Inspector approves back garden development in Watford (From Watford Observer)

Once more a single chap overturns what many have considered in detail. How a series of such flats "represents a natural extention of the built environment" which presently consists of semis and terraced homes, completely defeats logic. The inspector must come from another planet. Shame.

So what exactly is the purpose of the council having a 'development control committee' when time and time again their decisions are over ruled by governments planning inspectors ?.
Seams to me they are a complete waste of time and taxpayers money.
Toothless tiger come to mind ?.

Jocky wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose of the council having a 'development control committee' when time and time again their decisions are over ruled by governments planning inspectors ?.
Seams to me they are a complete waste of time and taxpayers money.
Toothless tiger come to mind ?.

The purpose of the "development control committee" has been to set precedents all over Watford that make it inconceivable for there to be any legal basis to turn down similar developments.

The fact is that Downhill Dorothy has sold or leased off strips of Council owned land (in other words our land) to developers for just such monstrosities as this in her dash for cash.

The bottom line is that you can blame all of these monstrosities ultimately on the sorry bunch of Councillors who approved the first ones - everything from thereon in is simply all the other dominoes falling over.

Reap as ye shall sow

Jocky wrote:
So what exactly is the purpose of the council having a 'development control committee' when time and time again their decisions are over ruled by governments planning inspectors ?. Seams to me they are a complete waste of time and taxpayers money. Toothless tiger come to mind ?.

Depends how you look at things Jocky, I maintain what is wrong is that local democracy isn't permitted to function and an Inspector can overturn due consideration. Sadly it happens all too frequently, it is a known weakness of planning legislation. Demand a change from your MP I say.

It beggars belief the number of back gardens developements,mostly due to owners opting for greed not need. The problem we have in Watford is the number of applications granted by the local Council,that are totally inappropriate,so I suppose any developer feels confident when appealing against a refusal.

I've watched such stories with intrigue and firmly believe that the residents will object to flats being built not merely of their appearance but because it will "cheapen" the area in which they live. It is often easy to get local councillors to support such objections because they too have a vested interest in preserving the exclusivity of the area since they live there too! However were any of the objectors considering moving out of the area I wonder how many would refuse to sell their house to a developer on moral/ethical grounds regardless of price? I'd hazard a guess at not too many! Meanwhile the fact remains that there is a distinct lack of affordable housing in watford and a shortage of first time buyer properties. Maybe the council should take a more pro-active approach to solving these problems and then government inspectors wouldn't have to interfere. The problem needs to be addressed one way or another. Meanwhile the Council has its head in the sand and residents of the more wealthy areas are digging their heels in with a classic "not in my back yard" approach.

The Lib dems are always crying crocodile tears on these issues. What they won't admit of course is that due to all these extra developments in Watford Council Tax income has increased by about 20% on 2004 income - AND WE STILL PAY ONE OF THE HIGHEST COUNCIL TAXES IN THE COUNTRY - 40% more than everyone else in Hertfordshire - Making a mess of Watford? Nobody does it better than Downhill Dorothy.

even Borris in London is stopping garden developments
do you thing this Dorris can speak to Borris for some advice?

We can't have anymore developments in Watford please, it is so full and congested.

Can our MP not do anything about it?

Arthur wrote:
The Lib dems are always crying crocodile tears on these issues. What they won't admit of course is that due to all these extra developments in Watford Council Tax income has increased by about 20% on 2004 income - AND WE STILL PAY ONE OF THE HIGHEST COUNCIL TAXES IN THE COUNTRY - 40% more than everyone else in Hertfordshire - Making a mess of Watford? Nobody does it better than Downhill Dorothy.

Readers of these posts are well used to Arthur's single tune so no surprise here. He totally avoids the facts here that it was the council who said NO to the "eyesore" and the Inspector who will allow it. Follow the plot Art.

What an interesting selection of views from Arthur, Jocky, Bomber and Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells who appear to be well versed in the planning system in this country. I'm sorry to disappoint you all but the decisions the development control committee make have to be legal and sound not as they seem to think done on a whim !! I have offered in the past to show other misinformed people how the planning system works but I fear that this probably wouldn't be something that would interest them. Can I ask Arthur why he thinks that Watford BC has pocketted all the extra council tax from the extra dwellings that have been built. Sorry to have to tell you the council gets a fraction of extra money back because the government takes all of it and then gives the council back what it sees fit. The same goes for business rates. It is good to see that Disgusted of TW realises that the reason that things are built is because someone sells the land and is nothing to do with the council. As far as the generalisation put forward that the council allows anything to be built can I please pont you to the report that comes out every few months with a summary of planning appeals which sets out why appeals are allowed or dismissed. The fact is that WBC does refuse planning applications and more often than not does get an Inspector's backing. Mind you I don't think that this would do anything to stop Arthur, Jocky and Bomber's contrary views. Just one other thing for Arthur to respond to. You say that the Mayor has sold off or leased council owned land. Can you please tell me precisely where this land might be? I suggest you look back at the number of Herts County Council playing fields and closed down schools that have disappeared before you suggest that it's WBC's fault. As for blaming a 'sorry bunch of councillors' for all the developments, what would you rather do, go back to the bad old days 9 years ago when the council planning department was within a fraction of being taken over by a government department or improve out of all recognition as has happened since 2002. I'm sure that you wouldn't like to make that decision, would you.
Oh, one last thing. It would really be nice to know who the faces are behind the anonymous veils but I fear that that would be asking too much !!

alan burtenshaw wrote:
What an interesting selection of views from Arthur, Jocky, Bomber and Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells who appear to be well versed in the planning system in this country. I'm sorry to disappoint you all but the decisions the development control committee make have to be legal and sound not as they seem to think done on a whim !! I have offered in the past to show other misinformed people how the planning system works but I fear that this probably wouldn't be something that would interest them. Can I ask Arthur why he thinks that Watford BC has pocketted all the extra council tax from the extra dwellings that have been built. Sorry to have to tell you the council gets a fraction of extra money back because the government takes all of it and then gives the council back what it sees fit. The same goes for business rates. It is good to see that Disgusted of TW realises that the reason that things are built is because someone sells the land and is nothing to do with the council. As far as the generalisation put forward that the council allows anything to be built can I please pont you to the report that comes out every few months with a summary of planning appeals which sets out why appeals are allowed or dismissed. The fact is that WBC does refuse planning applications and more often than not does get an Inspector's backing. Mind you I don't think that this would do anything to stop Arthur, Jocky and Bomber's contrary views. Just one other thing for Arthur to respond to. You say that the Mayor has sold off or leased council owned land. Can you please tell me precisely where this land might be? I suggest you look back at the number of Herts County Council playing fields and closed down schools that have disappeared before you suggest that it's WBC's fault. As for blaming a 'sorry bunch of councillors' for all the developments, what would you rather do, go back to the bad old days 9 years ago when the council planning department was within a fraction of being taken over by a government department or improve out of all recognition as has happened since 2002. I'm sure that you wouldn't like to make that decision, would you. Oh, one last thing. It would really be nice to know who the faces are behind the anonymous veils but I fear that that would be asking too much !!

With all of this misleading waffle it is a wonder that any committee reaches any decisions.Please precis your next post!!

Just to help out "old bomber" in a few words, my understanding is that you are wrong on everything you've said. Precis OK?

Bomber,
Misleading waffle? I just thought that it was about time that you understood the real world. No doubt you can fill me in with the 'real' details!! My sincere apologies if a definitive version of what really goes on is too much for you to take in. Do you want to hear what really goes on or not and yes, we do come to decisions, real ones whether you like it or not.

Tudor247 wrote:
Just to help out "old bomber" in a few words, my understanding is that you are wrong on everything you've said. Precis OK?

Congratulations! A Lib Dem who understands the word "precis" The Labour Government's taxes were not wasted on education.

Bomber, how do you know that Tudor is a Lib Dem and that Tudor was educated during the time of a Labour government? Also I think you'll find that the money for education is mine and possibly also yours, not Labours but I can't be certain on your account. Go on, be a chum and tell me your real name I do so enjoy your shining wit !!

alan burtenshaw wrote:
Bomber, how do you know that Tudor is a Lib Dem and that Tudor was educated during the time of a Labour government? Also I think you'll find that the money for education is mine and possibly also yours, not Labours but I can't be certain on your account. Go on, be a chum and tell me your real name I do so enjoy your shining wit !!

Alf Garnet!!

Just checking you were still with us, bomber. By the way you're telling porkies, you're not Alf Garnett as you can't spell his name properly !!

Aw right,I'm not Alf Garnett,I'm Arthur Askey reincarnated!

So you are small, wear glasses, and are somewhat irritating then. Come on bomber do the decent thing and tell me who you really are, I won't tell anyone.

alan burtenshaw wrote:
So you are small, wear glasses, and are somewhat irritating then. Come on bomber do the decent thing and tell me who you really are, I won't tell anyone.

It's peculiar you being besotted with my name and yet letting us know who Mollie is. Are you shy? Or is Mollie a friend of the infamous Mark Oaten with similar interests?