a profitable business proposition without even starting to get workmen into the building. Beaten by a bunch of Surrey commuter-belt Middle Englanders - amazing. In February last year, I wrote on these pages that my neighbours and I were prepared to leave our nice three- and four-bedroom detached houses to become placard-waving eco-warriors, in an effort to stop McDonald's taking over the Hinchley Wood pub. It was not that I was an antiglobalisation activist, or a desperate pub-lover. I did not hate McDonald's and I was not even a great patron of the pub. It was just that the pub was a focal point of our small community, near Esher, and we did not want a fast-food restaurant with its fumes and litter next to our little square of shops and close to our homes. What we wanted was a Harvester-type family restaurant, perhaps, or a hotel with a bar and a room for local meetings, or even just a well-run pub with a bit of atmosphere. But McDonald's already had possession and planning permission to open for business, whether the locals liked it or not. And I had read enough about the corporation (26,000 restaurants in 120 countries) to know that it was so fiercely dedicated to its customer and community-friendly image that it was not likely to admit it had made a mistake in moving into our residential neighbourhood. Officially, it still does not. McDonald's regional spokesman prefers to say that the company was beaten by a technicality over traffic access. Yet, how that technicality became a trump card is a tribute to a great deal of work by a handful of residents - backed by a majority in the village - who used official public procedures to expose shortcomings in the company's plans. The showdown began in late 1998 with a band of environmental activists from Kingston Upon Thames blocking access and demonstrating against the takeover. Residents followed up with a blocking caravan of their own - on a public right of way by the front door - and Residents Against McDonald's (RAM) was formed. It organised public meetings, began fund-raising, a regular newsletter, a 4,800-signature petition, a letter-writing campaign and strong public attendance at vital council meetings. It also gained considerable support from council officials and MP Ian Taylor. The group took a petition to 10 Downing Street, started a website and launched a campaign focusing on the A3 (Food and Drink Act, 1987) which does not distinguish between a pub and a traffic-driven fast-food takeaway. A resulting government study is due this autumn. But it was the traffic that was decisive. McDonald's proposed an improved access plan which the council accepted because it appeared to improve the adjacent highway. We did our own traffic count and persuaded the council that McDonald's had underestimated the traffic, and the case went to a government inspector. The inspector told McDonald's it had been challenged to prove the residents wrong, and when it failed to do so, he rejected its case. The company was given leave to appeal to the High Court, but chose not to. For several months, we heard rumours of one potential buyer after another. But agreement with McDonald's could not be reached and the winter arrived with little obvious progress. A few days ago, however, word came that the site had been acquired by Taywood Homes, a subsidiary of the Taylor Woodrow Group, which wants to build residential flats for the elderly. The company confirms this. The old pub is now so worn out and ill-fitting into company plans that it will be knocked down. So, yes, we have won. But it is not quite the victory I had hoped. We can live with tasteful flats, but there is a hollow feeling that we now have moral persuasion only to convince Taywood Homes to include a bar or restaurant with a community room. A company official says it is looking at it. But is it serious? Can its architects work out a mixed-use design? We think so, and one of our residents has an management firm lined up to run the place. But what leverage do we have? Only our community spirit and the moral certainty that Taywood Homes would not have the site if we had not fought McDonald's. So give us a break, Taywood Homes. We deserve it. Meanwhile, I am off to a victory party outside the pub tomorrow. And may the sun smile on the righteous. |
|
New Wed 31 Aug 22 00:33
Mikhail Gorbachev dead - zippy
|
| Considering what he has seen become of Russia, he probably died of a broken heart. |
|
New Wed 31 Aug 22 03:09
Mikhail Gorbachev dead - Fullchat
|
|
Well Henry K you have fought animal that is Planning and won. That deserves a very large pat on the back to all concerned. Planning is a law until itself and the majority of the time seems totally indifferent to the rate paying public it serves. It may appear to make the right noises but underneath it generally favours developers. We live in a cul-de-sac of 6 houses on the edge of a village and the development area, Adjacent to us was a small CL caravan site. Someone managed to get control of the site which was subsequent bequeathed to him and applied for a change of use of his large adjacent garden to create a 30 pitch 'quality' site. It never really happened but he then applied for permission for siting of 18 'luxury' lodges (caravans) to replace the mobile pitches. The site was sold to a large holiday park company who put in the lodges. Some for holiday rental and some for private purchase as holiday homes. (12 month licence) In essence these are actually residential which they are not supposed to be. In 2020 the site owners then started to rip out a vast amount of screening foliage which was an intrinsic part of the conditions due to the proximity of residential properties. 4 concrete bases for a further 4 caravans were then put in and 3 sited. 1 is still vacant. The consent number of 18 was exceeded Complaints were made to planning enforcement (we're now into the first lockdown) who showed total indifference to the planning breaches and provided pretty lame excuses as to why, in their eyes, there was no issues. The Parish Council and local Councillors became involved and the Head of Planning and his subordinates were made to explain why it was that there would be no action against the developers for exceeding the maximum number of units and failing to comply with the majority of the conditions in the initial Approval. They had an answer for everything but the main one was that the maximum number of units was not specified within the Conditions therefore there was no upper limit. You couldn't make it up. Without going into detail the Approval was threaded with such statements as - " ...is Approved based on the information and plans submitted". They claimed their position was based on Stated Cases but I'm sure that if the case was put before Judicial review there was sufficient restrictions to make it watertight. So that was as it left, then this February another Application for Change of Use is submitted on behalf of another paddock behind a residential property to extend the caravan park and site another 11 caravans. Again these are right up to residential boundaries. There has been a good number of objections from those effected and support has been drummed up from existing owners of caravans and regular patrons of a cafe/bistro situated on the site who dont even live anywhere near. The Planning Officer has recommended Approval and has submitted counter arguments, based on Local/ National Plans and Policy, to every major concern put forward. Using such words as "Should not", "No reason to believe", "Minimum impact" and so on. At this stage the matter has been put before Committee and a decision has been reserved until a site visit next Tue but I fear the worst. The expansion of tourism seems to override everything including the impact on residents. Throw in 'sustainable', 'diversification' and job creation and the Planners are off with the fairies. Evidence and previous behaviour clearly shows that the developers cannot be trusted but there is absolutely no weight placed on this at all. The fact the they messed up the last Approval restricting the limit to 18 units also seems to be forgotten. Its all about the Application before them at the time, so they say. Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 31 Aug 22 at 03:13
|
|
New Wed 31 Aug 22 08:25
Mikhail Gorbachev dead - sooty123
|
|
Planning is such an emotive issue it's bound to cause feelings to run high. Often people misunderstand the system and think that because xyz matters to them it should be a factor in the planning process. They are often left, some years down the line, frustrated, bitter and some what out of pocket to find that, xyz isn't anything the planners factor into their decision process even though they feel it should. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
