| Topic: | Front page article re. area planning committees | |
| Posted by: | George Knox | |
| Date/Time: | 04/06/11 14:02:00 |
| Excuse the cuts and pastes “trust me it isn't in a developer's interest to get an application refused by not engaging with the community etc.” I have seen too many applications which ignore public consultation. Some of the Housing associations behave shamefully. When there is a large development to build high value properties the developer tries to get away with it. Look at what happened in central Ealing, aided and abetted by the Tory administration and the senior council officers. I don’t know the history but look at what is happening between Brentford Town and Kew Bridge. It is only after a developer falls at the post a couple of times on applications that he thinks Oh Yeah I had better talk to the locals. This sort of behaviour is utterly scandalous. With Social developments the taxpayer funds huge sums to no avail. With developers they lose their shareholders vast sums, which in turn reduces your private pensions. The planning Office and all the departments who feed into the process get into a log jam and the taxpayer pays. And then they and we complain because they are overworked. So far as office developments are concerned I think that Councils should be empowered to charge some kind of occupation tax while the buildings are empty so that the developer thinks much harder about the rents he will charge. Say for buildings over say 40,000 square feet. Oh dear I hear Adam say, do I realise how that will drive developers away because of the prospect of not making a profit. So what period is used for cost income pay back? Why not longer relative to the time that buildings actually do stay standing? How greedy are the developers? What is wrong with letting a lower rent and getting the building occupied more quickly and then shading the rents up over the future once a new thriving business community has established itself. Why should we have so many buildings empty and workers commuting so far with fares fourbled by 2050? Why because there is insufficient vision? 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. How many times have I heard that whining little sneer when actually a Councillor is just crying like a baby because he can’t get his own way – poor lamb? And what does the “representative” of the local community mean? When you have a group of highly qualified professionals faced with “representative” don’t tell me that they don’t have sharply different views. Some stake their whole professional reputations when they fight each other. Being professional is an appeal to greater authority. But it makes them no more right than an “interested” layman. "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." That is certainly a difficult question. What I want to see is not so much a street by street argument. What I want to see is a better balance between old and new. That means much better architecture and buildings which last along time like Georgian and Victorian do last. What I also want to see is a far greater emphasis on whether the new environments create a far greater sense of community and self sustainability. And design which is sympathetic to what we have now. So that means the councils in their LDPs or LIPs or whatever, should put these items at the top of their planning agenda and adhere rigorously to them. Canary Wharf is a very good example of where we have built an extremely soulless place to live. If you want Shanghai in West London in 40 years, then just shut the planning department. But the Councils don’t put community and sustainability right at the top of their agenda. They are driven by homelessness. They are driven by a quick buck on large commercial developments in the vain hope that the local economy might improve. That works some places but not others. “When I was a councillor I was lobbied by two very senior officers of the Council” The senior officers have been there a very long time and have their own agendas. It is impossible to tell that their agendas are driven by the will to create communities and a sense of belonging. They give us no evidence and so should be treated with the greatest of suspicion. They do not consult except with consultation papers which are highly biased, and they do not engage with the public and they are virtually unreachable. But they are very influential because with the change of administrations they can run rings around new Councillors who are too ignorant to know what to do. So that is very much a reason for local activist groups to take more of the mantle for influencing planning direction and vision because many of these groups have been there longer than the Councillors. When I look at planning decisions on big developments the officer refers to a request from the public and then in one sentence says no. What we don’t see is their reasoning. What we don’t see are the facts in favour and against and WHY that planning officer concluded no. There is never any reasoning. So what we never know s if the planning officer and his line management was competent and actually had the brains to weigh up the arguments, or whether he was working to a hidden agenda. One way or another that part of the process inspires contempt. And while I am on planning how is it that S.106 monies are so deeply hidden from view? It should be in one pot when it is paid and in another before it is paid. Then the public can have more say on how their money is spent. So to conclude, despite shortcomings, the “interested” public must have far greater influence over the experts. And all applications must continue to be notified as widely as possible. |