The submission

On this page we provide access to all the papers submitted by Nishkam/EFA in support of their application. This is something that LBH has found impossible to do despite days of pointing out that their website did not have these files, despite officer claims to the contrary. We also hope to make CDs of all the papers available and when they are ready (watch this space) we will give the to the Osterley Library for distribution.

We have only just got hold of these documents (through the energetic efforts of ward councillor Sheila O’Reilly) and have not as yet had time to study them. So we are presenting them exactly as we have received them. Later, when we have found our way through them all we will add comments on at least the key documents.

The submission was validated 11th June 2015.

Basic Formalties and Outline Documents
The Core Argument
Research background (various aspects)
Drawings

Documents added to the Council server on 6th, 7th and 13th July 2015

Document added to the Council server on 5th 18th August 2015

Documents on the Nishkam website but not yet on the Council website (as of 19th August)

Documents uploaded to the planning website in September (noticed on the 14th)

The upload date on the Council website is give as 4th of September

On the Nishkam website there are SEVEN new files. On the council website there only SIX. Why the discrepancy? We have no idea. The madness of adding new files all the time has become a complete farce. Here is the missing file:

8571_Outer_London_Primary_and_Secondary_schools_sensitity_review-1 (43 pages)

Documents uploaded to the planning website on 25th September.

Note on file naming. The number of documents has now been precisely doubled since the original submission. This process has become a complete farce. There is no reasonable way in which anyone, residents, councillors, or indeed planners, can be expected to follow this. Because of the confusion we have decided to give the files meaningful names. If there were just a handful of files mere numerical file names would be bad practices but just about acceptable. With 144 files having many of them with numerical file names is completely unacceptable.

  1. ArchaeologicalInvestigationSept2015.pdf
  2. CoveringLetterForArchaeologicalReport200915.pdf
  3. CoverLetterTransportData25092015.pdf
  4. MapOfParkingSpacesUsesOrNot.pdf
  5. ProposedCrossingAtStagsWay.pdf
  6. SandersonResponseToRoadSafetyAudit.pdf
  7. Stage1RoadSafetyAudit.pdf
  8. TravelModeData.pdf

Page last updated 26th September 2015