County of Suffolk — A. February 17, The petitioner bus company submitted a proposal in response to respondents request for proposals for transportation services but was not successful. Albany Custom Floors, Inc. Strojnowski, AD2dNYS2d 2nd Dept ; appeal denied 70 NY2dNYS2d -- Held that physical evidence, such as tools, clothing, does not constitute a "record"; affirmed denial of names and addresses and statements of confidential witness and certain investigative techniques used for processing a homicide scene; Court cited opinion of Committee; has been appeals to Court of Appeals.
The background to the new order is outlined in an accompanying explanatory note and a letter sent by CLG to chief planning officers on 9th September After consultation with the local authority to secure an acceptable scheme, the layout of the affordable units was redesigned and an access point removed.
The authority now consider this a fresh application requiring a new fee. Therefore if the application as revised is not materially different from that originally submitted in terms of character and description then a fresh application and new fee is not required.
However determination of such a matter is for the discretion of the local authority in question, and as shown in R. It is, of course, open to you to appeal against the non-determination of your revised proposals which will inevitably occur if the local authority does not consider that a fee has been paid.
It will be interesting to hear of the experience of others involved in similar argument with a local authority. Response I had a similar case some years ago and had an item published in Planning about it see issue 19 August If the local planning authority decide a new fee is required there appear to be no disputes procedure.
An appeal against non-determination is an option, but my experience was that the Inspectorate will not get involved. It put the ball back firmly into the planning authority's court. I even tried the Department of the Environment in London but got the same result. The final decision lies with the planning officer, take it or leave it.
I had to pay my fee again. I have been asked to examine a planning application for a client relating to wind turbines. The area of the application is shown as two parcels one each side of a public highway.
Surely this is an invalid application, as a separate application should have been submitted for each parcel? There does not seem to be any provision in planning law or ministerial advice to suggest that a single planning application for an integrated use covering 2 parcels separated by a public highway is invalid.
Certainly there have been planning appeals covering split sites where the issue has not been raised including motorists service areas on opposite sides of main roads. In Scotland it is the responsibility of applicants to carry out neighbour notification.
The relative Order gives a definition of "neighbouring land" but there seems to be no requirement for the application site to be the same as the planning unit. Is there anything to prevent an applicant drawing the application site more tightly around the proposed development, thus avoiding the need to notify so many neighbours?
I assume that the idea would be that a "buffer" of owned land around all or part of a development site would be provided, which would be the "neighbouring land" for the purpose of notification.
To satisfy the Order all that would be required is that the applicant notify himself, so long as the "buffer" were more than four metres. I can find no Scottish appeal decisions where this device has been discussed. Have any readers any experience of this matter?
Please can you advise me as to the rules relating to the control of development whereby highway and other statutory and non-statutory bodies become involved in the pre-construction process? In most cases such involvement has a statutory basis i. I have submitted an outline planning application with all matters reserved.
The council validated the application and requested details of the means of access, siting and design. I do not wish to incur architects fees if the council is likely to object to the principle of the development.
Can the council's request be challenged? Article 3 of the General Development Procedure Order GDPO provides that where an outline application is made, the council may decide that the application cannot be considered separately from all or any of the reserved matters.
Any request must be made within one month beginning with the date of the receipt of the application.
Therefore the first possible challenge could be if the council delayed the registration of the application and its request exceeded the one month period. Failing this, article 23 of the GDPO provides you with a right of appeal to the secretary of state.
Sub paragraph 2 c of article 23 states that where the authority has served notice under article 3 2that it requires further information and this has not been provided, an appeal my be lodged. I am not aware of any other basis for challenge and indeed article 23 is intended to act as a remedy to applicants who disagree with the request for additional information.
If this route is chosen you clearly need to be sure that an inspector would be able to fairly consider any issues raised with the additional information.Special Collection Stepping Stones to Caring for Our Children, 3rd Edition (SS3).
Stepping Stones, Third Edition (SS3) is the collection of selected CFOC3 standards which, when put into practice, are most likely to prevent serious adverse outcomes in child care and early education settings.
Adverse outcomes are defined as harm resulting from failure to practice the recommendations in the CFOC3. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in various provisions of law to effectuate the recommendations made by the Legislative Counsel to the Legislature.
Q & A / My firm has paid a full planning fee for a housing development application. After consultation with the local authority to secure an acceptable scheme, the layout of the affordable units was redesigned and an access point removed.
Leading productive people has been developed to help new APS managers build their people management skills. It identifies the essential steps and best approaches that managers can take to build the productivity and effectiveness of their people.
This final rule modernizes the Head Start Program Performance Standards, last revised in In the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of , Congress instructed the Office of Head Start to update its performance standards and to ensure any such revisions to the standards do not.
ASQ Auditing Handbook _4th ph-vs.com - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read book online.