NiceLilEarner Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 ....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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IP Newcomer Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 ....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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebbedee Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) 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 September 3, 2011 by oracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clockslinger Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Is Oracle Erranta's Nemesis? Which is an anagram of "A Caramelise Renters Son". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singlemalt Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty1984 Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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 ;-)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conflict Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) 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 September 3, 2011 by conflict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Preacherman Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ingermany Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_when_* Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 ....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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pl1 Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) 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 September 4, 2011 by pl1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 Is Oracle Erranta's Nemesis? We need a HPC version of Celebrity Death Match to sort it out, once and for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IP Newcomer Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.