To respond to Claire about affordable housing, at the time 50% affordable was the desired 'target' for new developments as set out in the then adopted version of the London Plan. However, that target wasn't written in stone, and the policies concerned went on to stress that the precise percentage sought for each site could be affected by market conditions/development viability, site circumstances or the nature of the proposals (e.g. a proposal might provide less than 50% affordable housing but other 'gains' like commercial floorspace etc.).50% was never a realistic target, even less so after the way the economic has gone in recent years, and the most recently adopted (July 2011) version of the London Plan does away with stating an exact percentage target for affordable housing altogether.In answer to George I agree, often there is not a right or wrong answer when it comes to planning matters, many of the aspects that need to be assessed as part of an application are, to varying extent, based upon subjective judgements.The S106 system isn't great, whether the CIL regs will be any better remains to be seen. I don't agree about the 'behind closed doors' thing because Council planning meetings are public meetings and thus major applications are determined in public. It's important to stress that the vast majority of both private sector and public sector planners are Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute and are thus required to comply with the appropriate code of conduct, something that I take seriously as my career/professional reputation is pretty important to me !.Whilst I agree that there is plenty of room for improvement in the way Councils are run, as a generalisation I only see a steady decline, and my personal view is that Councils need to operate more like businesses.
Adam Beamish ● 4964d