Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Queen Mary's Gate and Churchfields School
David Butterworth
#1 Posted : 18 July 2008 11:12:57(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 18/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5
This point is too late to raise, but I think it is worth mentioning away.

How come the Council was so weak that it didn't make Queen Mary's Gate builders Telford Homes, contribute to the rebuilding of Churchfields Junior school?

Work could have been easily done with access from that side.

Telford are building how many flats within the school catchment area, I believe it started out at somewhere around 400 and has been enlarged at least twice. Yes the flats are probably for young professionals but even they have kids eventually.

In general it seems to me the council just 'rolls over' when it comes to planning permissions for flats in the Churchfields area and just can't get it's act together on facilities.

I believe Redbridge just doesn't have our best interests to heart in this case.
cllrcleaver
#2 Posted : 19 July 2008 00:25:50(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/04/2007(UTC)
Posts: 66
There was a long argument on just this issue at the time that the planning permission was sought.

Many of us felt that the developers should be making a significant extra contribution to local education facilitieis in view of the pressure their development would put on local schools, particularly Churchfields. Unfortunately the Council undermined its own case because:

1. Its formula for funding assumed only a small number of children would be coming from one and two bedroom flats (I think that formula has subsequently been revised)

2. The Education officers said there were spare places in "local" schools such as Ray Lodge, Oakdale and Nightingale.

This allowed the developers to make a mimimal contribution through the Section 106 system for funding local infrastructure. All through the process the approach of the developers seems to have been to maximise their return from the development and minimise their contribution to the local community and many of us feel that the planning system has really let down the local area and residents.
thomasg
#3 Posted : 28 July 2008 07:25:51(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 27/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 31
Why did they even get planning permission?
We have enough "stylish apartments", can`t you do something about this?
And get developers maybe to build some town houses?
cllrcleaver
#4 Posted : 29 July 2008 14:39:08(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/04/2007(UTC)
Posts: 66
thomasg wrote:
Why did they even get planning permission?
We have enough "stylish apartments", can`t you do something about this?
And get developers maybe to build some town houses?


I'm afraid that isn't the way the system works. The legal position is that the Council can set out the framework in which it expects developers to work. This can be challenged, and often is, if it is seen as too onerous by developers, and the policy is then reviewed by a Government Inspector who will then determine how the policy should be worded. Basically the planning system is intended to allow people to do what they like with their property and the role of the Council is almost entirely reactive - it can only agree or refuse an application made to it to develop land. It can only refuse permission if it considers that the application is contrary to its local policies set out in the planning framework. Even then the developer can appeal against the Council's decision to the Planning Inspectorate, which is set up by the Government, and the Inspector's decision is final.

Redbridge's planning Regulatory Committee did originally refuse permission for the current development. A legal opinion was then sought, however, on the grounds on which the decision was taken and this opinion was that the Council would be unlikely to win if an appeal was made against its decision. This put the Councillors in an impossible position - if they continued to refuse permission and the Council lost an appeal, it could have costs awarded against it and a case could be made that the Councillors would be personally liable for the costs (potentially running into many thousands of pounds) for ignoring the advice given to them.

The developers then resubmitted their original proposal and this time the Regulatory Committee gave permission for the development to go ahead.

The result is what you see now and I think it highlights how weak the planning system is in providing what the community wants compared with what the developer wants, but that is more an argument for Parliament.
annesevant
#5 Posted : 29 July 2008 17:50:43(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
When I read this explanation of the problems faced by the council as far as planning applications are concerned, my heart sinks.
Cllr Cleaver uses the work 'weak' I would say 'dire'.
Thank you to Cllr Cleaver and thank you to the new 'kid on the block', thomasg, who will, no doubt, be shocked.
He is probably too young to go into politics but, if he does not lose his spirit, maybe, one day, things will be better.
annesevant
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

All areas