Forum Topic

Ironically the amount of information that has to be submitted for consideration as part of a planning application is tenfold what it was 30-40 years ago.  A planning application for 40 houses from 40 years ago typically consisted of little more than a covering letter and a few plans, and when the authority granted planning permission the only conditions that were imposed were that the development had to be built within 5 years and that it must be built in accordance with the approved plans.Now applicants have to submit a plethora of specialist reports, the specific detail of which most lay people, the Planning Officer at the authority, the applicant and the other members of the professional team don't fully understand, and if permission is granted its subject to a multitude of conditions requiring further information to be submitted for approval relating to the tiniest detail.Yet do we have better developments than we did 40 years ago ?.Personally, I think the planning system is ridiculously over-complicated now, which in turn makes it harder for the average person in the street to take an active/informed role in planning matters and stretches already limited local authority resources even more.  What we've generally seen in the last few years is whenever the government has tried to relax planning restrictions (which hasn't been properly thought out) many local authorities have devoted lots of time, money and resources into trying to resist such relaxations.I think the system is flawed on so many levels, but equally the notion of combining planning considerations (which are primarily subjective and based on interpretation of planning policies, giving weight to other material considerations and so forth) with more legislative regulations like Building Regulations and so forth would only make for an even more flawed system (if that is possible).Just on the specific subject of the Travelodge fire of course it's completely common for any flatted development to have a bin store either under the development or adjacent to it.  If a bin store was located a safe distance away from both that development and any neighbouring buildings then it is likely to be difficult to access for both residents and for refuse collectors, and/or you'd have alot of effectively 'wasted' space.Personally I don't think the planning or any other legislation can ever remove all 'risk' - ultimately it seems (and I stress the word seems) that this fire was down to either (a) some moron(s) carelessly disposing of a cigarette, or (b) some scumbag(s) deliberately starting a fire.  And no matter what steps any authority anywhere in the world takes, you can't cover every eventuality because people will be people.

Adam Beamish ● 2078d

It's a miracle that this did not happen in the rush hours or during the day.or at any time during the weekend.Not for the first time, the concerns of the emergency services and indeed the input of the fire service in the GLA area has been dismissed, not presented or ignored.You may recall that I and others highlighted this over the imposition of Wheelie Bins in terraced streets and locations without safe and adequate storage space.National Fire and Safety service have clear guidelines as does the HSE on placement and positioning of such bins and warnings on the risks of toxins from melting or inflamed bins.It was raised but ignored and the LFB was prevented from on high from posting this advice and detail on it's website. Why? Because in conflicts with GLA and London Boroughs policy intentions and there we are.It has fallen on deaf ears until the Grenfell report which rather unfairly blames the Fire Service but not the reasons why the fire service has ended up having no influence. It has been shackled by those who fund it.Puppets have been placed at the top who do whatever their paymasters say and woe betide anyone who stands up to that. End of career or early retirement.Trying to cram in ancillaries into spaces that don't really exist is pure folly, but ignoring issues raised and voting through flawed plans, especially when 'ignorant' public are ridiculed for their input because it does not comply with planning methodology is well, something that ought to be more considered on a human and pragmatic scale rather than tick boxes in procedure.The latest concern is the forthcoming Cycleway.  Already Fire and ambulance staff at the coal face are concerned that the narrowing of key artery roads and junctions will cost life saving minutes and that concerns are being ignored.Yet again, safety cases for this have been brushed over, TfL just complying to orders and saying nothing - apart from the ludicrous acceptance that a 15-18 min extension to journey times by bus is acceptable. That in itself actually highlights that there is a risk to location accessibility in an emergency.  A fire appliance is as big as a bus, and with tower blocks the vehicles are even bigger.Population going up, more dense than is sensible, so let's narrow the arteries. Who in their right mind thinks that is sensible and why is there no published independent safety case, and more to the point why did council not raise in any sort of detail this when voting approval?The TfL justification is laughable and exactly the same as for other CS routes with no understanding of the locality.Is it going to take another substantial loss of life before any sort of common sense emerges?

Raymond Havelock ● 2080d