| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Adam Beamish and the planning process | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 24/11/14 12:28:00 |
| Thanks to John Connelly and Richard for their posts. Just to be clear, as if it wasn't obvious already, I post on this forum as, yes, a local resident. Yes I happen to be a professional town planner, but I'm also a local resident. I have no professional mandate when I post on this forum, and I'm often at pains to distinguish between my personal view and my professional knowledge, which aren't always in harmony with each other. Furthermore, as I only recently stated on this forum, if I am professionally instructed on any scheme that is raised on this forum, I wouldn't post at all about it, because my client wouldn't be paying me to do so, and it would be impossible for readers to distinguish whether I was posting as a local resident or as an employed planning consultant. I did a search on my name to review some of my previous postings, and back in August this year on this very same development I wrote : ---------------- "As I said earlier, I must confess that it's actually quite 'nice' to read posts from the general public who have studied an application in some depth and are aware of what can and can't be taken into consideration and what weight is likely to be attached - because in the same way the public often see developers as evil baddies, equally developers often label residents as NIMBIES, and this thread illustrates neither is, on the whole, accurate (with the inevitable occasional exception of course !)." -------------------- There's also been times I've posted on both this forum and Brentford TW8 being critical of professionals, both in planning and in other spheres, and on TW8 I have also that at least one development (the new Music Museum) which I must have sat in some Senior Management Meetings about whilst I was employed at LBH looks awful and I'm surprised I didn't criticise this at the time. So the evidence of my own postings on these forums doesn't suggest that I want a planning system without the involvement of the general public. Again, just to be absolutely clear if it isn't already, I don't want that. Additionally, what I appreciate many people will not know is that I had a very short spell at one local authority where the Director and other management thought it perfectly fit to cover up the previous shortcomings of the department (e.g. committees authorising enforcement notices and then the staff not issuing those notices and the unauthorised developments then becoming immune from enforcement action) by misleading the public. After 9 weeks of working there I was told to do something which would have been misleading the public, and I point blank refused, cue suspension, disciplinary hearing, at which point I was paid off as clearly on the one hand I'd done nothing wrong, yet on the other that particular Council didn't want me back. My principles, both as a person, as in my professional life as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, are important to me. So why do some people think they have the right, without any evidence to back up a supposed statement of fact, can make the unsubstantiated claim against me that they do, and arguably even worse when they are asked to prove it actually has the temerity to accuse me of being 'childish' ?. I'm all for healthy debate, I'm all for disagreements about subjective issues, I'm happy to point out the relevant legislation, legal remit etc. purely to offer clarity and advice, but I'm not prepared to sit back and let people make false claims about me. Having to the best of my knowledge never met Paul, and in light of his rather personal attack on John Connelly for again merely repeating statements of fact, I'm bemused as to why he should want to make up claims about me. |