| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Wonky “illegal” car park to get planning permission | |
| Posted by: | Raymond Havelock | |
| Date/Time: | 05/01/21 10:46:00 |
| Adam, What I cannot understand is why you immediately jump to the assumption that I am laying everything at the door of planning officers? I am not. Because I also referred to the debacle as a whole. And there are plenty of recorded episodes where something somewhere has been either illegal or improper. The problem is there are parallels with these occurrences. Nowhere have I implicated any individual, department or office. Nor did I criticise planning law or procedures. I usually look out for your explanation on those. But as a citizen who with others, has to end up living with all this, I remain unhappy about the way in which all this has been handled and you know as well as I, that planners are just a small cog in the whole process. But something is not right. From poor architecture & build quality, to approvals of retrospective changes that may not have been initially approved, and even to officers recommendations being ignored or refused. So whilst you are clearly and respectfully very sensitive about your profession, I did not, and quite deliberately, did not specify. The gut feeling is something is not right somewhere, and I'm at a loss from the years of this as to what is going on? Anyone is well within their right to express a concern and how it looks to them and the great unwashed. Naming names or direct accusation is different. As I said all along, I just don't know and it's not just about one aspect. Why is it so difficult for it all to be explained properly in a way that anyone can understand or be satisfied with? That's why I would like to see a holistic enquiry on the whole thing. I also used the word circumvented. Far worse is said locally, with far more detail and venom and ranges from plausible to outrageous. Just the truth in a clear and open timeline. What is wrong with that? |