A resident writes to the Dame commenting on the 'Call For Sites from the Planning Dept.
Have Forward Planning not heard of Plain English?
A resident comments...
"Residents cannot possibly get their heads around all of this technical stuff being generated, in huge volumes, by ivory tower teams in Hornton Street.
And the depth of cynicism removes the last chance of any motivation by residents to try and study the stuff and make a response.
The perception is that it is a total waste of time or worse - a charade to cover the undeclared intentions of a few planners and councillors."
The whole process needs to be simplified. A few simple words, common sense, and driven by a clear understanding from Ward Councillors of what their residents want.
This is the failure - a political system that is not connected up, and thus cannot articulate
Local Plan Partial Review (LPPR) Issues and Options Consultation
Regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
The Council is starting a Partial Review of the existing Consolidated Local Plan 2015.
There are a number of topics that are being reviewed as part of the LPPR including the vision and strategic objectives, ‘places’, site allocations, infrastructure and planning contributions, shops and centres, business uses and hotels, arts and cultural uses, rail infrastructure, housing, Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, housing standards, flooding, drainage and waste.
As part of the LPPR, the Council is proposing to allocate new sites for development and is undertaking a ‘Call for Sites’ to allow respondents to put forward sites for new development which may have the potential to contribute towards the Borough’s future needs for different land uses up to the end of the Local Plan ‘plan period’ (2028).
This Issues and Options consultation is the first stage in the LPPR and corresponds with Regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
The Council very much welcomes your views on the Issues and Options but these are not exhaustive and you can put forward other issues and options for consideration by the Council.
How to respond to this consultation
My ancestors taught me how to see clearly in the dark and, if required, from a great distance. This latest "Local Plan Partial Review" is impossible to fathom. It is one of the most insulting attempts to pretend to engage residents in a consultation.
ReplyDeleteIt is gobbledy gook. Even to Owl.
The Royal Borough has turned "consultation" into one of the biggest job creation programmes in the European Union. Scribble in the Hornton Street Ivory Tower. Nonsense from Officers for Officers.
DeleteNot a single resident can understand what they are on about and not a single councillor has the intelligence or time to even begin to understand the nonsense and discuss with residents.
It is a farce. We could ignore it were it not for the fact council tax payers are funding it.
Wake up Paget- Brown. Give a lead. Here are the rules of consultation
(i) KISS (keep it simple stupid)
(ii)concentrate on what residents are sensitive about
(iii) make the Ward Councillors accountable
The blurb is asking for a "call for sites".
ReplyDeleteAs a local resident, I have noticed that half of Hornton Street has been turned into offices for rent but they have remained empty for the last twelve months. Council jobs have moved over to Hammersmith, council tax has been used to convert the Town Hall to offices for rent, but of course local Governmanet does have the first clue how to configure and market commercial space.
Any resident can stroll down Campden Hill and inspect the empty offices and inspect the signs outside advertising space. More evidence of the "Chelsea Care" disease in Hornton Street.
My recommendation is that the premier brownfield site in the Royal Borough should be the Town Hall. Raise it to the ground and sell to highest bidder. Council tax payers can then go on a five year tax holiday.
The clowns say they are consulting. Well here is a powerful response. Cllr Paget-Brown take note.
The idea of creating a brown field site from the Town Hall is an excellent suggestion. Rather than auction to the highest bidder, it would be a much better idea to use the land for low cost housing (rental) for teachers, nurses, policemen and firemen working in the Royal Borough.
DeleteYes with Nick Paget-Brown, Tim Coleridge and Cllr. Simmonds in it !!!!!
DeleteIf we all withehld our ccouncil tax this they would sit up and notice. If residents are not satisfied with the councils actions they are within their rights as they are not fulfilling what they promise to do.
ReplyDeleteTime for Paget Brown to stand down he is always on the wrong side of the argument. Time for every ward to set up and support independent candidates to rid us of these blood suckers.
What humbug this is. Pure humbug.
ReplyDeleteDo the Officers imagine for one moment that residents who are busy working hard to pay the council tax and the mortgage will ever have the time to read all of this rubbish and try to understand it??????????
What world do these twerps live in?
These giant tomes of nonsense are camouflage for the decisions already taken to do whatever the Officers and Councillors on the take have decided they want to do.
DeleteAt the appropriate time they will stand up and chirp "we have consulted". "This is the way forward".
Then there will be another consultation to tell the muppets what has been decided.
Pass the sick bag DAme.
I wonder if Mr Paget-Brown reads and understands all of this stuff?
ReplyDeleteI once asked the Planning councillors if they had read the Nottinghill Gate plan. All 900 pages of it. Not a single one had done so. But the same councillors took major and far reaching decisions about redevelopment based on the advice of Officers. Who wrote the plan that no one read and (I suspect) no one could have understood.
DeleteIt is worse than a secret society running the Borough
This is a common situation when bureaucracy goes mad and gets out of control. Whenever I tried to tackle this evil by consultation and argument I usually found that persuasive arguments were brought forward to hire even more bureaucrats.
DeleteInvariably the solution was to cut the staff numbers by 50%. And then a further 50% after one year. And then make an assessment of whether the quality of decision making had been adversely affected. Usually it was not. It improved.
Comments like this are fundamentally unsound.
Delete'Comments like this are fundamentally unsound'
DeleteSounds like you are talking out of your fundament!