Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
19th March 2009, 07:30 PM
This is the first time i have ever replied to one of these blogs and the reason is that i find it an abuse of our democratic right to object. The reason any-one objects to planning or anything like it is because of personal experience and not because some-one tells you to. I have personal experience of the dog training and i can say that the comments made are very hard to understand. dogs bark but i have never heard anything like the gentleman is saying. the dog training has been done before over many years and never has comments about noise been made, on the contrary comments about how well the dogs perform are in abundance. The owner takes pride in his training and has many years experience in this field and he would be the first to complain if the level of noise was what is indicated by the gentleman. I must say at this point that meadowdogs have not prompted or contacted me in anyway to put my point of view forward. I can say that I have always found them profesional in every aspect and i will support them in every way possible. Also if the allegations made are correct why has this blog been done to get support. Surely their would be enough people around the area to support it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
19th March 2009, 08:07 PM
I, too feel the need that I must post comment here. This man has not told you the truth and I feel that you need to know what is really happening.
1. "these lessons take place most evenings" UNTRUE. If you look at the schedule, they take place ONLY on a Tuesday and Thursday evening between May and September.
2. "and Saturday and Sunday all year". UNTRUE. Again, look at the schedule. They have NO weekend courses in August and have run/ are running as follows:
10th Jan - 1 March courses run Sat and Sun
1 March - 21 March - NO COURSES
21 March - 17 May Courses run Sat and Sun
17 May - 6 June - NO COURSES
6 Jun - 26 July - Courses run Sat and Sun
So, you see. NOT all year.
3. Noise - it is a condition of the Kennel Club, (and the courses run by Meadow Dogs are all accredited Kennel Club courses) that noise is kept to a minimum and all barking is quickly and effectively dealt with.
4. The person objecting actually AGREED to the dog school being allowed to be set up there.
5 All the local residants have voted IN FAVOUR of the dog school. He is the only local objector.
6. The school is NOT his immediate neighbour - there is a large stable block which separates the oast house and the dog field.
7. The site is a semi-industrial site with local businesses runnning there. It has been a long-established farm.
8. The Kent field school will not need to close - you are educated people, surely you can see beyond this man's manipulation of the facts?
It is also quite telling that out of all the objections made, only one or two are local. out of all the support comments made, only one is NOT local. How can people comment on issues such as noise when that have not seen it for themselves? I pray the planning department will see through this man's deliberate attempt to maipulate the objections.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th March 2009, 08:13 PM
Lynne,
Please read this thread and in particular my comments.
Noise is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications. There is no noise survey accompanying the planning application. Neither is there any suggestion as to how the noise can be mitigated.
The archaeology facility does have a very big catchment area and its fate is of interest to people outside the immediate local area. They say the noise is a problem. In this situation the council is forced rightly or wrongly to refuse the application on gounds of lack of infomation.
Blogs are in fact a vital part of modern democracy and people have a right to their opinions.
I think this thread should end here.
Peter
After posting this I have seen defending the truths post ....
I would point out some facts:
1. local people do not vote on planning matters but they can comment.
2. The intending opening hours are not that relevant in many respects the issue is simple will the noise be a problem.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
19th March 2009, 08:35 PM
..sorry for the slip up. In place of 'voted' read 'commented'
As for the opening hour. I made my post to point out that the main objector had LIED in his original letter that he posted here and distibuted to his students and collegues.
And I would re-iterate, it is highly likely that the majority of the objectors have no place to comment about noise issues as they have not attended a dog training class to hear it for themselves. Only then can their objections be taken seriously.
If noise is the issue then planning will be granted bescause it is simply...not an issue!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
19th March 2009, 08:51 PM
Hopefully, the viable and local important business you are referring to is the dog school? They have been running for over 7 years and it would put many people in the dole queue if it went out of business. That business has had a greater imapact on the local community than you would know. More so than the Field School, and I am NOT undermining the important work that goes on there.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th March 2009, 08:56 PM
Fortunately BAJR is symptomatic of being allowed to speak, to be listened to and to discuss.
This is why people can (and do) argue) this is why we can have diggers take on Directors or Curators explain to Consultants or consultants highlight problems with legislation.. This is the only public place where you can have a voice..
Remember that even the opportunity to say that BAJR is a forum is symptomatic of ... er something' is something you could not do anywhere else...
Join the IfA if you feel so inclined... Stop Moaning or get out...
As to this thread.. it has run its course...
A few posts up I made it clear.. I will support KAFS I will not support the request to write in about the application.
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th March 2009, 09:13 PM
Sorry to break ranks ....
defending the truth says
"it is highly likely that the majority of the objectors have no place to comment about noise issues as they have not attended a dog training class to hear it for themselves. Only then can their objections be taken seriously."
OK I take defending the truth point it re-iterates the point I made about measuring noise. I would note that the amount of noise at the dog training school is not relevant. What is relevant is the amount of noise at the Archaeological School and thus defending the truth is not is a position to comment. I have read all of the letters sent in many people who attend the field school say the barking is a problem.
I have worked on a number of dog related projects or where dog noise is a problem. Dog noise can be a major problem even at some distance. There is a simple process to follow in planning terms and simple measures that can be taken.
Peter
David I think we should lock this topic.
