HAYDN Gear and Bob Greenland seem both to be under
the misapprehension that the reason for rejection of the
Henry Boot application was "mainly on grounds of
aesthetic unacceptability." There were five important
reasons for refusal. The first four are just important and
relevant to the options presently under consideration.
Indeed, it is difficult to understand why councillor
Greenland did not realise his brief instructing the four
architects was flawed before he redeployed it. One can
only conclude that Henry Boot and Asda were not
prepared to proceed except on the basis of a retail trading
park much the same as they had already proposed. MCC
were not going to get all the money unless they agreed.
Remembering the changes to the membership of the
planning committee immediately following the refusal and
the recent decidedly biased makeup of the judgement
panel for the two options chosen by Henry Boot, Asda and
MCC, we might be excused for thinking there is an
intention to force through planning one of these highly
inappropriate schemes. All along there has been an
apparent conspiracy between MCC, Henry Boot and Asda
to get these ill-conceived proposals approved.
The sad thing is the MCC planning authority are ignoring
the planning polices they have themselves devised for the
benefit of us all and applied with vigour to a good many
Monmouthshire people. This is disreputable behaviour
and the two year delay councillor Greenland envisages is
likely to be greatly extended by justified resistance.
I join Barry Greenwood of FOE and ask all county
councillor to appoint new management and restore public
confidence in the handling of this important matter.
Ken Adams
Llantilio Crossenny

.jpeg?width=209&height=140&crop=209:145,smart&quality=75)



Comments
This article has no comments yet. Be the first to leave a comment.