LOSE ANOTHER DAY ?

Reference my recent post about the planning application to build 250 houses on some farmland hereabouts, last night saw the application debated at length by the local area Planning Committee of elected councillors.  There had been hundreds of objections to the scheme from local residents, myself included, and to be fair to our elected representatives the majority of them spoke against the application and at the end of a lengthy debate the application was turned down by fourteen votes to four.

Sounds good?  Well, the Council`s Planning Officer advised the Committee that in fact the application must now stand deferred for the Council to consider the cost implications of fighting any appeal which the developers will doubtless pursue;  so effectively we don`t have a definitive decision as such, rather we have yet another delay before the matter is finally resolved.  The Planning Officer was pretty clear in defending his recommendation that the application should be approved, albeit with loads of conditions attached, and he confirmed that in his opinion the reasons put forward by the Committee to refuse the application were not likely to be upheld at an appeal. 

I can see this saga going on for a while - but what irks me is the notion that, despite the wishes of the majority of local residents, despite the recommendation of the Planning Officer to grant conditional approval being overturned; and despite the considered democratic `decision` of the Planning Committee last night, we might after all have a pyrrhic victory on our hands.  But rather than worry about cost implications perhaps the Planning people should be asked to go away and use the deferment to come up with reasons to refuse the application which could be sustained at an appeal.

Any appeal will of course be held by a Planning Inspector appointed by HM Gov. for the purpose, so the outcome will probably be determined well away from the local anxiety the application is causing and, given the preponderance of the gobbledegook that seems to inhabit the mystical world of planning, the chances are that the planners will have their way in the end.

So, we might have won the battle last evening only to lose another day.....and here`s me thinking that you can`t put a price on considered, thought through, local democratic `decisions.`  At my age, I should know better.

 A TOUCH OF HYPOCRISY ?

I shouldn`t be telling you this but in a long and varied career I have been involved in all manner of things.   One of the most bizarre was when, having completed my National Service back in 1962 and looking for a job, I spent a couple of years working in what was then the Office of the County Clerk of Kent County Council.  I was drafted into the section that involved attending Planning Committee meetings across the county and issuing decisions on planning applications. 

Often those decision notices were accompanied by covering letters which I would dictate to a comely typist, whereupon the copy underneath the one to be sent would be initialled by at least two more senior administrators before the rubber stamp of the county clerk, (one GT Heckels) would be firmly placed before dispatch to the recipient.

A bit of a change from two years in the army being fine tuned and honed into a lethal killing machine ready to defend western democracy from the communist hordes, so unsurprising that, after a while I left the hallowed corridors of Kent`s County Hall `to pursue other opportunities.`

But at least that time spent at the sharp end of local government bureaucracy gave me an insight into the mystical world of town and country planning.  I picked up some useful words and phrases which were much used in the planning world in those days, especially those concerned with reasons to refuse a planning application.  "Undesirable ribbon development."  "Over intensive use of the site."  "Insufficient planting for decorative or screening purposes."  "The fenestration is considered too pedestrian."  And so on.  Which reminds me of the probably unfair assertion that "When the time taken to conceive, plan,  get approval for and construct a new building exceeds the useful life of the building in question, then at that point people emigrate."

So, why am I telling you all this?   Well, I face a bit of a dilemma.  There is a planning application on a chunk of farmland adjacent to our peaceful Kentish village to build 250 new houses, along with the ancillary `services` and this has given rise to a good deal of anguish for local villagers who see the farmland disappearing under a sea of concrete, denying them the bit of countryside which they value along with the public footpaths that cross it and provide extensive views to the North Downs.

My dilemma has been whether to join them in their disapproval of this `urbanisation` on their doorstep.   We have lived where we are for over 40 years now on a `development` that was previously farmland and I`m sure that all those years ago the locals at the time were not too chuffed about building the houses we now live in.   So I suspect it might be a touch hypocritical of me to complain about this current application to build houses on that farmland, especially as there is a shortage of housing in the area anyway - despite the rumour that the housing shortage is put about by people with nowhere to live.

On the other hand, I`m not too chuffed about it, so I have put my name to a petition to try and stop the `development` going ahead, mainly because it will be an over intensive use of the site, provide insufficient planting for decorative or screening purposes; and anyway I think the fenestration is far too pedestrian.  Watch this space.......