THE programme to cover both this region's green-belt land and other vast swathes of prime green field sites with concrete and housing is fuelled not so much by the urgent necessity for new homes as by the fact that local authorities are not obligated to worry unduly about the views of you or me.
And when developers and a group of councillors within a local authority share a mutual interest, what the ordinary person thinks counts for virtually nothing. Local people who have the temerity to stand-up against developers must do so at their own risk and expense.
First of all, allow me to dispel the myth that green-belt legislation will protect you against either an urban capacity or structure plan, it won't.
Secondly, that the British planning system is democratic. It isn't.
Thirdly, can you, along with other local citizens, appeal against a planning decision? No you cannot. But of course a developer can, especially when they have valuable green field building land in their sights. Over and over again. What's more, they can afford the best lawyers.
If Swindon Borough Council should oppose a developer in the Appeal Courts and lose, it is liable for the costs of the case which can be very considerable.
If a decision is made to build on Coate land, it will be because it is money talking.
Allow me to elucidate; developers are perfectly well entitled by the planning process to offer inducements, or financial benefits usually in the form of leisure facilities or some community trust. One doesn't need to be conversant on loop-quantum or strong theory to know or have a fair idea of what the eventual outcome will be in this present situation, especially when you have a cash-strapped local authority.
But the true culprit is the association between this Government and development corporations, property and building companies, supermarkets etc. The Government's overhaul of the planning system, intended to ease the burden on business, has resulted in as Martha Cornwall reported in The Times on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 as a charter for developers.
As she wrote: "To have much chance of succeeding, individuals have to object before the developer even applies for permission."
As for us here in Swindon, it is simply (or not so simply) a matter of sufficient people being animated enough to care about such matters.
Otherwise we get what we deserve, and be treated like mushrooms kept in the dark.
JOHN P HUNTER
Kerry Close
Shaw
THE programme to cover both this region's green-belt land and other vast swathes of prime green field sites with concrete and housing is fuelled not so much by the urgent necessity for new homes as by the fact that local authorities are not obligated to worry unduly about the views of you or me.
And when developers and a group of councillors within a local authority share a mutual interest, what the ordinary person thinks counts for virtually nothing. Local people who have the temerity to stand-up against developers must do so at their own risk and expense.
First of all, allow me to dispel the myth that green-belt legislation will protect you against either an urban capacity or structure plan, it won't.
Secondly, that the British planning system is democratic. It isn't.
Thirdly, can you, along with other local citizens, appeal against a planning decision? No you cannot. But of course a developer can, especially when they have valuable green field building land in their sights. Over and over again. What's more, they can afford the best lawyers.
If Swindon Borough Council should oppose a developer in the Appeal Courts and lose, it is liable for the costs of the case which can be very considerable.
If a decision is made to build on Coate land, it will be because it is money talking.
Allow me to elucidate; developers are perfectly well entitled by the planning process to offer inducements, or financial benefits usually in the form of leisure facilities or some community trust. One doesn't need to be conversant on loop-quantum or strong theory to know or have a fair idea of what the eventual outcome will be in this present situation, especially when you have a cash-strapped local authority.
But the true culprit is the association between this Government and development corporations, property and building companies, supermarkets etc. The Government's overhaul of the planning system, intended to ease the burden on business, has resulted in as Martha Cornwall reported in The Times on Wednesday, November 21, 2001 as a charter for developers.
As she wrote: "To have much chance of succeeding, individuals have to object before the developer even applies for permission."
As for us here in Swindon, it is simply (or not so simply) a matter of sufficient people being animated enough to care about such matters.
Otherwise we get what we deserve, and be treated like mushrooms kept in the dark.
JOHN P HUNTER
Shaw
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article