Major problems with planning
PUBLISHED: 12:16 15 September 2006 | UPDATED: 19:48 01 June 2010
COULD you please confirm that the headline in August 25 edition of Fenland Eye Weekly - Stream Lining for Faster Planning was a printing error, because there is no such thing as faster planning. As a major user of the planning department I could not let
COULD you please confirm that the headline in August 25 edition of Fenland Eye Weekly - 'Stream Lining for Faster Planning' was a printing error, because there is no such thing as faster planning.
As a major user of the planning department I could not let the article pass without comment. It is become apparent that the planning department is getting worse and even slower due to the introduction of having to provide more and more information. The only fact the planning department is concerned
about is achieving targets not performance.
There are more applications being dealt with in the last few days of the eight-week period in order that the council meets
targets and hence poor
decisions are being given from the planning department.
I would be interested to know where the council believes that more and more developers are welcoming the pre-application protocol designed to save time and mone? This is totally
contrary to what all developers have been telling me, as the pre- application protocol is time consuming, costly and not in accordance with Government policy.
Government policy quotes that planning development should negotiate with agents, not ask for a design scheme up-front.
All this reflects on their open-for-business agenda which is clearly not the case at Fenland, as major developers are keeping away from the district owing to the problems which come out of the planning department in
The sooner the planning department and members involved realise there are major problems with the planning department, rather than patting themselves on the back for what they believe they are doing correctly, the better it will be for the local, economy, developers, builders and agents alike.
As it stands the obstacles are delaying inward investment and economic expansion which is contrary to Fenland policy. Unfortunately no one appears to accept this with Fenland District Council.
I don't think for one minute this letter will have any bearing with the planning department, but certainly it will make me feel better when your readers can see problems that are
factual within the council rather than what they believe to be doing well.
Peter Humphrey Associates