‘It’s one planning rule for one, one for everyone else’

I READ recently with disbelief the fact that a planning application which was deemed to be inappropriate and submitted to SMDC by councillor Mark Deaville was set for approval.

It was for an oversized kitchen extension on greenbelt land.

In the article, SMDC planning authority explained extensively how they were going to bend over backwards to allow it to go ahead although it was against planning rules to do so?

Then look at the story in your paper recently regarding Mr Robin Macdonald of Caverswall Castle who has come to the conclusion that after trying to secure planning permission for over a decade that someone in the planning authority must have a personal vendetta against him.

Is this not one rule for one and another for everyone else?

I remember some years ago a neighbour of mine finding himself in a similar predicament.

After identifying who the individual was on the planning committee who was thwarting his applications, he instructed his solicitors to write to the home address of the individual and low and behold his troubles ceased and the red tape disappeared.

Then I read in your pages about the poor folks of Winkhill who have seen planning permission given at the entrance to their village for a HGV Tanker depot even though planning restrictions hadn’t been adhered to and locals were dead against the expansion?

Come on SMDC, don’t make it so blatantly obvious, let’s see a level playing field, especially when you have so many eyes watching with regard the Cheadle masterplan.

The Frustrated Moorlander