A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: RE: Real Issues of Concern
 
Author: Cllr Laurence Mann
Date:   11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
You are right when you say the planning system is biased towards the developer/owner.

But this is enshrined in the law itself, which is in essence unchanged since 1948.

There is no consensus on further interfering with the "right" of a landowner to do what he or she wants on their land. The same principles apply to someone who wants to put up a small extension as to a developer of 1000 houses.

A lot of additional hurdles are placed in the way of bigger developers: in many cases there is a need for environmental assessments, affordable housing provision, planning agreements which pay for traffic schemes or educational provision.

These weren't there 20 years ago.

The same rules have to apply everywhere as well.

The other thing that must be remembered is that 80% of all our applications are dealt with by officers without the DC Committee at all. All unopposed approvals which are in accordance with the UDP and the vast majority of refusals don't come to us.

So that's why 95%+ of all of the things on our agendas are recommendations for approval.

In most cases changes have been negotiated by officers, who encourage applicants to accommodate objectors. So when the application gets to us it is in a state where officers feel that any reasonable objections have been satisfied.

Notwithstanding this we do not always follow their recommendations. We have turned down a lot of schemes, some recommended by officers. Some we have won on appeal and some lost.

But it looks to a bystander that:

a. Most applications are opposed;
b. Nearly all applications are recommended for approval;
c. The Committee agrees with recommendations most of the time.

In reality only (c) is true, and this reflects more the process which has been gone through than any desire to be compliant.

There is some talk of allowing a third party right of appeal, which would do something to redress the balance, but I wonder whether this might not have the effect of causing planners and councillors to be less vigilant, in the hope of shifting the burden of appeal outside their patch.

If this did happen then the people who would suffer would be the inarticulate or poor who may not be able to fund or manage an appeal.

Our political masters in Whitehall are looking at ways of speeding up the process, and sadly speed = less careful consideration = more approvals.
Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 5:35 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 7:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 10:45 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 11:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 11:32 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:54 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:56 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Voter 11/1/2001 1:18 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 In need of more help 11/1/2001 2:58 pm WEDT
 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL     
 J. Watley 11/2/2001 0:10 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 11:59 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 12:21 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:20 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:31 pm WEDT
 Still Waiting.   new  
 R H 2/24/2002 6:36 pm WEDT
 RE: Still Waiting.   new  
 Laurence Mann 2/25/2002 1:08 pm WEDT
 Minutes   new  
 R H 2/25/2002 2:07 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 8:46 pm WEDT
 The Implications.   new  
 R H 11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/4/2001 8:41 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:56 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:43 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:46 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/5/2001 7:55 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 11:27 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
 Statistics.   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Statistics.     
 Laurence Mann 11/9/2001 9:09 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 9:03 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Public Service Information 11/2/2001 8:37 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Knightsbridge LET Staff member 11/3/2001 10:23 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:36 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:27 am WEDT
 Purpose?   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:23 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 4:47 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern    
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 57 + 27? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.