BBC Television programmes  permalink

The Planners

Messages: 61 - 18 of 78
  • Message 61. 

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Smilie Minogue (U8747614) on Saturday, 9th March 2013

    Good post Caissier. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 62

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) ** on Sunday, 10th March 2013

    Too long.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 63

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) ** on Sunday, 10th March 2013

    Suit y'self .... smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 64

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Portly (U1381981) ** on Sunday, 10th March 2013

    smiley - biggrin

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 65

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Onslow The Cat (U13672446) on Sunday, 10th March 2013

    It is common knowledge in my area that corruption is common. 

    Really, so why hasn't anybody reported these people to the Police or relevant Council TS dept?

    I find this series interesting because most of the planners (both paid by the Council and the unpaid Council elected committee) are obviously *not* doing anybody favours.

    Indeed the large listed building which had a planning application rejected to convert it into flats was a total mystery to me. Who wants a derelict building next door?

    smiley - blackcat

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 66

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) ** on Sunday, 10th March 2013

    It is common knowledge in my area that corruption is common. 

    Really, so why hasn't anybody reported these people to the Police or relevant Council TS dept?
     


    That is a very good question.

    The 2008 crisis did, nevertheless, at least save us from some monstrosities when it looked as though nothing else would,

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 67

    , in reply to this message.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 68

    , in reply to this message.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 69

    , in reply to this message.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 70

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) ** on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    Maybe, but it won't make for a very watchable series when all opposition to every building developments is always defeated and the penny drops that it could easily happen to you.

    I'm not sure the BBC would allow the reality of the situation to become apparent though, as that would be 'political' and too controversial..

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 71

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by angelictennisfan (U8898769) on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    I've enjoyed this series, mainly because I used to work for a Borough Secretary who dealt with the "legal" side of planning (planning inquiries etc.). I also used to type up the Development Control minutes as well. I used to raise my eyebrows at some of the decisions made (good and bad).

    I really felt for the tenant farmer last night. I hope that he has managed to find another farm. He's lost his home, his livelihood and his animals due to the greed of the County Council.

    I really could not stand that Chester female Councillor (the one who was boasting about being Mayor). She seemed to have a heart of stone. A nasty piece of work.

    I often feel that both planning officers and Councillors are more than happy to agree contentious applications when they probably live nowhere near the site in question. One of the Chester Councillors had a covenant put on the land in front of his house so that nothing can be built on it for a good few years. He's all right Jack.

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 72

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by MsA (U14389417) on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    Post 51 and 52

    It would be up to the elected Councillors, not the Planning Officer, to propose a vote of no confidence.

    It is the duty of Council officers to sometimes stand up and say things - even if a Committee does not like it - for example a course of action might be ultra vires ie illegal, or it mght lead to consequences that the Committee may have overlooked. It can be Council practice that the Committee minutes record decisions that were taken against the recommendations of Planning Officers. 
    As someone who practises in land and planning law I agree with what you say. But sadly it is also the case that planning officers and Planning Apps Committees do not adhere to Planning Law. They are essentially pragamatists who increasingly allow themselves to be swayed by the threat of an appeal by an applicant who is refused permsission. As a result, local planning authorities aren't even adhering to their own Unitary Development Plans! And the new deregulation of the whole process by this Goverment will make matter far worse.

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 73

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by brora (U14803827) on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    I too felt sorry for the tenant farmer and since the Council stand to make around £50m from the sale of the land the least they could do was help him with finding other suitable land since he had been there so long.

    I had to laugh at the owners of the property in Portobello, Edinburgh (especially the twins) - they were going on and on about the building being in a conservation area (first I knew and I have lived in Edinburgh all my life) but it was a new build sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of all the original tenaments. I could not understand why the building got past the planners in the first place and felt sorry for the cafe owners trying to expand their business where I know there are lots of closed shops.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 74

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    One could be forgiven for not realising Edinburgh has many conservation zones given some of the terrible building that have been put in in the past few decades... but then, that just goes to show you our council has a long and proud tradition of (at best) incompetence.

    Just don't mention the trams!

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 75

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) ** on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    I too felt sorry for the tenant farmer and since the Council stand to make around £50m from the sale of the land the least they could do was help him with finding other suitable land since he had been there so long.

    I had to laugh at the owners of the property in Portobello, Edinburgh (especially the twins) - they were going on and on about the building being in a conservation area (first I knew and I have lived in Edinburgh all my life) but it was a new build sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of all the original tenaments. I could not understand why the building got past the planners in the first place and felt sorry for the cafe owners trying to expand their business where I know there are lots of closed shops.  
    Yes, that was a horrible building. The problem was how to get the smell from the ground floor away. There might have been a solution, camouflaging the ducting somehow ...... The sisters cheerful satisfaction was not nice to see; the café owners were just trying to make a success of their business - I'd have supported them.

    While I'm usually on the side of the objectors, there is an unfortunate tendency for people to blindly object to anything whatever for the sake of it. If there is a problem scratch your heads until a solution everybody is happy with can be found. It's too much black and white, cut and dried, yes or no.

    Felt very sorry for the farmer - a decent bloke lacking in self-pity. Green space is taken for granted ..... it is good for everybody's health. It is annoying how architects will cynically offer up a tiny bit of greenspace as a way of easing the thing through. Couldn't they have just developed a small part of the land in an imaginative way, minimising disruption?

    Would that be too difficult? (Yes.)

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 76

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by caissier (U14073060) ** on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    Very good companion programme last night on 4 ..... Heritage:The Battle for Britain's Past .......

    www.bbc.co.uk/iplaye...

    ........ heartbreaking to see the losses but a blow for encouraging appreciation of what is still surviving. You don't know what you've got till it's gone ...... and (give or take) architects don't know how to build beautiful buildings any more.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 77

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by brora (U14803827) on Friday, 22nd March 2013


    The Trams smiley - steam

    The same council which turned down two pipes going up a new building have just agreed for 3,500 new homes to be built in the west of Edinburgh on prime green belt land (2,000 next to the tram depot) to enable them to say the trams are a success!!! If one thing unites the good folk of Edinburgh no matter where they live or who they vote for it is the tram fiasco which nobody wanted in the first place and just replaces a fantastic airport bus service.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 78

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Friday, 22nd March 2013

    If you're ever tired of yourself think (and are feeling flush) just jump in a taxi and say the t word... I promise you, such a tirade will ensue that you shall banish conscious thought more effectively than a meditating monk.

    As to the programme... I notice that the "new age" windfarm tycoon spoke unironically about an energy crisis - which he implied was down to them changing planning laws to be less wind turbine friendly...

    Sigh.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.