t THEo1d%coach and trtured, was almost twice the legal tchurch Hill", admitted driving ' at £15 surcharge. X D1'iVingbanfor landlady Horses p11b;'*Harb1tedoWI1, has been comrictedrof driving, ; Canterbury Magistrattes’ ‘ Court heard Charlottéwhjgham, 23, pic- ]jmit_when police stopped her Harb'ourIParade, Whitstable. % - ' r t who lives atthefpub in andtrwas harmed for 18 months, fined £400 and ordered‘ to;-pay_£60 costs plus ' - -..._,_,._ ..___ _. -_ . ...._._ __..._....—A---... ..__,._____,..v____ , ___.ln___ _ _._ by Gerry Warren‘ g warren@thekmg'ro up._co. uk A SCHEME to build two homes a in the garden of a listed Georgian house in Bridge _has "prompted" more than 50 villagers to .com- " ~ plain to the citycouncil. ' . ' - The planning application which - has sparked the controversy is a proposalto builda pair of four bedroomed detached homes in ' the grounds. of 24, High Street. j It is not the first controve_rsy to surround the site, as last year‘ _ plans for a triple garage and annexe with accornrnodation at _the address were approved by the city council despite objections; ' Planning consultants for the applicant say. the principle. of developing the" garden has already been established ‘by the . first.fpl'anning approval and the new scheme ‘would not "harm the character of nearby listed build- ings or the conservation area’. But objectors say the_ garden is an important "feature. of _the_ I village with many mature trees. Environmental campaigner -Emily Shirley, who lives in the village, said: “When the-first - application was granted, this is exactly what everyone feared. ' _‘-‘We always suspected the aim — was to create an access on to the landwhich would then lead‘ to " further ‘a further application for housing development. Everyone, ' including the parish council is up in arms about it. ' “The garden was one of the -most cherished in Bridge, full of glorious trees, roses andwildlife but it is being destroyed. Even if some -mature -trees" are retained ‘on the plan, sooner or later p'eo~' ' ' pleliving in these houses will complain about them damaging their properties and- they will be cut down. . ' . - “All we can do is object and _hope the city councildoes -"the" _right -thing by throwing out. these plans.” ' is I What do you think? Write to e the Kentish Gazette at Gazette . House, 5-8 Boorman Wavy _ . .. Estuary View Bus‘-iness Park,‘ . Whitstable, CT5_3SE or email -kentis-hgazette@thekmqroup. _' co.uk- _ ’ 7- ___v_ «a Council must stand up to developers C rr IS pleasing that the ,problems We face over 1 developments in this already overcrowded area of Bridge .have been highlighted in your newspaper. (Homes Planned in ‘Glorious’ Garden, July 16). J Thefact is thatthis is part of a determined assault by developers over four years, as a result of which our lives have been blighted and our. quality . of life eroded. , * We have had developments or the threat of them on all four sides of our cottage. Three houses were built to the rear, resulting in several months of noise and disturbance. Traffic, congestion and parking problems have worsened in thenarrow country lane. The Ill WYH-Ereferenoe planning application for 24 original orchard contained Hlgh Street: Bridge: if it W351“ much bird and other Wildlife so sad it would be laughable. which has disappeared. Extra . A developer tries to sneak’ T flooding problems for residents ’ in a development by means have occurred. Claims that our of saying its a garage with amenity would not be affected accommodation. T . We1”9n0nSenSe~ . ' When 1* a ing campaign by concerned — to The Close, the original councilgvvho helped Bridge Poor Law Union. This overturn a decision by building is unique in this part Canterbury City Council to; of England as a fine surviving pass the plans, the developer example of the quadrangle puts in a new application system, Any building close by within a few weeks of the last would be detrimental to the one. i setting of this important listed C - - - mm 1- buflding» 110'‘ *0 mention the g:L€J1CSCati)1f1l::lit§ hiousclesty and additional traffic and access Show Clan-ty and judgement problems‘ , and oppose this application. The problems relating to 24 The planning department has High Street have been ongoing ' for more than two years and were subject to a successful’ ’ Judicial Review, as a result ’ of which the City Council’s decision to grant permission 4 . was quashed by the High ' — Court. ’ The council should have recognised this as a wake- a up call but instead claimed » that mere technicalities were involved. Virtually the same plans were submitted and passed. The continuing strong objections of the local residents have once again been brushed aside, as well as the recommendations of the parish council. Residents are constantly dismayed at the attitude of the council and feel their legitimate objections to unwanted and unnecessary development are being ignored. r As a result the character and tranquillity of the village is being undermined. We-can only hope that the council will at last give some respite to the long-suffering residents, who have endured continual stress and worry, and refuse this application. Only ‘then will We begin to feel that the councils pledge to protect our quality of life is being upheld. n-i._. ;_, ,1 n_,,,_1_ 111,,” 1-v,,,g ,, suffered lots of criticism and failure with recent events all . over the area and now this i must be the ideal opportunity to put things right and try to get the people they represent to believe in them again by saying a big NO! An application of "eight houses _ on a green field in Bridge is also being considered by development control. This is also of doubtful need andis full of half-truths and — CCG need to tread carefully to make sure there are no ' detrimental effects to the village with this application in Brickfield — a much-loved and cherished breathing space for all, including the wildlife which is enjoyed by children and adults alike. There are brownfield sites now 1 available if they must build more houses — so use thos instead. _ — Its time Canterbury councils development control did 7 what they are paid to do by the public and protect us from these unnecessary developments which are only a T business to the developer who will be up and gone before the detrimental effects are felt by them. ' Money is not everything (‘l , 1: yr ‘Au ...~:a_a.-.;.a»-e-i—.r-.4'.rr.csac1>.’:.*>m:9t_-J Q‘OE‘2‘‘L‘‘‘''‘ »* M‘-*-*'-aw‘-*‘ «rat»-‘vmr-9-orm*rI>.:s‘t:'.'I:' UELI Residents fear village life is being eroded by development Picture: Barry Goodwin PDlZOZ311 2.0’ 9.3 :75 09 I Bridge buaiainjq H __ ., =58 ‘ , . ac? . Housing wenee Is , made to wait i _ WITH the average house price I ' in Bridge being at least six 3- times the average. salary in-the area, there are -many people brought up locallywho cannot afford to buy a property there. The latest housing survey _ " identified more than enough . local farnilies to fill the T. affordable homes Southern . 5 Housing is proposing to build at”l_3ric'kfield_ in the Village. Bridge Parish Council and _ many caring ‘residents have ' supported -the proposals. As one of ' those who could afford to buy a home in the ‘village =re-cently (after the _ proposalsffor Brickfield were already known to all), it is ' sad toread. Gary Harrisorfs comments. ” ' t ' Though Brickfield may be i ' technical1ya“greenfield 7 site”-, it has been used in the - past for local iridustryias is - suggested by its name, and ' ' is only now being proposed - for an exception site for low -cost affordable homes for people with bona fide local ' I _ connections of ‘long standing.‘ 1 As a result of ' the interference" ' of Mr Harrison, Emily Shirley H and a few others, much_ needed _ affordable housing fo_r eight local families cannot now be_ built until a consultant’s a, report is written about suspected newts. on the site. Does the Campaign for the --. Preservation of Rural Bridge 3 put wildlife beforeilocali i people‘? ‘ - - . 7 Cllr Tony Austin, "portfolio holder for housing, Canterbury City Council .- IdBridqe housing row , Newcomersand NlMBYismi REGARDING the_ proposed -' " affordable new housing - _. - scheme on'Bri'ckfie1d in Bridge _ (Housing We Need Is Made To Wait, Opinion, Gazette, July 30). . -. It is very likely that there -are newts on-the site, given ' its close proX_i1_I1ity to the" river, but the rnethod of _ delay orchestrated by _' the fountainheads of the , Campaign for thefreservation '- I _, 1 of Rural Bridge is adisgrace. Desperate human beings, who in effect are being made _ homeless because they cannot _ _ - afford to live in Bridge, are a . being kept waiting by ' . do-gooding _cor_1servati'oniSts ' .~' and objectors, who were most ' __ -likely raised miles “away from" 2- tl_1_e1ocatior_1'.-' ' _ _ ' ' ' I am proud to say I'_ was in . 7 . ' Bridge -village -from _the'Fo_rties— . ._o_nward‘s, but the "village _ _ ‘changed largely the late Fifties and Sixties, and to a . _- lesser degree in the Seventies, . - because of '_a massive intake of , ' outs_iders"coI'n_p1ete with ways ' _ whichwent to_t;'a_l_-ly aga.5i_nst'the,-.- ' 1 ' grain of established residents. At that time Bridge underwent _ -- a transformations which was to- ' T ' -change its fabric forevennot ' - ' " through deeds akin to the few . .. over the proposed development _ ‘ on Brickfield, but by a ' _ consortium of outsiders with-a ‘ reverse objective. . -r__ ____- .. .i.1_._=1.._'.11_1....'..--.. ;..-_.:I F In came the‘ bulldozers and Laundry Lane (now called Conyngharn Lane) was filled f T withhhoiuses throughout its a . ~ length. Daddy Fagg’s Field r where we used to wait in - - , excitement for the annual ' , it Visit of Forrest’s fair, then the ” -- village fete, followed by the l ' i _ flower show, was desecrated h ~ I -with the estate now known as ' Western Avenue. a f The eornfielddiwhichllayi ' r .hetween Meadow Close and s "iitHigh1and Court where we _ _ fused to play as children was _ bulldozed to make way for - Vs sBridse*D0wn.i , I Yet more buildingtook place -V off . Deiing Road,'.beside _ L _Union Road, off Brewery. _ t - Lane, and along and beside a Patrixbourne Road, and a sporadic development followed on every available space of aland within the bounds. of the i .h -entire Village. L h t ' I _ - Bridges inhabitants came out . of that dazed, sca'red,bat_te1"ed and bruised, and it was the end of the village as weknew it, alndithe end of the comrnunity and-its spirit which had been ' I i _ the preserve of generation a t after ‘igenerationlof families wtte.co,1'1k _ G . £29 .290 Kentish Gazette, Juy E6 ifglerious’ garden who were the backbone of the established residents. “Of coursel do not want to see yet more green fields concreted over in thevillage and I join the objectors in that, but my gut feeling is that the people who have objected to the development on Brickfleld are more concerned with selfinterest rather than the ‘ violation of the green pastures. Lookingiat the Bridge of today, there is a desperate need for affordable housing in the Village, so overallhin my consideration, Brickfield is the best location for, such a development; -newts and all. — 'Bearing;in mind that potential building land in Bridge has reached saturation point, why all the fuss over Brickfield in the first place? It is the only parcel of land of substance left to provide the Very thing that the village has been crying out for for years. I have a feeling that the nub which prompted the ruftling of feathers and forced delay of the project has hinged on the rather tiresome oft used “not in my back yard” syndrome, because this course seeirnsto be taken wherever and Whenever an‘Englishman7s castle is under threat, and that could wellsbe the case here, Brian A. Lewis, Church‘ Walk, Pound Lane, Elham, /Canterbury. .~.An.,—_-.—..—s...+n_a.—o..-+‘/up-9.»-.-4 t—-u—e->—<.—o-r+-m>—r-ml"-h » -......_..._..__......_-...»_.._.._..J.. eViIla0e'sviewsar‘e completely ignored 1“ THESE Canterbury planners . godblmdly and dictatorially on. > _' Their latest ab.e_r_rati_oI1, the r. -1! - planned extension of the Dover,- — Road park ands ride as-reported in the_Kentish Gazette, July 9- - _ 2009,15 but-d'oI1e instance. _ - 'd V _ Despite What seemsr to -be doverwhehning opposition ' .- % 7 Canterbury council taxpayers, r a fresh new blot and blight onthe landscape looks likely- . to be nodded through, viaa l governmentpnflnister. '_ " r Meanwhile, here in_Bridge, L t since 2007,‘ we have been ~ threatened by .a different _ki1:1d 7 l of blot. And its getting Worse. r , -It_"s on a smaller scale, but in e ~ the context of this cramped . corner of the village, its huge. _ Remember the-‘case reported , the _Ga"2ette last year? '- i _Aga1'11st- strong opposition ' always ask for morethan p ' you want, then ‘settle’ for a C '. which is, of course-, ‘what you i conceivably-protect the 4. _ ' L, . 8 _,Q...r.':> 0 er _ from Bridge Parish Council _ and local residents, a_ developer- has been engagedin planning . C ' applications to exploit the C . ‘beautiful, sumptuously '_ . tree-ed garden of a fine Grade II listed building that he _ -bought about three years ago _ in a conservation area. " ' He kicked off first with a plea for a modest garage building with granny flat over. Despite tremendous local opposition t the application was passed. Bridge Parish Council took - the unusual step of taking. the city council to court, and the court. found in its favour because the city council had I : ‘acted improperly on a number i of _cr_ucial counts. This did not stop them allowing the same plan to go through -soon after. 7 C Now, discarding his-first a proposal entirely, the same developer has made a new - application for two substantial detached. houses in the same garden. Off we go again. ' One really has to hand it ‘to this developer. His has been a masterly variation on the classic strategy, which is *- - .‘comprom.ise’ — the nature of actually wanted, or expected to getfin the first place. We may be" fairly -sure that _ this planning" committee will ultimately cave in to this developers demand, but may restrict him to one house, not two — and they’ll feel smug -- because they’l1 think 'they’ve T granted him merely half what . he wanted! _ , . _ . "l‘he'naivety is not only - breathtaking but tragic because Canterbury City ' Council will have missed the point altogether. C Destroying this unique garden by filling it with ' garages or houses cannot l public interest, preserve the ' special characteristics of the ' said garden, or enhance the conservation area. i c ' Tn fl’) :1 Q$I1’Y'|D vUnV'H113 nrhhnqnfl xi‘|—J n_a._|.-—+.|1|r\-._._| n~|_n.a-.L_| n.._4|......vp..|_a—n—-4 sen» -—-- —-- scheme was first proposed by doc- _ tors. . - . __ -. ._ -Canterbury city council this Week. granted planning permission for the __ building on farmland in Court Hill, . despite the objections of some neigh- boursand environmentalists. . Members of the development con- _ trol committee were told by planning _ ' . officers on Tuesday that the proposed‘ place‘ was the most suitable and its - benefit to the local community out— ' Weighed‘ the policy to refrain from a development in the country-side; ' But the co1'nn:_1it't-ee._.did receive-a petition of 21 signatures againstthe - scheme. which objected _to ‘the’-land -- being built on -and questiorfi-3‘d.the need for the new surgery.- Objectors also -said-it was too big and i too farfrom the Village ‘centre and eld— . erly people -vvith_-mobility problems. . There were also Concerns about the destruction of Wildlife habitats. tre has been _a long process and a pre- vious scheme on land-nearby, which _ included housing, was rejected by Surgery gets geahead despite objece. ' PLANS for a new ‘medical centre in Littlebourne have finally been given -the go—ahead ~ seven years after the pl_a'nners; "last year. But practice premises manager for the Bridge_ and Littlebourne surgeries, John I S Rofe said" the number of patients in Littlebourne had doubled to 3,000 and- the existing sur'gfery..i_r1,Na;rgate Street was.inadequ_ate.;_ " - He addedi "‘Litt_le'ourne' ' ger of becomingtlie poor relation to - ‘Bridge. We have been for seven . . years to find a site and have already - looked at many other locations.” '~ In favour l _ - Parish council... chairman Vivi-_ "e_nne Spratt said that development in the c_ou'ntrysi.de would normally"- .be- opposed by its member's, butnew _ services were so badly needed that they were su_pportlng the application. - She added that a. public meeting of- villagers had also voted overwhelm: ingly in favour of it; - . ' The new centre will be a" singleslto-H‘ rey building with a part grassed roof in a landscaped setting -surrounded . _ by trees and bushes. ‘It will include a 'site'for'a new me ceI-1- _ tvvo doctor’s Consulting rooms, two nurses consulting rooms and treat _ ment and training rooms. There Will'_ - also be parking for 29 cars. K.-“k.J'.l..J..I_-.3"'u.#'£. ‘V L-I.-I..rJ.'L.IF'.I,J. L.-l...l. 1..-!I,..l.... i '- In -the sarnes-vvay,1the proposed . . extensioriof the park and ' ride will do little or nothing - to -reduce car use, and absolutely nothing to preserve prime farmland, or preserve biodiversity. s s ~ What is town and country H" d planning for? Answer: To a i . ensure that decisions are niaderfordthe public and is p environmental good. It’sfa .pr1nc1ple._. . d ‘ t However rnisguided park and ride extension schemes can be, andin this. case are, they do ' . at least .pu_rpoI't tobe for the " dpublicgood. % d ~ . s -- Proposals like this one in Bridge are totally for the benefit of one developer. Canterbury planners have earned their present much- i derided replitation. This tinie s will it put its foot down firmly, i keepptothe spirit and genuine i <. .Sv;, :2_c>c9 4- % o www.entishqaette.co.uk g to have your say L; .9-2.909 chapter and verse of the ,. p1anr1ing regulations, surprise the wearily cynical council tax- paying Bridge residents, refuse permission point blank for any houses in this garden, and keep to this decision when we reach t the inevitable appeal? l’In not holding my breath. Dr Peter Giles, Filmer Road, Bridge, Canterbury. I I _. of I+Ifjg'h'_St5reet,-'B1‘ik1'ge; magistrates‘-aocused‘0f 13' -eoffences. '- ' - She a_1so.:fae_e’s c1ierges.of - -I deception, possessing drugs . -- and ofiences under the _ ' Proceedsfbf Crimes Act; __ "Z 1 P $3 ‘E’ e? -'a;_')_pe‘a1;*ed-before Canterbujy '_ 3-* 1*} '2 I. ' - A1or;gside"her‘ in the dock: I ' ~ ._""were% fhxee _otherS. _{ e Toby AIi1os4BroW%n;%38,e “Of e A? , '. ._ Ospxinge Road, F_a'v'ersham,.-' - isaccgused of offences . -including fraud, obtaining T ymdlley bY:decéDtion and» ‘ But} eere,f7 Torflifidgéeoe " '- 3 _manag_ing' a ebrothel; money A launderiiig and deception; Rache1Ra_11da]l, 33;-of _" _is_e1_1-arged with one -fraud ~ e ‘ and two offences under the % “ -- Proceeds of Crime Act. . Road, "Maidét_one;,-‘facesiseveri ‘ " charges; They -i1f1c1ude.£raud, _- Heme ;-Avenue, Herne Bay; _' I. ' -four-were-'=1je_1eased'on bail-Q 4.?°'T"”'-‘i_§Thursda3g-Janufiry;8,:'2909-(KG)- 7" ' School éxtension L AN EXTENSIONL-V=costj11g'% % £80,-000'is' tube bu_%1_'lt_-a;tBz¢idge % and Bekesbounze-'-_pLri1I1.ai”'5I ~ . [ school to fca_terfo1"a' p'11‘pi1L L j ' ’ witgi special needsf“ % % % The'Vcounty%council has = L = I ’ subII1itted_a.p1an1fi11g 5? ~ L ~ ’ -application-tucanterbury % V city council fora chj]1—out % ' room forthe child who . __ L __~ suffe;fs.;7g§§ith autism;-,5 _;_ ; for % ediicéfion operatians )4 D31-1109* Saidi arewell to a. ‘larger than life’ Charact 1' by Gerry Warren - gwarren@thekmqroup.co.uk TRIBUTES have been paid to the influential and popular former local politician John Purchese, who has died at the age of 83. A former Lord Mayor of ._Can—- terbury and chairman of Kent County Council, he served as a Liberal Democrat member for it nearly -30 years. He passed away in the Pilgrim’s ‘ Hospice in Canterbury on Sun- day, December 21 and leaves a widow, Anne, and two sons and 1 three daughters. - Until recently, he and Anne, who celebrated their diamond wedding anniversary last=year, if * lived at St Elisabeth House Northgate, _ . M 1 . John retired as a councillor in 2003 but his career in local poli- tics was prompted by the high g_ profile campaign he ran for a vil- lage bypass at Bridge with fellow villager and friend Brian Lewis in the 1970s. The pair even found themselves arrested for conspir- acy after organising a sit-down protest in the Street. . Mr Lewis, who now lives in ' Elham, said: “He was a larger than life figure who commanded respect the instant he walked into a room or stood up to speak at a meeting. Feature films “He worked tirelessly for the city and his memory will linger on for all those who had the privi- lege to know him.” Born in Muswell Hill ir1 north London;John worked at Stand- ard Telephone and Cables before K joining the Air Training Corps as aninstructorin Morse during the Second World War and then later as a. wireless engineer. But his real love was the film OBITUARIES ..__......i.. l. (.2009. IJohn Purchese. who has dled aged 83. He was chairman of the Canterbury Commemoration ,_ Society, and is pictured wlth sculptor Stephen Melton atthe statue of Queen Bertha industry and after the war he worked for Sa rnuelson Film Service for eight ‘years, covering the Aberfan disaster and making documentaries, feature films and several television series. He also worked as 2-1 sound engi- neer on programmes including On the Buses and Bondfilrns. When the film industry went into decline, he set up a business in Wincheap,‘ which he ran for 18 years. He was Lord Mayor of Can- terbury in 1991 and as a county councillor served briefly as chair- man of the KCC during 1994/95 when the Liberal Democrats and Labour groups formed a control- ling alliance. More recently he was chairman of the Canterbury Commemora- tion Society, which led the project for the statues of King Ethelbert and Queen Bertha in Lady Woot- ton’s Green. He was involved in many organ- isations and was also a past gov- , ernor of Canterbury —High*School and secretary of the Church of England Deanery Synod. Cllr Alex Perkins, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Can- terbury City Council, said: “He was a remarkable man and very much the father of our party A -Micnas1’s“a1'chur PD792095 . in the area. His election to the county council was a break- through for the.Libera1 Demo- “ crats.” . V a He added: “He also spent a lot of time recording the war memo- ries of local people, which have formed a valuable living history of their experiences.” His funeral ' h, ’H‘arb1édowrl," ’ at 11.30am on Wednesday, J anu- 1 ary 7, where Cllr Martin Vye, 5 close associate -and friend" for many years, will read a eulogy. He said: “I think, above all, V John will be remembered for his integrity and moral purpose.” Parish angry at city counciliorcafter committee vote :73‘.“o-3' 'ci1’s development. vcontro ‘ committee to grant pentni ‘ sion fora three bay garage; ._ t and annexe the garden‘ of galisted house the ‘ ‘Wehave no fait in 0111' councill by Gerry Warren gwarren@thekmgroup.co.uk BRIDGE parish council is calling for a vote of no con-i fidence in the village’s city council representative. t ' The council and other res- idents are said to be angry and disappointed that Cllr John Anderson is not back- ing the parish over planning applications. ' But he says Village mem- " ' bers do not understand the planning process and regulations alnd need to be High Street. ’ Thef§_par_ish council and dozens of residents objected to the scheme and even managed to get an earlier I Cllr John Anderson 7 - "they don't understand P'a"r'ir'9" meal sin: s Tlieyiare that Cllr Anderson, iignoreii over- sidered last Week. . _,A-fl Now the parish counc says it will consider pas ing ‘a vote of no confidence assh- Whelmingi local -opinionfi --yaigairlst the s.c1,1.eIn6»WheI1A he voted for it (when 1'e.— submitted plans were con-. in Cllr Anderson when it meets next on February 12. Vice-chairman John Hill said: “Both We and the pub- lic were very disappointed he didn’t back us. He did speak on the application, but then voted for it. He should have at least supported us or even abstained. “He knew people in the village were very unhappy b about the application. “There have been other schemes where John has either voted against us or _ _ sat on the fence,-” p ‘-. He added: “It is-sap it has - comeito this because John M _ has done a lot for the villag and is a friend to u's.’."f j ‘ i_ Z ' But Cllr Anderson,» Who served as ‘chairman of the parish council for-.. many’, years, has hit back. " i_ He said: “I amnot the lackey of the parish coun- ii. The problem is’ they don’t understand planning. M L“The council is out of kil- l fully the, I" ter-onthis andwastinglocaly in —_:— taxpayers’ money T “I have asked. someone from -the planning and legal departments to give them some advice. ' “As a member of the devel- opment control committee, I have to make my decision on the Weight of planning evidence, not out of loyalty to the village.” Hegaddedz ‘‘I am consult- ing the city council's solici- tor over this proposed vote of no confidence but I think it is just a sy-nibolic thingj “I’m not losing: sleep. over it-,_ but the parish coun- cil needs to consider care- ney it is wast-we as 1Il.%'- _ .. , 1 'w.h.at,d'o you think? Write to the Kentish Gazette at Gazette House,'5-M8 Boar- man Way, Estuary View Business Park, Whitstable, CT5 3SE or e-mail kentish qazette@the kmqroup.co.uk * flhat review f0.UUd_t!}1 : ,, . i _ . ,'as:.i_t}.di'd not inciudethegreasdnsforpqrantfling. : .iiperrhissionrorasumrnary_of‘reIievant pl" “ ’ ' _:}:poiiCies;~‘iB-ut the “city cou‘ricii_saysi'-the CONTROVERSIAL SCHElViE_ The -scheme to build a three-car garaqeih~’ 3 L 5:} ‘ - nexe in-the‘ back ga':_'de'n of>24 H.ig_h streéi;j.-i-- L e,o prompted dozensLof>objecti_ons,‘” l t tai in_-a cconseprvatiogn area._,s.D9i-I a mature" i breach new planning quidjafice. i x Ilv"ap'r:r3<3>-ve: