gunter wrote:Actually plenty of people were bothered, if you read back on that thread . . . . until you said:
Personally I've no interest in making the planning system faster, they can take twice as long as far as I'm concerned so long as they get the feckin decisions right.
You obviously donâ€™t run a business gunter â€“ if you did youâ€™d realise that budgeting and planning require a certain amount of certainty in terms of where you think youâ€™ll be in 2-3 months time. The planning system breeds only uncertainty and has, undoubtedly, cost a great deal of people their jobs over the last 3 years. Not the civil servants themselves of course.... Can you imagine if the government brought through â€“ without consultation â€“ new penal laws under which an accused would be tried, off camera, by a jury of one person and in which a panel of judges could choose to accept the juryâ€™s verdict or not. And the accused would have no opportunity to defend themselves. I doubt people would be happy
Itâ€™s actually pretty easy to comply with the development plan â€“ simply because the plan is so vague. Whilst a checklist is a good idea per se it would be too subjective to be of any real use. This is where applicants need direction from LAs and where, in many cases, especially large projects, this direction is flawed. This direction also rarely forms part of the evidence put forward to ABP and so rarely results in any form of retribution towards the LA.
Ok â€“ Iâ€™ll admit that the 5th year comment was probably trite but all I could see was a lot of talk about talk. All I could think of was Life of Brian (ha â€“ how apt for the current government debacle):
Reg: Right! Now, item four: Attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Ah, Francis, you've been doing some work on this?
Rogers: Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman Empire within the next twelve months!
Reg: Twelve months?
Rogers: Yeah, twelve months. And let's face it, as empires go, this is the big one. So we gotta get up of our arses and stop just talking about it!
All in PFJ: Yeah! Yeah! Hear!
Loretta: I agree! It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now!
All in PFJ: Yeah! Yeah!
Reg: You're right. We could sit around here all day, talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches, it's not to ship one Roman soldier!
Francis: So let's just stop gabbing on about it! It's completely pointless, and it's getting us nowhere!
Loretta: I agree! This is a complete waste of time!
agree with GrahamH that reform of the LAs is necessary but I also think that ABP needs reform too. I do think that, no matter how much reform is done at LA level, the safety net of ABP is always there and will always cloud any decision. I also agree that fundamental changes are required in the legislation but a cast iron copper bottomed development plan with no ambiguity will take years to agree but, that said, I don't think from a creative design standpoint that such a thing would actually benefit the built environment.
That is not a reason, however, not to initiate reform to the system we have whilst the talkers are talking