The Board did object. The planning committee inspected the site because of the number of objections. Our Planning consultant attended the planning committee meeting , along with Board member Ian Hedley, and addressed the committee, setting out the objections of the Club. The committee approved the application. Only the applicant has a right of appeal. Please see my latest letter to you which explains the next steps that the Board is taking. Peter Allen

I for one feel totally let down by the Board.

The planning decision notice explains that there are no Permitted Development rights within the curtilage of a listed building. The strength of opposition (or lack of it), will therefore weigh heavily in the planning officer’s decision.

Thank you to the Board for their efforts with this matter. We didn’t buy the Manor, we bought a timeshare. There has been no access over the entire estate, for years and I am relieved that the current owner does at least engage in dialogue. Unlike Mr Mineev. The comment ”likely the case could have been won” is based on what legal or planning precedent? The comment neighbourly consideration goes both ways. Would you want to spend millions on a property and have people walking through your garden with luggage and shopping? The Manor was always going to be subject to change either as a hotel, private residence or other commercial property. The location and the views from the balconys are unchanged, I propose to enjoy both.

The Board clearly have their own agenda which conflicts with the rights of owners. If owners wish to object it will require concerted a effort by as many owners as possible. Notification to the Manor owner is the logical next step but only if a large number of owners will support it.

Planning application: 7/2016/2084
A precedent was set by not objecting to the 2 m high wall blocking out the view and daylight opposite the four properties nearest to the Manor on the lower level. The owners of two weeks did our best to object, but were not supported. Planning consent was granted on the basis that timeshare owners can ”not expect the same level of residential amenity to be afforded to these properties that could be reasonably expected for a permanent residential property”.

It is likely that this case could have been won, had there had been a significant number of objections, but we were unsupported!

This appears all too late, why were we only informed of the application on Monday, with very little time left before the deadline for any objections?

I agree with all the above. There should be no wall. There wasn’t one there before and there certainly shouldn’t be one now. All of us n need to object to the planning application in forceful language not in a language of appeasement. Diplomacy certainly has its place but in this instance diplomacy and neighbourly consideration is not being given to Underscar owners.

Totally agree. The committee have acquiesced way beyond their remit and had no authority to give up our rights. All owners need to get together to fight. We need access to all email addresses so that owners can know the truth of what has been going on behind our backs. there must be no negotiation with the owner.
my contact is [email protected]

I agree, it is outrageous, I will be putting in an objection and am disgusted that the committee think it will be ok to talk nicely to him and get it lowered a bit.