Forum Topic

Funny how I can go back and look at a planning application from 20-30 years ago for 50 houses or such like and the entire submission consists of little more than a form, some plans and a covering letter, and when permission was granted there were only a couple of basic restrictive conditions imposed upon the permission.Now the plethora of reports and documentation that is demanded to accompany an application is immense, and LPA's attach copious amounts of conditions to the granting of permission (often regardless of whether they are needed or not, or not recognising that relevant information has already been provided).It is the standard joke now that it is often harder to get an application validated than it is to get it approved.I'm not saying that this is necessarily wrong, although it does mean that I spend far too long thrashing out validation trivialities with LPA's than I do on writing planning statements, and any planning consultant who doesn't have an appetite for digging through legal encyclopedias, case law, appeal decisions and judgements may as well give up the profession.But I don't get, in this context, the reference to secrecy or avoidance of details.  Certainly when it comes to applications, take a look at any application and if it's been validated it will be positively overflowing with details, and as has often been said the whole process has become so specialist that it does work against Joe Public who aren't suitably qualified to challenge such details, but at the same time don't want to pay appropriate specialists to act on their behalf.I do think Firestone is a rather different animal to Richmond Ice Rink.  In the former, advantage was taken of the Bank Holiday weekend prior to the listing taking effect, which was a fault of the system/law.  The latter I regard as a far worse situation as the LPA effectively let the developers off their obligations. 

Adam Beamish ● 3089d

For such a building of historical importance and given it's status this seems a very unusual method of renovation.If it were the public library or say, Pitzhanger Manor, the procedures and methods of modification and renovation have to be strictly adhered to and end up costing a huge amount. Part of Pitzhanger Manor is only mid 20th century yet even that wing has to be complied with.However I was allowed a closer look today and clearly the lime mix mortar is past it's best and no longer providing a safe bond to the bricks, which are in good condition. The walls are so thick that the integrity is still good but it cannot be just repointed, the inner bricks would remain potentially loose.It is sulphur that breaks down lime mortar and no doubt the Gas Works played a large part in that.  And we worry about pollution now. It was horrendous here just 50 years ago. So it is fair to say, that the structure needs rebuilding. It's not an architectural marvel, but it is of significant historical reference and has survived a war and massive industrialisation.But.It needs to be very carefully and knowledgeably overseen.  A repetition of Firestone or Richmond Ice Rink with a developer quitting, reforming and voiding all agreements needs to be prevented. A very large proportion of the original materials can be used and the quality of the hidden bricks can give an as originally new finish if swapped for the weather worn ones.The roofing materials, lintels door frames and so on all need to be in keeping or exactly the same as original.The question is whether this is being overseen, adhered to and monitored.Apart from Guys updates, there is yet again really poor communication.People are not stupid but all the secrecy and avoidance of details is still an insult to our community as a whole.It would not go amiss for a few "what's happening display boards" to be placed on the site hoardings and a viewing point, it is after all quite an unusual conversion of both sites and worth a look.The rebuilt facades at Kew Bridge Stn and the far better rear of the buildings along with the refurbishment and conversion of the former Star and Garter hotel on the throat of Kew Bridge show that it is possible to have far more appropriate developments and retain the proportions and aesthetics of Brentford.Again not properly explained. So no proper views can be formed.When the truth outs, like the farce of the Morrisons and Watermans deals, views can be formed and it will not always be positive.These are clearly more than a little flawed and have far reaching detrimental ramifications.There are several buildings where clever and tasteful conversions would be far more interesting and exciting to live in than some of the utterly dreadful cheap apologies that pass for architecture currently being proposed.Maybe

Raymond Havelock ● 3089d

Adam. It exists and it is a closed circuit. If it were not: A. You would know.B. Others would know. C. Because of A & B  It simply would not happen so often.It's quite probable Adam, that you are a person of good character, strong morals and personality.  These are the last people that those up to no good or complicit would ever want to bring into the fold.I was once at a boardroom retirement soiree many years ago, the CEO stood amongst directors and waxed lyrical about a senior executive.  "I brought her in for her brilliant criminal mind. Brilliant criminals, never get caught."  Several years later..she eventually did. But only because her cover was eroded by big changes. Then there are those who are bullied into carrying out, or not caring out orders. Turning a blind eye. or risk the possibility of retarding their careers. For a mainstream example, Jimmy Savile & Co and the BBC. Plenty knew, no-one spoke out.Or the silent manipulation, the quiet word, the career promise.This country has a very well recorded history of that, especially in Authorities and the NHS.People who knew and said nothing. And people who did not know and should have known, but were kept in the dark.As for collusion between law enforcement and officialdom.  Politicians deny it goes on . But it does. A former commander of this Borough in recent memory.Corruption does not mean backhanders. It's far wider than that.And just  look what happens to those who do stand up and expose it or simply oppose it.For many it means nothing, a phone box in a place they never go to, a place they don't live in, an address on a bit of paper, a box on a set of plans.Far easier to just do what one is told, even if it does seem a bit odd.

Raymond Havelock ● 3370d

I disagree with you Phil because I'm not for a minute saying every single council officer is whiter than white, there's always going to be the odd 'bag egg'.  And I can say that having had the balls to stand up to a Director, having gone through the whole suspension/employment hearing malarkey and come out the other side of it relatively unscathed - although at the same time the experience definitely made me realise I'd had enough of the public sector.And perhaps it's because of that I do get rather sick of reading, time after time, whenever a planning decision is approved, some-one inevitably pops up with either a direct or an implied accusation that the council officers involved are taking backhanders.Such accusations are made far more often, 99.9% without a shred of evidence, and as I have said before I would be delighted if one day legal action is taken against such a poster to make people either think twice or actually get the evidence before posting.Equally I do know where you're coming from because I've first hand experience of attempts being made to 'lean' on me by certain then Councillors about how I had to help a constituent because they were a major financial contributor to their party, or how I'd be asked to write a 'gentle' committee report.  All of which never bothered me in the slightest, I came to accept that it came with the territory and I was always able to simply disregard such leaning (there is a whole file of blue sheets recording such events somewhere in the Civic Centre as it was a mandatory requirement to fill in such a sheet everytime you met with a Councillor) but it did used to make me wonder how someone more naive/weak/vulnerable might find it harder to deal with.

Adam Beamish ● 3370d

In my view there is financial corruption and there is political corruption, two entirely different things with different objectives being served.The only instance of obvious financial corruption that I witnessed was a housing officer who let out several homes to non-existent tenants and then absconded to Nigeria when he was about to be rumbled.  Not much to deliberate over on that one.  Political corruption however is a different matter.  I have encountered many officers - a small minority to be sure, but a determined one all the same - who have been quite blatantly obstructive towards me in what was sometimes the quite obvious pursuance of a definable agenda.  This can be motivated by the simple desire to exploit a situation (as in the case of a coalition) to enhance their own position by getting between the partners, or it can be of a more obviously party political nature.  At its worst, I had a very senior officer who would not speak to or deal with me as he did not agree with my election to the Council (in an interesting, and very gratifying, twist of events I later became his boss!).I have witnessed polling station staff (LBH officers on a jolly) quite unbashfully using their positions to facilitate an advantage for candidates representing their party of preference.  And, subsequent to 2010, there have been numerous and demonstrable instances of officers going the extra mile for individual Isleworth councillors, including the sharing of confidential FOI requests with (political) members of the public who had an interest in them, and the attempted bullying of tenants who were involved in community activity which is independent of the local authority (this is a current and ongoing issue on Ivybridge).  That's without even mentioning the salaried "spy", on taxpayer time, at the Paul Slattery court hearing, or Curran's highly-paid "consultant"/PA who did everything for him bar his washing-up during his tenure as Lead Member for Housing.None of this is likely to be applicable in this instance I grant.  But let's have none of this whiter-than-white council officer nonsense.  Officers are human beings who are employed by the regime and their character, collectively, will inevitably over the course of time come to reflect the character of that regime.  It really is that simple.

Phil Andrews ● 3370d