Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
NiceLilEarner

Government Backs Down In Planning Row

Recommended Posts

....straight to the desk of the latest generation of local government non-jobber, the Design and Conservation Officer.

The government's decision to appease countryside campaigners over its proposed planning reforms will undoubtedly put these interfering, talentless bureaucrats in a pivotal position. The D & C officer is basically a weaponised version of the old conservation officer, those poorly paid defenders of listed buildings and conservation areas. The new version (a legacy of New Labour) award themselves a pay increase, and a seat at the table of any local authority planning development meeting. They rarely have a background in architecture, but that does'nt stop them from pronouncing grandly on building design. In addition, they bring all the anti-development, prince charles-ish baggage with them from their conservation backgrounds. In cahoots with (usually Tory) nimby councillors, they can wield a power of veto over development proposals.

The government climb-down will involve a 'sustainability' process for each application that will put finger-wagging bureaucrats like these in an even more powerful position.

The result:

1) The government can claim to be encouraging development

2) Houses will still not be built, jobs will fail to be created

3) The nimbys will be happy

4) Another generation of public sector freeloaders will coast towards comfortable retirement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....straight to the desk of the latest generation of local government non-jobber, the Design and Conservation Officer.

The government's decision to appease countryside campaigners over its proposed planning reforms will undoubtedly put these interfering, talentless bureaucrats in a pivotal position. The D & C officer is basically a weaponised version of the old conservation officer, those poorly paid defenders of listed buildings and conservation areas. The new version (a legacy of New Labour) award themselves a pay increase, and a seat at the table of any local authority planning development meeting. They rarely have a background in architecture, but that does'nt stop them from pronouncing grandly on building design. In addition, they bring all the anti-development, prince charles-ish baggage with them from their conservation backgrounds. In cahoots with (usually Tory) nimby councillors, they can wield a power of veto over development proposals.

The government climb-down will involve a 'sustainability' process for each application that will put finger-wagging bureaucrats like these in an even more powerful position.

The result:

1) The government can claim to be encouraging development

2) Houses will still not be built, jobs will fail to be created

3) The nimbys will be happy

4) Another generation of public sector freeloaders will coast towards comfortable retirement

Write to your MP, blog about it, moan to your councillor.

Seriously politicians are only backing down on this because they think they are going to lose bucket loads of votes.

Make them think that there are votes on the side of the original government plans too.

I talked to my MP this morning on this, so I'm doing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Back down coalition, next vote BNP!!! feking sick of being taken for a mug, let the BNP rape everyone and see how happy the nimby baby boomers are with it up em!!!

actually a return to BNP style brownshirts is PRECISELY what these goons want(by way of reverse-psychology)

if you hadn't noticed,parliament is now stuffed to the gills with both communist sleeper cells(who want total class envy and to destroy british civilisation)

..and also hardline roman catholic jesuit coadjutors(who secretly wish to forment conflict between the anglo-saxons and communists..but both,by proxy,are using islam as the scapegoat...the primary objective to be create chaos by mass immigration and socialism..and the pose as the saviours to the heretics who broke away from the church)

the club of rome actually created this mess in the first place through sheer spite.(again,a picture tells a thousand words..look at ratzingers coat of arms)

their use of the red brigade is merely a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

they already know through the actions of hitler and stalin in WW2 that they cannot trust one another...and it will follow,just as night follows day..that each will seek to dominate the other....which will ultimately cause them to come to blows.

rome wants the whole world catholic

russia wants the red world order.

light the blue touchpaper and retire,this one will get messy.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually a return to BNP style brownshirts is PRECISELY what these goons want(by way of reverse-psychology)

if you hadn't noticed,parliament is now stuffed to the gills with both communist sleeper cells(who want total class envy and to destroy british civilisation)

..and also hardline roman catholic jesuit coadjutors(who secretly wish to forment conflict between the anglo-saxons and communists..but both,by proxy,are using islam as the scapegoat...the primary objective to be create chaos by mass immigration and socialism..and the pose as the saviours to the heretics who broke away from the church)

the club of rome actually created this mess in the first place through sheer spite.(again,a picture tells a thousand words..look at ratzingers coat of arms)

their use of the red brigade is merely a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

they already know through the actions of hitler and stalin in WW2 that they cannot trust one another...and it will follow,just as night follows day..that each will seek to dominate the other....which will ultimately cause them to come to blows.

rome wants the whole world catholic

russia wants the red world order.

light the blue touchpaper and retire,this one will get messy.

That is such a lucid and concise explanation I can't help but think you must be an economic advisor to our present government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5mins ago there was a live debate on C4 News between Planning Minister and representitive from National Trust.

I can't stand "nimbys" (nimbies) and the groups that represent them. Imo they often exacerbate all that's wrong in the UK. This "I'm alright Jack" attitude is just holding us back.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5mins ago there was a live debate on C4 News between Planning Minister and representitive from National Trust.

I can't stand "nimbys" (nimbies) and the groups that represent them. Imo they often exacerbate all that's wrong in the UK. This "I'm alright Jack" attitude is just holding us back.

:angry:

And completely de-regulated house building is the answer to all our ills of course ;-)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who owns a farm in he middle of nowhere I completely agree with the blocking of the changes and if anything the planning laws need to be tightened for the developer but relaxed for everyone else.

Round here (green belt AND conservation area) we have had many issues with local developers, most notably a housing association which seems to get planning permission when literally nobody else could. Basically there seems to be something rotten in parts of local government, only parts though as many of the councilors have started getting pissed off at the situation as well but so far it only seems to be delaying things. As to why I say it needs to be relaxed for everyone else I know of 2 farmers who have had issues in building farm buildings (which planning should normally have no authority over) that have had issues, and some house developers who have been denied planning when it makes sense for the area (from my perspective).

Basically planning reform is needed not by a relaxing, but a route and branch reform that makes it truly democratic rather than being held by a few employed people so that it can represent the will of the people involved.

Edited by conflict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who owns a farm in he middle of nowhere I completely agree with the blocking of the changes and if anything the planning laws need to be tightened for the developer but relaxed for everyone else.

Round here (green belt AND conservation area) we have had many issues with local developers, most notably a housing association which seems to get planning permission when literally nobody else could. Basically there seems to be something rotten in parts of local government, only parts though as many of the councilors have started getting pissed off at the situation as well but so far it only seems to be delaying things. As to why I say it needs to be relaxed for everyone else I know of 2 farmers who have had issues in building farm buildings (which planning should normally have no authority over) that have had issues, and some house developers who have been denied planning when it makes sense for the area (from my perspective).

Basically planning reform is needed not by a relaxing, but a route and branch reform that makes it truly democratic rather than being held by a few employed people so that it can represent the will of the people involved.

I think that planning decisions need to be made more open with clearer rules that favour individuals rather than the big builders and land speculators. At the moment speculators can get outline planning permission to develop land and then sell it on. This is a license for speculation and corruption as the value of the land rises dramatically when the planning permission is granted.

Instead planning should be granted to the owner of the land only and not be transferable to a purchaser. That will kill speculative land-banking and the corruption that goes with it instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who owns a farm in he middle of nowhere I completely agree with the blocking of the changes and if anything the planning laws need to be tightened for the developer but relaxed for everyone else.

Round here (green belt AND conservation area) we have had many issues with local developers, most notably a housing association which seems to get planning permission when literally nobody else could. Basically there seems to be something rotten in parts of local government, only parts though as many of the councilors have started getting pissed off at the situation as well but so far it only seems to be delaying things. As to why I say it needs to be relaxed for everyone else I know of 2 farmers who have had issues in building farm buildings (which planning should normally have no authority over) that have had issues, and some house developers who have been denied planning when it makes sense for the area (from my perspective).

Basically planning reform is needed not by a relaxing, but a route and branch reform that makes it truly democratic rather than being held by a few employed people so that it can represent the will of the people involved.

Dead right. Tell me how planning was given for this 3 million quid when you have to fight tooth and nail to get permission on a dinky patch of land surrounded by an estate not far from there (my neighbours son has just gone through 2 years of agony trying to build a 3-bed detached house a few miles away). That 3 squillion house is a converted 3-bed detached farm house btw.

Brown envelopes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5mins ago there was a live debate on C4 News between Planning Minister and representitive from National Trust.

I can't stand "nimbys" (nimbies) and the groups that represent them. Imo they often exacerbate all that's wrong in the UK. This "I'm alright Jack" attitude is just holding us back.

:angry:

Must admit I can't see what the problem is. the presumption in favour of allowing permission is reasonable. Objections are still allowed. It is for the objectors to show why permission should not be granted and the onus on them to provide evidence. Why operate in any other way? I do hope they stick to the proposals. I haven't heard one convincing argument against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....straight to the desk of the latest generation of local government non-jobber, the Design and Conservation Officer.

The government's decision to appease countryside campaigners over its proposed planning reforms will undoubtedly put these interfering, talentless bureaucrats in a pivotal position. The D & C officer is basically a weaponised version of the old conservation officer, those poorly paid defenders of listed buildings and conservation areas. The new version (a legacy of New Labour) award themselves a pay increase, and a seat at the table of any local authority planning development meeting. They rarely have a background in architecture, but that does'nt stop them from pronouncing grandly on building design. In addition, they bring all the anti-development, prince charles-ish baggage with them from their conservation backgrounds. In cahoots with (usually Tory) nimby councillors, they can wield a power of veto over development proposals.

The government climb-down will involve a 'sustainability' process for each application that will put finger-wagging bureaucrats like these in an even more powerful position.

The result:

1) The government can claim to be encouraging development

2) Houses will still not be built, jobs will fail to be created

3) The nimbys will be happy

4) Another generation of public sector freeloaders will coast towards comfortable retirement

Another spineless Government for at least 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always seems mad to me that people with local interests make the planning laws in their area i.e. nimby local cllrs. This is surely at the heart of the problem and that a regional body with no VI should make the strategic decisions and rubber stamping, with local councils being reduced to what they are; administrators of the decisions.

Edited by pl1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit I can't see what the problem is. the presumption in favour of allowing permission is reasonable. Objections are still allowed. It is for the objectors to show why permission should not be granted and the onus on them to provide evidence. Why operate in any other way? I do hope they stick to the proposals. I haven't heard one convincing argument against them.

Are you going to email your MP about this?

This is the crucial week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.