| Topic: | Re:Re:Brentford to Grow by MORE than Fifty Percent? | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 10/04/13 23:09:00 |
| John Connelly made an excellent posting on another thread about planning policies and parking - without repeating that thread the basics are that it's pointless bleating on about developments not including sufficient parking because national planning guidance clearly steers developers and Councils towards minimum parking provision in order to encourage greater use of sustainable forms of transport, and planning applications should only be refused on transport grounds where the impacts are 'severe' (paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework). Whether you and I personally agree with that or not, that's the relevant national guidance. As for affordable housing provision, it's also relevant to point out in in the updated London Plan of July 2011 the GLA did away with the previous policies which set out the starting point for affordable provision within developments to be 50%, and devolved the responsibility to each authority to set its own levels. Given the economic crash of recent years too, more and more developers are able to demonstrate that schemes wouldn't be viable if their schemes provided a policy compliant level of affordable housing. Not always the case though - I spent all day yesterday at a public exhibition for one of our schemes in East London which is entirely policy compliant in terms of affordable housing provision. I was saying to colleagues today however how I've never done an exhibition where the views of attendees were more polarised on the two issues you highlight, parking and affordable housing, half the attendees were delighted the development would be car-free, half were aghast, and similarly half the attendees didn't want affordable housing anywhere near where they lived, and the other half welcomed it. As I keep banging on about residents need to recognise that there's plenty of other residents that have completely contradictory views to theirs, and many times what I read on this forum about planning issues demonstrates how people simply don't recognise that - you want Officers and Councillors to stand up for what "you" want, but what you want isn't necessary either reflected in planning policies or guidance or isn't necessary the view of the majority. As for 'cosy' relationships with developers - pie in the sky notion. Sometimes I'd say it can be precisely the opposite, with some Officers seemingly hellbent on giving the developers a hard time. As I've said before you might get one bad egg in a thousand, but speaking from experience on all four sides (Council officer, member of public, Head of Planning for London for Taylor Wimpey and as a planning consultant) those bad eggs are massively in the minority. In short, pointless getting a new broom, your problems are with the floor itself (i.e. national planning policies and guidance). |