Objection to Variation of Planning Ref: LW/10/1048

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition Objection to Variation of Planning Ref: LW/10/1048.


Anonymous

#1

2014-05-10 13:55

Developer should be able to renege on a commitment to social housing.

Guest

#2

2014-05-10 14:24

This is NOT what was agreed.

Guest

#3

2014-05-10 14:39

I was under the impression that Seaford was in great need of social housing. If a promise to provide such housing is a pre-requisite and is extracted from a developer at the approval of planning stage, surely that should be adhered to? Or do planning laws not apply to powerful corporations with lots of lawyers? I should like to see this application overturned permanently by LDC for the people of Seaford, before the plot of land becomes a parking lot by default.

Guest

#4

2014-05-10 15:06

No,no,no,these big firms have got to be stopped from renegading on the promises they make to get planning permission, it's a disgrace.all the houses being built are mostly big homes and and not affordable to ordinary people.x

Guest

#5

2014-05-10 16:07

Time to enforce the planning and remember how many people are desperate for housing.

Guest

#6

2014-05-10 18:10

We need more affordable housing for lower paid families

Guest

#7 Re: Affordable homes??

2014-05-11 07:54

Several affordable homes were pulled down to make way for this! They had no intention of building affordable homes There must be cavaets put in place to enforce these agreements!  #6: -

 


Guest

#8

2014-05-11 09:18

Seafood needs affordable housing for all ages rather than
grossly overpriced short term dwellings for the filthy rich elderly.
Loosing faith in council committees... Of Seaford

#9

2014-05-11 21:12

Their is a need for social housing, as the planning committee agreed with in the original application. So what's changed?
If there was no more units built, than was agreed in the original application, why are more parking spaces needed, or us this just incompetence on the part of the applicant. Unfortunately this looks like it was a cynical ploy by the applicant, and also shows a disregard and contentment for the planning authority, let's build it then apply for change after it's built!!!

Guest

#10

2014-05-14 16:47

The whole thing is a disgrace. I informed LDC this afternoon, prior to the matter coming to the Planning Committee, that work was already under way and that the McCarthy & Stone site manager claimed he'd been given the go-ahead. They did nothing whatsoever.