Basford residents hit out at 'illegal' apartments: 'We want these flats to be knocked down'
RESIDENTS are demanding an 'illegal' block of flats be knocked down.
Families are outraged that the apartments in Etruria Road, Basford, were not built according to the designs.
-
CONCERN: Geraldine Tatters. Picture: Steve Bould
They raised their concerns with Stoke-on-Trent City Council's chief executive John van de Laarschot at a meeting yesterday.
And they are calling on him to make sure a retrospective planning application is refused.
8kg 1400 spin A+++ rated washer
with a full 6 year warranty - yes SIX years
delivered FAST & FREE
was OVER £600 - For a limited time ONLY £449.90
Amazing value!!!
Terms:
8kg 1400 spin A+++ rated washer
with a full 6 year warranty - yes SIX years
delivered FAST & FREE
was OVER £600 - For a limited time ONLY £449.90
Amazing value!!!
Contact: 01782 342609
Valid until: Saturday, June 01 2013
The long-running feud has seen more than 30 people sign a petition against the development. Concerns include:
The building being taller than originally planned with a bigger footprint;
The design being out of keeping with the area;
Potential for two septic tanks to overflow;
Fencing not being high enough to guarantee privacy and reduce noise pollution;
Only 11 parking spaces allocated for 11 flats.
Geraldine Tatters, treasurer of the Basford and Cliffe Vale Residents Association, said: "The building has been built contrary to original plans and the septic tanks are a major concern.
"They are just not something you find in a city. What will happen to residents if the tanks overflow?"
Developer Neil Whiteley was granted planning permission for a block of flats in 2007. He then submitted a retrospective application, which has 11 two-bedroom flats last year, after not sticking to the original designs.
The flats are currently unoccupied but are now advertised to let.
The council confirmed it will insist changes are made but admitted it was unlikely to use enforcement powers to see it demolished.
Susan Everill, a retired nurse, aged 63, lives with husband Malcolm, aged 65, on Kingsfield Oval, directly behind the flats. They want the flats knocked down.
Susan said: "We moved into this house because we wanted it to be our retirement home.
"We've had to stop our home improvements because we don't want to live here anymore if these problems continue."
James Halldron, of James Halldron Associates, who has worked on the project with Mr Whiteley for two years, said: "We have been working very hard to complete our planning application for the flats and deal with a few minor problems."
Councillor Ruth Rosenau, Stoke-on-Trent City Council member for regeneration, planning and transportation, left, said: "An application for flats was approved in 2007, however, when built, the flats were different in size, design and materials.
"A fresh application was submitted in mid-2011, and the council is awaiting more information from the applicant.
"The council has requested that changes be made to the existing building.
"We continue to be in talks with the applicant and want to see this issue resolved as swiftly as local residents do."
Comments
by camband
Tuesday, October 16 2012, 1:49PM
“by Juzzah
"Camband - Again not trying to defend our council but it is the same way of operating throughout the country!!"”
by camband
Tuesday, October 16 2012, 1:48PM
“"In other words -the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is dooing. How daft.
So let's get this right. A Building Inspector is sent by his department to inspect a three-storey building -as described on the 'specs' in the folder handed to him by his bosses, in order to carry out checks on the 'standard of workmanship'.
He arrives at the site and finds it's not three storey but 10 storeys. No problem, nowt do with him, it just takes a bit longer that's all. When he gets back -he doesn't bring what he found to the attention of his bosses because that's nowt do with him eh?
As I said, 'a bit daft'. Rock on Van di-lah-di-lah-schott."”
by camband
Tuesday, October 16 2012, 1:47PM
“by Juzzah
"Camband - As someone who has dealt with obtaining both planning permissions and building control approvals over many years could I please point out the these are completely different entities. Planning applications are involved with the design of the building and it being in-keeping with its surroundings. Building control are to do with the standards of workmanship and relevant laws. Therefore the building inspectors had nothing to do with this it is down to the planning department!! I am not trying to defend the council it's just that you need to be blaming the right people, as it is this development will not be knocked down, the planning department will grant retrospective permission with probably a few provisions and possibly a fine!!!"”
by camband
Monday, October 15 2012, 11:30PM
“Well, you wouldn't would you.
But what would you do if, after moving in, -The Landlord 'breached the contract' -and the services you'd been promised as part of the purchase contract, you found to have been withdrawn? Just quietly accept it.
Course you should -I don't see you'd have a problem myself -they look very nice to me.”
by rav992
Monday, October 15 2012, 5:08PM
“They look like really nice flats, i would love to more into one of them! who cares if they are taller and problems parking, they will make a nice home for some people, its closer to everything aswel being in the middle of newcastle and hanley, dont see what the problem is”
by camband
Monday, October 15 2012, 2:53PM
“: "An application for flats was approved in 2007, however, when built, the flats were different in size, design and materials". -Councillor Ruth Rosenau, Stoke-on-Trent City Council member for regeneration.
That implies that there was no inspections carried out. Someone's head should roll for this serious breach of contract -A Council Official has either 'acted improperly' -or incompetently -or both. Who is it? What's his name? Ruth will know.
"James Halldron, of James Halldron Associates, who has worked on the project with Mr Whiteley (Property Developer responsible for the building of the Flats), for two years, said: "We have been working very hard to complete our planning application for the flats and deal with a few minor problems."
What sort of statement is that! ..'working very hard to complete 'plans to get out of jail' -after not abiding by the original plans for which permission was given'.
They, Mr Whiteley and his 'associate' James Haldron -whatever role he has in the affair have completely set out to con the Council -in the most cavalier manner thinkable. Now, by that statement, they are trying to portray themselves as 'good upright businessmen' WORKING HARD FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY!!
You can con some of the people (and Councillors) some of the time, but you can't con all of the people all of the time. Stand firm with your Lawyers Basford and Cliffe Vale Residents Association -and make sure you get due justice. Cowboy Developers and 'their associates' must be made to believe that PLANNING LAWS ARE PUT ON THE STATUTE BOOK FOR A PURPOSE -to protect the people from such as the likes of Whiteley and Haldron.... on the make.”
by camband
Sunday, October 14 2012, 9:17PM
“Yes DoctorDo -that just about sums it up. Afraid of getting sued -not a leg to stand on.
But should the local residents be the fall guys here? If they are -then there is something disturbingly smelly about the whole sequence of events -And all in the years 2011/12.
What price progress? This Council is inept from top to bottom.... and all on high salaries. It is sick, and there's no other word to describe it.”
by DoctorDo
Sunday, October 14 2012, 4:20PM
“Sounds like a council cock-up then, no wonder they're reluctant to order demolition, probably fearful of getting sued.”
by ratitatt
Sunday, October 14 2012, 3:25PM
“DoctorDo
Yes I agree it is hard to believe that a new-build could be erected without periodic inspections.
If you check out the SOT planning portal you will see that no inspections were recorded although they were part of the conditionality of the permissions granted.
http://tinyurl.com/8opfshw - application number -51712/FUL
There are 34 documents on the application - many of which are objections from residents and neighbours - dating back to Februay 2011
Can't find any reference to buildings inspector visits”
by DoctorDo
Sunday, October 14 2012, 3:13PM
“@ratitatt
When I extended my home the work had to be inspected at each stage. Foundation, drainage, damp course, cavity wall insulation etc. etc. If things weren't being done properly the builder was told to rectify them before moving on.
I can't believe that a new-build doesn't have to undergo similar inspection. Just because the article doesn't mention a building inspector doesn't mean that the building wasn't inspected.”