The snails pace of the planning system...

Keep posting, Jantra! I may not always agree with your views but I'll fight to ensure freedom of speech!

Je ne suis pas Jantra, et Dieu merci!

Keep posting, Jantra! I may not always agree with your views but I'll fight to ensure freedom of speech!

Je ne suis pas Jantra, et Dieu merci!

Poor taste.

Looks like the case officer had genuine concerns about the application, it is important to get it right on such a big development!

The St Eds application was 'called in' by the Welsh Government after the Council had granted permission at Planning Committee due to the issue of developing on 'Best/Most Versatile Agricultural Land.'

Unfortunately big/complex application decisions take time, not much can be done about that really - although the planning system is currently being revised yet again by Welsh Government, whether this will make any difference will be seen a few years down the line.

Not true. London was a city of 1m people with beautiful parks and wide thoroughfares way before the state created the planning system. The state should be there to provide an overarching framework and it should have the ability to do that quickly.

If it can't do it quickly then it clearly fails the needs of the people - certainly those who are crying out for houses to be built. It seems that the state and planning system in particular are no longer fit for 21st century purpose.

Although it is true that the planning system can be frustratingly, nauseatingly slow, MattW is correct that big and complex applications understandably take time. Jantra's comment about London having 1m people, beautiful parks and wide thoroughfares without the need for a planning system is, if not intended to be facetious, perverse. How many of those 1m people living in London in the early 1800s lived in complete and abject poverty? One of the reasons for a planning system in the first place was to improve the quality of life in urban areas characterised by substandard housing, poor health and overcrowding in slums or slum-like conditions.

how many of the people living in Cardiff today live in abject poverty? When I said London I was referring to the West End and the glorious Georgian and Victorian houses that still stand today and will be still standing long after the dross that is served up today has been pulled down. All built without planning, building control and H&S as well.

I think you miss the point - the planning system is very slow and takes an age. People need houses and the system should be geared towards making sure those houses are given priority and built as soon as possible. The responsibility of the state and the planning system should begin and end with master planning and infrastructure development. Outside of the core principles laid down in the LDP what else does the state need to say about development? Why can't the developers just get on and build what has been set out in the plan? Why does the public sector have to micro manage every little aspect? it wouldn't be so bad but the public sector don't really do things quickly and don't seem to be able to adapt to situations they've not encountered before

Anyone who has their own home should also be prohibited from complaining about new housing unless of course they are prepared to give up their own home and exchange places with a family unit that is homeless. It is easy to say we need to protect mushrooms and newts when you have your own home, I'd rather place emphasis on people than animals.

I initially started this thread and want to come back on a few points.

I really do think things are too slow - with slow initial processes, appeals, judicial reviews etc etc. The legal system is abused by those who lose the argument, who can often (but not always) find some process technicality to hold things up, sometimes undermining the business case for development. Look at Pontypridd where there has been scheme after scheme, which gets held up - and the town is now dying with a huge 'wound' where a 'new' shopping centre could have been built as far back as the late 1980s!! (and certainly the mid-late 90s).

But, Jantra, you do get carried away with your anti-state rants. I wasn't calling for the end of planning, just for it to be sped up. And the slightly silly comment you made about London got called. Accept it. You are correct that some good developments got built in the pre-planning system. But they tend to be three kinds of developments:
1) Developments for the upper and upper middle classes, often by large landholders;
2) Small scale developments built in charitable schemes (like houses for 'paupers' or 'widows' as you get in some parts of London).
3) Larger scale developments built by large employers for their employees. Meant better quality homes, but tied the employees to the employer, reducing mobility and bargaining power.

On the other hand, the rest of the unregulated sector built the slums on the East End, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Merthyr etc. Open sewers; overcrowding; poor building materials and safety standards. We often think they "built things to last" in the past just because all the cr*p has already been torn down!

Building regs, and planning do serve a purpose - an important one in an unequal society. But the processes need to be sped up, and made more resistent to the kind of naked self-interested opposition to new housing that bothers you and me.

I got called? I made it clear I was referring to the west end. The developments are still standing. Why do you think i would refer to the slums of Eastcheap down to Whitechapel?

Anyway it's moot. The point is the state should be there to serve the needs of the people and quite often - planning being a perfect example - it fails in that remit. I am well aware of the need for planning and building control - to name but two - but the system is too inflexible that officers aren't allowed to use common sense when applying the law.

A recent example was my removal of a windows and the insert of a french door. Why was it ever thought that the state would need to be involved in that particular process? It took 18 months to gain planning permission. Now I'm pretty sure that when town planners went in to their chosen profession they were looking forward to developing masterplans for whole new city districts and didn't ever consider they would be required to approve/disapprove the local accountants home improvements. There should be a test based on the impact to society and whether planning and building control are required and to what extent that requirement is, rather than the catch all system we have now.

Jantra, you got called up because the flippant remark you made - "Not true. London was a city of 1m people with beautiful parks and wide thoroughfares way before the state created the planning system" - was shown to be rather silly.

Parts of London had beautiful parks and thoroughfares - rich parts. But large swathes where far more people lived were as bad as the slums of the third world - with cholera and crime rampant, few amenities, poor building standards, and little open space. Clearly good development can occur that isn't subject to state planning regimes. But noone has ever said that isn't the case (are you trying to create a 'straw man'?). Of course its possible for high quality purely private development to take place. The point at stake was whether there is a role for planning to prevent the other times when purely private developments are poor quality - and London in 1800 actually shows that there is, as there was far more "bad" unregulated development than "good" ones.

Its slightly frustrating because I often agree with you on specifics - the rigidity and slowness of parts of the system, and its application to small things that should be allowed as 'permitted development'. But in recent months you've made increasingly silly arguments that have quite a lot of holes in them - and that is quite different to the Jantra of a few years ago, who did have strong views and arguments, but seemingly more nuanced and robust ones.

I really don't see what the 'West End' has got to do with anything. There are plenty of examples of Georgian and Victorian properties throughout Cardiff that still remain, and similarly there are plenty of areas of London which have suffered from poor developments. There would certainly be a lot more mediocre development if there was no control. (*enter all examples of bad developments in Cardiff now (Welsh Government references optional)).

Half the reason for the development 'control' side of planning is simply because this country is too small for the simplistic vast land use/masterplanning that we see in other countries and whilst there's red tape that could be cut, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would wish to retain a more local level of control - concerning the detailed design of new buildings, the conservation of historic buildings and particularly the impacts of new development on neighbours. Your overall masterplanning vision wouldn't take into account the individual circumstances of particular sites/proposals and the varying impacts of such developments, likely to result in a wholly profit driven series of developments with little public benefit.

Having experience of both the public and private development sector in London (and Wales) I can assure you that if there was no planning system to control the amount of development currently proposed/being constructed, there would be no provision whatsoever for affordable housing, no minimum space standards, no requirement for private garden space, adequate natural lighting to rooms, no protection of historic buildings/landscapes and little respect for existing neighbouring properties/residents, no negotiation to improve on proposed developments, even if they are acceptable in principle.

I was wondering when the French doors story would re-emerge, and here we are. I agree (without knowing the circumstances) that that kind of control should be (and usually is) permitted development. As for building control, I'm very much comfortable with that continuing.

Cambo

I've made it clear I was referring to London meaning the west end - the Georgia townhouses and so on. I'm not going to use the slums of London docklands as a shining light of unplanned development As it would be foolish to do so.

The point ment being made is that you don't need a tightly regulated market to promote quality. As far as I know, the car industry isn't regulated anywhere near as much as the housing market yet it's the second biggest purchase most of us will make. Despite this lack of regulation we still see excellent quality and workmanship right the way through the price spectrum. Just because slums were erected in the past doesn't means that if left unregulated the house builders would do so again. Society has changed considerably and expectations are now much higher.

It's not so much the intervention and regulation, it's the micro management of economic activity that frustrates. In 15 years or so the uk will build 200 miles of HS2. In six years the chinese build 1200 miles. We are at risk of being left behind due to petty bureaucracy and an inability to flex and bend depending on the individual circumstance.

@reddragon
The point regarding the Georgian townhouses was that almost all of the west end was built before planning and building control came into being yet we don't see these areas as being anything other than the finest addresses in the uk.