| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Dock road car park monolith | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 29/03/19 16:40:00 |
| I note you still didn't quote the supporting text to the policy which confirms the definition of "tall buildings" as being 20 metres or higher. And that was the only point I was making, by quoting the full policy together with the definition I've added above we've finally got to the point where you've tacitly acknowledged that the Local Plan doesn't prevent any buildings over 20 metres high, which you stated it did. That's the point I'm trying to make Lorne, and although you might not realise it I am trying to be helpful. As I always say, if members of the public make statements that are factually untrue when submitting representations etc., then any half competent professional will seize on that and effectively discredit them. And I do that in working on behalf of the public and local authorities in opposing development proposals too - I've currently involved in opposing a residential scheme in Worcestershire where the developer has made various spurious claims about how he 'doubts' the LPA can demonstrate a 10% supply of housing supply from small to medium sites (which the NPPF now seeks), but I've enjoyed ripping this 'doubt' to shreds by pointing out that 22% of the residential site allocations within the District are on small to medium sites. As for your query about Morrisons, I have always pointed out that the 75%/25% designation, which if memory serves me right dates back to the 2008 Area Action Plan, is something of a red herring - it would be totally contradictory to longstanding national and local policy about higher density residential development being in town centres if for every 3 square metres of retail floorspace the site could only be developed by way of 1 square metre of residential floorspace. But, and if you search hard enough you will find posts from me on that exact subject before, it really shouldn't have every been published or left as it was. As for your fondness for the former Director (who I only ever met once), the gamekeeper turned poacher role is part of this and most other businesses. I spent 10 predominantly enjoyable years in the public sector, but I wouldn't go back no matter for any salary or bonus package. I deal with local authorities everyday and I see the best and the worst of them, and, having been in the public sector for 10 years, I'm very quick to praise those Officers who are a credit to their profession and I genuinely have an admiration for the way they stick it out - I'm far too 'blunt' to put up with any crap from the public, fellow Officers or indeed clients, but that's the benefit of being a sole trader planning consultant, I can tell clients to take a hike. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned I owe the last 11 years of my planning career to my bluntness in standing up to the last Director of Planning at an LPA I every worked for - being suspended after standing up on a point of principle, receiving a 5 figure sum after an employment hearing, and from that day onwards both employers and clients have always been attracted to me because I'm the guy who dared to stand up to the powers that be regardless of the potential consequences for my career. Equally I feel 'sad' for those good Officers who get tarred with the "useless public sector" tag because of the incompetence, laziness or general indifference of too many of their colleagues, who wouldn't last a month in the private sector but still can hide amongst the public sector 'deadwood'. Classic example this week - a Parish Council has objected to an application of mine, being the proactive chap I am (officially this week I'm out of the office skiing, in reality I've sent in excess of 100 emails, had many work phone conversations and easily spent 1.5 working days sat doing work on my laptop) I immediately sound out the Case Officer as to whether this means it has to be referred to committee if he recommends approval - his response "no, it would only have to be referred if it included new commercial floorspace". He's had this application for 6 weeks and throughout the submission it spells out that the proposals include new commercial floorspace. I point this out to him, at which point he says "I hadn't seen that on the plans, can you send me a copy, I point out that proposed floor plans have been uploaded by his own colleagues for weeks now, along with all the other documents which repeatedly refer to a new extension. So clearly the guy hasn't looked at the application at all, despite having it for 6 weeks - so be it, but if I then ask him a question you think he might bother to look at it before openly displaying his complete ignorance by providing me with a completely inaccurate response. That's why I'd never go back - I simply couldn't work with such people, and unfortunately I encounter it far too often. But such people always seem to remain in their posts, probably because individual performance assessment in the public sector is non-existent. Whereas for sole traders like myself performance monitoring is built in with the ability to generate increasing business. |