| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Wonky “illegal” car park to get planning permission | |
| Posted by: | Jim Storrar | |
| Date/Time: | 03/01/21 07:26:00 |
| Well said, Adam! Your defence of your profession is laudable. However I'm afraid that the courts would be very busy indeed if legal action were to be taken against all those who insinuate malpractice in the planning system. On the other hand, a robust defence of its officers by every local authority should go without saying. Over the years, there have been remarkably few cases of officers having betrayed their professional code and being convicted for acting illegally. I have a vague memory of such a case from LB Enfield about 15 years ago. I was lucky enough to spend nearly 40 years working in local authority planning departments but that fat brown envelope just never arrived. However I have to own up to having received occasional Christmas gifts, such as calendars, but those were always immediately impounded by my employer. On occasions I found, to my horror, that I had inadvertently liberated biros bearing the names of developers. I was always very jealous of colleagues in highways departments who received enough bottles of Christmas whisky to keep them going for the entire year. The car park in Dock Road is an egregious development and has resulted in profound reputational harm to both Ballymore and the local planning authority. However, words matter. The thing was piled up without the benefit of planning permission but this constituted a “planning breach" and would have become “illegal" only if an enforcement notice had been served and not complied with. With the exceptions of some advertisement displays and work to listed buildings, the carrying out of development without the necessary planning permission is not, in itself, illegal. The planning decision to be made by Hounslow Planning Committee on 7 January is a procedural matter designed to regularise parking provision within the Ballymore site as a whole. Whatever the decision is, it won't have any impact on the built form of the car park. In the final analysis, town planning is concerned with the distribution of resources and it is therefore, by its very nature, a political process. It's no surprise that the worst examples of malpractice have been perpetrated by politicians at every level. Those of a certain age may remember the case of T. Dan Smith and John Poulson in Newcastle. More recently, eyebrows have been raised by the relationship between Robert Jenrick, Richard Desmond, and a site on the Isle of Dogs. I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever that Hounslow councillors have indulged in malpractice but the key to enlisting public confidence lies in the assiduous pursuit of the “Nolan Principles", which are the basis of the ethical standards expected of the holders of public office. For example, there's not necessarily anything wrong with nurturing relationships with developers at meetings such as MPIM but the community has the right to know much more about what is said (and possibly agreed) at such meetings. Issues of “commercial sensitivity" can be easily circumvented. For those who have a real interest in this topic, this report is worth a read: https://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/permission-accomplished |