Hacked, or what?

In the past three months I have come under attack from what I assume to be a hacker.  My name and address was used to complain to the local council about a garden fire.  The e-mail address used was not mine.

More recently I  have supposedly joined a dating site.

Today it is claimed I made a complaint on another matter.

Someone out there does not like me.  I couldn't care less and await further activity with interest.

Dame Vera Lynn Statue.

How insensitive can you be? Is it April Fools Day?  At a time when an idiot of a chief constable bends his knee before the Black Lives Matter vandals (criminal damage no less) it is suggested that a statue be raised for a white woman who sang about white cliffs and is a symbol of our oppressive colonial slave-trading past. Come on get a grip.  

No.  What we need is not a statue of Dame Vera but one of the Labour MPs: Dawn Butler, David Lammy and Diane Abbot all looking longingly into the eyes of Saint Jeremy surrounded by a throng of snowflakes and Liberal Democrats.

Planning Application (2) A shambles

In May I published a post on the development of the Red Lion Garden to build a terrace of 3 x 3 bedroom houses.  Planning permission has been granted for this to be a 3 x 4 bedroom development.

The developer has been busy.

A major concern of mine has been the line of the wall in the bottom two photographs which does not follow the line on the planning application.  Remember sight lines is a key factor in the decision to permit the development.

Correspondence flowed between me and the Planning Department:


From me 2 June:

Dear Sirs

I note that the boundary wall is being rebuilt in accordance with the plans currently before the planning authority for decision and not in accordance with the plans approved on appeal and also the decision of 8 April 2020 in respect of wall details.  The wall being built allows for two entrances whereas the approved plans are for one.

As work on the wall started on 1st June there is time for the wall to be built as approved.  I await your response.

From the Planning Department 3 June

Dear Mr Hopkinson,

The bricks were removed by a machine in blocks as there was no way they could remove them individually by hand, due to the shattering. I was on site to witness this.

As for any change in the line of the wall, I will visit the site to see what it is they are doing.

Yours sincerely

From me  5 June:

Further to your e-mail of 03 June I trust you have visited the site or plan to do so in the near future.  You will note that the wall changes direction opposite the gate to 57/55 Lower Green Road.  Initially the bricklayers laid a few bricks in the correct direction but were told to remove them to permit  the wall to be set off in the new direction.  Where the wall should have changed direction there is now a 90 degree curve which does not appear on any plans,  

From the Planning Department   8 June

Dear Mr Hopkinson,

I have visited the site, and spoken to the developer. The wall being rebuilt broadly fits the detail of the plan 05D on 19/03589/LBC. As the development has always been controversial in terms of the visibility splays of access to the site, I believe they have adjusted it slightly for better visibility. As such I do not see this as a substantial breach of the plans.

Yours sincerely

From me to Planning Department  8 June:

I am not surprised by your response: indeed it was in accord with my expectation given the current thinking within the Town Hall.   Words such as 'broadly' ring alarm bells.

The demolished wall was listed and was to be replaced by a new wall utilising the bricks in the demolished wall on a slightly different alignment: an alignment which appears in the original drawings, the appeal documents and the revised application.   The Planning Inspector approved the alignment in the plans and did not require any 'improvement' as a condition of approval.

The carefully drawn up plans for the wall had two purposes:

1.  To have visibility splays which would be approved

2.  To satisfy the listed building requirement.  

Having achieved this the developer, retrospectively aided and abetted by the planning authority, has chosen to ignore the plans.  The new wall bears little resemblance to the demolished wall.

I agree with the objective of improving the sight lines but the changes made will have no significant effect.  Why were the changes not included in the most recent planning application?  It looks like changes being made 'on the hoof'' and hope no-one notices.

A second e-mail from me dated 8 June:

I have read the most recent comments of the Council's Conservation Officer and KCC Highways.  Were these comments made before your decision to agree to the changes to the wall as they are broadly in accordance with the plans?  Indeed has either been consulted regarding the changes?

Looking at the curved part of the wall this appears to restrict vision of the road to the north from that which would obtain from a straight wall.   Quite important from a road safety aspect but hey ho it is broadly in accord with the plans.

From the Planning Department 19 June:

Dear Mr Hopkinson

I have since had a chance to hear from KCC Highways and they agree the wall, as built, is built on the wrong line in part.

The developer accepts this is an error of their making, and will be realigning it to comply with the visibility splays.

Yours sincerely

Bob Wykes RIP

I was saddened to read of the death of Bob Wykes a former chairman of the Bridge Trust;  Bob was involved in setting up  the trust in 1995 and was one of the original directors.  He was a 'mover and shaker' who had a strong presence at board meetings. In 2004 he became chairman   and I was fortunate to be his vice-chairman for a number of years. He retired from the board a couple of years after I left.  He was an unassuming person, without side, who confronted problems head on. The trust and those the organisation assisted out of homelessness owe Bob a huge debt of gratitude.

News of his death has come as a shock, so soon after the death of Len Horwood.