|
|
 |
| |
Stop this anarchy at the heart of planning
• IS there any hope for democracy when officers take over our planning department and runs it as if they actually own Camden? (Unelected and unaccountable, Jan 4).
Meanwhile, Camden taxpayers pay for officials who then turn around and apparently make their cosy arrangements that suit businessmen.
In some cases (eg Talacre), they even give away land for half a pocket of change (They’re giving the family silver away, Jan 4).
What recourse do we have, except perhaps write to the CNJ and to moan? Could we perhaps stop paying out council tax until our new council agrees to have a full enquiry into the behaviour and work of Town Hall officials who have been responsible not only for the King’s Cross scheme, but also the Dalby Street affair.
SALLY JACKSON
Templewood Avenue, NW3
• THE dismay that my family and I feel about the statement made by former environment director Peter Bishop to the Standards Board is total (Unelected and unaccountable, Jan 4).
So, according to Mr Bishop, our elected councillors should not question advice given by planning officials.
Is this why our own situation in Talacre has been so hopeless? A half-baked seven-storey scheme has been granted planning permission in 2006 despite numerous valid local objections.
As a result, our precious amenities are under threat by the developers of this inept project.
This is an insane situation. The only hope residents have to save Talacre Gardens and their sports centre is that the Lib Dems show resolve.They could and should prevent a disaster at Dalby Street by demanding that the developers abide by the law and produce a traffic management plan.
They should either reject a defective scheme or alternatively go for the full public confidence in the planning system.
JEANNINE T ROBICHAUD
Talacre Road, NW5
q I noted with surprise that Roger Madelin, the chief executive of the company responsible for the King’s Cross development, has received a CBE for services to “sustainable development”.
Perhaps now he’ll be shamed into making a proper commitment to renewable energy in the development?
Maybe he’d also think about cutting the number of car spaces for housing at the location best served by public transport in the whole of the UK?
NATALIE BENNETT
Camden Green Party
Regent’s Park
• I WAS shocked to read in your recent article on Brian Woodrow that some council officers consider “that elected councillors should not question advice provided by Town hall officers”. (Lawyers warned £2bn project delay would be emberrassing, Jan 4).
Surely councillors are voted onto the council to represent the residents.
The decision made to approve the outline plan for King’s Cross was reportedly based on ‘planning gain’.
According to Camden’s Planning Guidance 2006 such ‘planning obligations’ are applied when otherwise the application might not be acceptable.
JEAN L STONE
Wordsworth Place, NW5
• I STUDY architecture and I have been following the extraordinary recent planning events in Camden. These range from the mega King’s Cross project to the modest, but nevertheless socially important DalbyStreet/ Talacre scheme.
Reading your report (Lawyers warned £2bn project delay would be embarrassing, Jan 4) I am appalled at the anarchic way Town Hall officials have been running planning in Camden.
My greatest sympathy is with Councillor Brian Woodrow, who, by all accounts, seemed to have been the only truly conscientious elected member on the planning committee.
Mr Bishop’s statement that “councillors should not question advice provided by Town Hall officials” explains a lot.
I think what is being revealed about the inside dealings within the Town Hall planning department is a total disgrace and I hope tthe King’s Cross and the Talacre schemes will either be the subject of a full judicial review or planning inquiry.
JOHN ANDERSON
Bruntsfield, Edinburgh
• ON READING correspondence about the Dalby Street and Talacre Open Space “give away,” I find myself wondering what kind of society would ignore the concerns of residents in order to benefit private developers (They’re giving the family silver away, Jan 4).
Surely this is not a Third World country where such practices are commonplace. Yet deals such as the recent sale of 52 Prince of Wales Road which involved multi-million pounds and an overseas company which is set up in the British Virgin Island, can only add to the unease local residents feel about the Dalby Street affair.
Why should any part of the Talacre Open Space be passed on to any other party for any amount of money, let alone a token fee which everyone now realises is the “give away” price the Dalby Street developers will have to pay?
This amounts to a gift by unelected officials to private developers.
The revelations contained in your article (Lawyers warned £2bn project delay would be embarrassing, Jan 4) should outrage any right-minded person.
It explains clearly why our local councillors seemed to have been prevented from opposing such a give away.
Hopefully, the new leaders in the Town Hall will now assert their authority over their officials and remind them that they are unelected employees paid by the taxpayers of Camden to serve the community and protect its interests first and foremost.
RAOUL FINDLEY
Leighton Grove, NW5
• STRANGE matters reported in your piece about Brian Woodrow last week.
Firstly, are city solicitors really paid to give political advice to politicians?
And, if so, how much? Out of which funds? And even if they get it wrong?
It wouldn’t be taking time necessary to get the decision right that would be politically embarrassing as reportedly suggested by the lawyers, but being bounced into getting it rushed and wrong.
And surely a wise man such as Peter Bishop must be misreported saying that councillors should not question the advice of officers. What else is the planning committee for but to double-check the officers’ recommendations?
ADRIAN BETHAM
North Road
N6
|
 |
|
|
|
