| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Front page article re. area planning committees | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 03/06/11 19:30:00 |
| I don't see any way in which the Localism Bill will 'benefit' developers. It could however becomes a 'NIMBYS' charter, and I fear those with the loudest voices will not necessarily be representative of the wider community. The cynic in me also feels this is basically a way of cutting costs at local government level by getting the public to do more of the 'work' that local authorities would usually take the lead on, but no longer can due to cost-cutting/dwindling resources etc. And, as I frequently harp on about, I don't believe the public at large has any real idea of the cost, resources and hassle just to get a planning application validated these days, trust me it isn't in a developer's interest to get an application refused by not engaging with the community etc. Plans, Directives and Strategies have their place and rightly so, at both local, regional and national level. But how 'micro' should we go ? - different plans/strategies for different streets ?. Is such an approach workable, or indeed desirable ? - as I often say often the 'interested public' actually represent a very broad range of interest and views, often contradictory to one another etc. I don't disagree with Phil about the importance of local Councillors with Local Authorities, my ongoing concern, particularly in the current climate of cost cutting in local government, is that Officers are often unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet for fear of the consequences. For instance, one of my applications was recently favourably recommended by Officers to a Council Planning Committee after a year of extensive discussions, amendments etc, and after the same Committee had 3 months earlier deferred determination of the application to enable my client and the Council's solicitors to thrash out a legal agreement. The Council solicitor was very active in that thrashing out, we made numerous concessions, and everyone was content. As soon as the Members starting discussing the merits of the application, several of them expressed how they "hated" retrospective applications and were loathe to approve them, which is totally contrary to national policy/guidance etc. At that point the Council solicitor who had worked so hard on negotiations and was at committee to address any legal implications should have said "hold on, you can't say that, you must determine the application on its merits". But no, throughout the entire discussion on the application the solicitor said nothing, Members got it refused, we end up appealing, more time and expense for both us and the Council, and any day now I'm sure we'll get a decision notice allowing the appeal. You tell me why that solicitor kept quiet at Committee - because he wants to keep his job, simple as that. I touched upon my Hillingdon experience earlier and it was exactly that, I dared to speak out, to express a professional view to the Director that what she was telling me to do (to cover up the previous failure of her Officers to do anything, or on another occasion to deliberately mislead the public to avoid having to reveal to Councillors that Officers hadn't done what Councillors had told them to do) was completely unreasonable, and lo and behold I'm suddenly suspended and then I'm suddenly paid off. It's that kind of culture which worries me, but ironically throughout all the years I've worked in Planning I've never experienced an unreasonable Councillor, they'll listen and respect your opinion/expertise and vice versa. Anyhow, gone abit off tangent !. More importantly I have to disappear altogether as I'm away for afew days...have a good weekend all :-) |