'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Even putting them in the ground annoys people. Therefore, they are looking at sea cables, but that is even more expensive.

pangolin

There are some of these new ones near us, I think they look pretty cool

https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-energise-worlds-first-t-pylons

pangolin

Although reading that, it does not sound like having new ones nearby is a common thing for most of you.

rjsterry

pangolin said:

Although reading that, it does not sound like having new ones nearby is a common thing for most of you.

Grew up with them in the field behind me and now live a few streets away from some more. New ones are pretty rare.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Talking of pylons, I still can't make my mind up about the new-fangled ones that cross the flat land to the south of the Mendips near the M5. I rather like the old Meccano ones.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Talking of pylons, I still can't make my mind up about the new-fangled ones that cross the flat land to the south of the Mendips near the M5. I rather like the old Meccano ones.

The only ones I've seen are white, which potentially makes them more obtrusive than grey meccano ones. But mainly they are just new. People filter out the old ones because they are so familiar.

pangolin

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Talking of pylons, I still can't make my mind up about the new-fangled ones that cross the flat land to the south of the Mendips near the M5. I rather like the old Meccano ones.

I like them, and managed to briefly convince someone they were a big chair lift from Portishead up into the hills.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Talking of pylons, I still can't make my mind up about the new-fangled ones that cross the flat land to the south of the Mendips near the M5. I rather like the old Meccano ones.

The only ones I've seen are white, which potentially makes them more obtrusive than grey meccano ones. But mainly they are just new. People filter out the old ones because they are so familiar.

Paint them red! Glorious expressions of structural efficiency.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Talking of pylons, I still can't make my mind up about the new-fangled ones that cross the flat land to the south of the Mendips near the M5. I rather like the old Meccano ones.

The only ones I've seen are white, which potentially makes them more obtrusive than grey meccano ones. But mainly they are just new. People filter out the old ones because they are so familiar.

Paint them red! Glorious expressions of structural efficiency.

Camo?

verylonglegs

The local press at the moment is constantly filled with stories about objections to plans for the cables that need to routed through Norfolk for the North Sea windfarms but don't get your hopes up burying them is such an easy solution with the public, a couple of big ones are planned for underground and still people bitched and moaned about the proposed routes for that.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

The witless discussion about national grid expansion. Some 'Action' group on the radio this morning lauding the fact that it takes a decade to get new power lines built.
"We recognise the need for expanding power lines but we don't want these decisions to be made too quickly"

Don't worry; there's absolutely no chance of that.

I was pleased to see there were at least some proposals to speed things up.

Delays in planning are such a colossal waste of everything. Even if the answer is no, it's still to everyone's benefit that it is made quickly. Slow decisions are by definition worse decisions. Ten years later the decision is ten years out of date.

Yes, but I think building new transmission lines is arguably more important than anything else, and they are long lines, so getting planning permission for 98% of one doesn't really help.

Absolutely. Sadly not many people share my fondness for pylons nor are willing to pay for them to be buried.

Talking of pylons, I still can't make my mind up about the new-fangled ones that cross the flat land to the south of the Mendips near the M5. I rather like the old Meccano ones.

The only ones I've seen are white, which potentially makes them more obtrusive than grey meccano ones. But mainly they are just new. People filter out the old ones because they are so familiar.

Paint them red! Glorious expressions of structural efficiency.

Camo?

I'm not sure you want people walking into them 🙂

If people want something more traditional that they can put on the local fudge packets, we could do a line of enormous Corinthian columns. That would put all the retvrn lot in a bit of a quandary. 😀

rjsterry

verylonglegs said:

The local press at the moment is constantly filled with stories about objections to plans for the cables that need to routed through Norfolk for the North Sea windfarms but don't get your hopes up burying them is such an easy solution with the public, a couple of big ones are planned for underground and still people bitched and moaned about the proposed routes for that.

This is why I would abolish retirement.

rick_chasey

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

pblakeney

I simply chose not to move to London.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

I simply chose not to move to London.

A hero amongst men.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

Are those the deposits they have to pay or are people choosing to pay more? Most first-time buyer mortgages in the UK are 10% deposit or even 5% and the national average price of a first home is just over £300k so something doesn't add up.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

Are those the deposits they have to pay or are people choosing to pay more? Most first-time buyer mortgages in the UK are 10% deposit or even 5% and the national average price of a first home is just over £300k so something doesn't add up.

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/discover/property-news/whats-the-average-first-time-buyer-deposit-by-region/

According to UK Finance, most first-time buyers try to put down a larger deposit for their first home - amounting to 24% of the total property price.

That’s because a bigger deposit opens up better mortgage rates from lenders.

To put a 24% deposit on a £240,000 property, you would need to save £57,600.

Without much of a credit score, you usually get whacked by the lender on lower LDR

monkimark

I think whoever did the arrows might need a refresh on UK geography - the arrow for the NW is pointing at somewhere near Kilmarnock.

Dorset_Boy

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

Are those the deposits they have to pay or are people choosing to pay more? Most first-time buyer mortgages in the UK are 10% deposit or even 5% and the national average price of a first home is just over £300k so something doesn't add up.

Average UK house price is £286,000 in April 2023 according to the ONS.
So first time buyers average house price will be somewhat lower than that.
(Rightmove say £225,000 for a FTB)

pblakeney

Dorset_Boy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

Are those the deposits they have to pay or are people choosing to pay more? Most first-time buyer mortgages in the UK are 10% deposit or even 5% and the national average price of a first home is just over £300k so something doesn't add up.

Average UK house price is £286,000 in April 2023 according to the ONS.
So first time buyers average house price will be somewhat lower than that.
(Rightmove say £225,000 for a FTB)

I think you've missed Rick's point. Houses are expensive in London so it costs a sh!tload to get on the market. Something like that.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

Are those the deposits they have to pay or are people choosing to pay more? Most first-time buyer mortgages in the UK are 10% deposit or even 5% and the national average price of a first home is just over £300k so something doesn't add up.

Average UK house price is £286,000 in April 2023 according to the ONS.
So first time buyers average house price will be somewhat lower than that.
(Rightmove say £225,000 for a FTB)

It’s all zoopla data linked above.

Meanwhile, as an unsurprising development;

https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/bank-mum-dad-help-children-buy-home/

Some 46% of all mortgaged first-time buyers, 170,000, had financial help from family in buying a house in 2022. This is down from a peak of 198,000 in 2021.

But this figure is expected to hit 61% in 2023, a number not seen since before the Help to Buy equity loan scheme was introduced

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I think we need to inflate the cost of avocados a bit so that not buying them actually adds up to something usable.

Are those the deposits they have to pay or are people choosing to pay more? Most first-time buyer mortgages in the UK are 10% deposit or even 5% and the national average price of a first home is just over £300k so something doesn't add up.

Average UK house price is £286,000 in April 2023 according to the ONS.
So first time buyers average house price will be somewhat lower than that.
(Rightmove say £225,000 for a FTB)

It’s all zoopla data linked above.

Meanwhile, as an unsurprising development;

https://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/bank-mum-dad-help-children-buy-home/

Some 46% of all mortgaged first-time buyers, 170,000, had financial help from family in buying a house in 2022. This is down from a peak of 198,000 in 2021.

But this figure is expected to hit 61% in 2023, a number not seen since before the Help to Buy equity loan scheme was introduced

To quote your own good self, could you be confusing cause and effect?

So our facts are that deposit for FTBs in that there London is £144k and nearly half of them had help from mum and dad.

Now are they putting down so much because they want to make themselves a cash buyer of a studio flat in a sh1t area or possibly they are going to the other extreme and it is 14% of a million pound property.

Or are they putting that down because that is what they were given when Granny died and to stop them p1ssing it up against the wall they were told they had to use it as a deposit.

rick_chasey

No idea, I suspect the latter.

Pross

I was checking up some information on a job yesterday that was taken through planning before I started working on it and came across a report from the Council planning committee after the project was resubmitted when the Council last a planning appeal and had costs awarded against them. The Planning Inspector determined they failed to substantiate reasons for their refusal. The concerns seem to have been based around 'safety concerns' at a roundabout adjacent to the site that serves a supermarket but isn't being used as the access to the proposed development which will have a priority junction with right turn lane around 100m away and a service access off another road to the rear. The site was previously a bus depot (I've redacted the Councillors names):

Cllr 'A' said: “I think from my point of view this one was blindingly obvious that it was going to be overturned.” He later said: “I just want to follow up on Cllr 'B's' comment that we didn’t have any technical evidence. I’m not aware of any but if any should come to light I’d be interested in knowing what it is.

“As far as I understand all we are basing the committee’s refusal on, I wouldn’t refuse it, is hearsay, rumour and speculation whereas they have a considerable wealth of safety-based analysis and technical detail to state what they are planning is acceptable and we are going off feelings and thoughts. If there is any evidence out there that we haven’t seen I would be welcome to see it and have my view changed.”

Cllr 'C' said: “Quite disappointed that they have won this appeal especially as local people we know how dangerous this roundabout in this area can be.”

Cllr 'D' said: “I’m going to find it very difficult to approve this application too because I feel strongly about the traffic issues. But we have to acknowledge the inspector’s report which makes it obvious that in the inspector’s opinion that the committee behaved unreasonably but we can’t do anything about that. I don’t think we have a choice but to approve the application.

Cllr 'E' said:- “It amazes me that we as a planning committee have made a decision, not 100%, but we made a decision on local knowledge yet you can get someone stuck in an office somewhere who can come and overrule everything about us. Absolutely disgusted that this decision has been overuled. Dreadful. I don’t know why we bother as a planning committee.”

Councillor 'A' actually understands the process and that you have to refer to policy when making decisions then use actual evidence to back up a refusal. The others are all just reiterating their ignorance (as identified by Councillor 'A') and basically saying if it costs the Council significant sums of money to ignore the process. I know the roundabout very well and probably use it once a week on average. At certain times it gets congested but it isn't unsafe with two slight accidents and a serious in the past 5 years (the serious was a pedestrian crossing the access to the supermarket). Accident rates at the roundabout have actually significantly reduced in the 10 years since it started serving the supermarket too and this is all readily available information. If the Councillors had a genuine safety concern their officers would have easily been able to support this with the necessary data and yet couldn't do so. This cost the authority £17k in costs for the Developer and still the Councillors were unprepared to accept they were wrong (two voted against the revised application even after losing the Appeal).

rjsterry

Pross said:

I was checking up some information on a job yesterday that was taken through planning before I started working on it and came across a report from the Council planning committee after the project was resubmitted when the Council last a planning appeal and had costs awarded against them. The Planning Inspector determined they failed to substantiate reasons for their refusal. The concerns seem to have been based around 'safety concerns' at a roundabout adjacent to the site that serves a supermarket but isn't being used as the access to the proposed development which will have a priority junction with right turn lane around 100m away and a service access off another road to the rear. The site was previously a bus depot (I've redacted the Councillors names):

Cllr 'A' said: “I think from my point of view this one was blindingly obvious that it was going to be overturned.” He later said: “I just want to follow up on Cllr 'B's' comment that we didn’t have any technical evidence. I’m not aware of any but if any should come to light I’d be interested in knowing what it is.

“As far as I understand all we are basing the committee’s refusal on, I wouldn’t refuse it, is hearsay, rumour and speculation whereas they have a considerable wealth of safety-based analysis and technical detail to state what they are planning is acceptable and we are going off feelings and thoughts. If there is any evidence out there that we haven’t seen I would be welcome to see it and have my view changed.”

Cllr 'C' said: “Quite disappointed that they have won this appeal especially as local people we know how dangerous this roundabout in this area can be.”

Cllr 'D' said: “I’m going to find it very difficult to approve this application too because I feel strongly about the traffic issues. But we have to acknowledge the inspector’s report which makes it obvious that in the inspector’s opinion that the committee behaved unreasonably but we can’t do anything about that. I don’t think we have a choice but to approve the application.

Cllr 'E' said:- “It amazes me that we as a planning committee have made a decision, not 100%, but we made a decision on local knowledge yet you can get someone stuck in an office somewhere who can come and overrule everything about us. Absolutely disgusted that this decision has been overuled. Dreadful. I don’t know why we bother as a planning committee.”

Councillor 'A' actually understands the process and that you have to refer to policy when making decisions then use actual evidence to back up a refusal. The others are all just reiterating their ignorance (as identified by Councillor 'A') and basically saying if it costs the Council significant sums of money to ignore the process. I know the roundabout very well and probably use it once a week on average. At certain times it gets congested but it isn't unsafe with two slight accidents and a serious in the past 5 years (the serious was a pedestrian crossing the access to the supermarket). Accident rates at the roundabout have actually significantly reduced in the 10 years since it started serving the supermarket too and this is all readily available information. If the Councillors had a genuine safety concern their officers would have easily been able to support this with the necessary data and yet couldn't do so. This cost the authority £17k in costs for the Developer and still the Councillors were unprepared to accept they were wrong (two voted against the revised application even after losing the Appeal).

1 of 235,876,542.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

I was checking up some information on a job yesterday that was taken through planning before I started working on it and came across a report from the Council planning committee after the project was resubmitted when the Council last a planning appeal and had costs awarded against them. The Planning Inspector determined they failed to substantiate reasons for their refusal. The concerns seem to have been based around 'safety concerns' at a roundabout adjacent to the site that serves a supermarket but isn't being used as the access to the proposed development which will have a priority junction with right turn lane around 100m away and a service access off another road to the rear. The site was previously a bus depot (I've redacted the Councillors names):

Cllr 'A' said: “I think from my point of view this one was blindingly obvious that it was going to be overturned.” He later said: “I just want to follow up on Cllr 'B's' comment that we didn’t have any technical evidence. I’m not aware of any but if any should come to light I’d be interested in knowing what it is.

“As far as I understand all we are basing the committee’s refusal on, I wouldn’t refuse it, is hearsay, rumour and speculation whereas they have a considerable wealth of safety-based analysis and technical detail to state what they are planning is acceptable and we are going off feelings and thoughts. If there is any evidence out there that we haven’t seen I would be welcome to see it and have my view changed.”

Cllr 'C' said: “Quite disappointed that they have won this appeal especially as local people we know how dangerous this roundabout in this area can be.”

Cllr 'D' said: “I’m going to find it very difficult to approve this application too because I feel strongly about the traffic issues. But we have to acknowledge the inspector’s report which makes it obvious that in the inspector’s opinion that the committee behaved unreasonably but we can’t do anything about that. I don’t think we have a choice but to approve the application.

Cllr 'E' said:- “It amazes me that we as a planning committee have made a decision, not 100%, but we made a decision on local knowledge yet you can get someone stuck in an office somewhere who can come and overrule everything about us. Absolutely disgusted that this decision has been overuled. Dreadful. I don’t know why we bother as a planning committee.”

Councillor 'A' actually understands the process and that you have to refer to policy when making decisions then use actual evidence to back up a refusal. The others are all just reiterating their ignorance (as identified by Councillor 'A') and basically saying if it costs the Council significant sums of money to ignore the process. I know the roundabout very well and probably use it once a week on average. At certain times it gets congested but it isn't unsafe with two slight accidents and a serious in the past 5 years (the serious was a pedestrian crossing the access to the supermarket). Accident rates at the roundabout have actually significantly reduced in the 10 years since it started serving the supermarket too and this is all readily available information. If the Councillors had a genuine safety concern their officers would have easily been able to support this with the necessary data and yet couldn't do so. This cost the authority £17k in costs for the Developer and still the Councillors were unprepared to accept they were wrong (two voted against the revised application even after losing the Appeal).

1 of 235,876,542.

I particularly likes the final comment where the Councillor plays the put upon innocent victim of an unfair system rather than an incompetent person who failed to do their job properly.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

I was checking up some information on a job yesterday that was taken through planning before I started working on it and came across a report from the Council planning committee after the project was resubmitted when the Council last a planning appeal and had costs awarded against them. The Planning Inspector determined they failed to substantiate reasons for their refusal. The concerns seem to have been based around 'safety concerns' at a roundabout adjacent to the site that serves a supermarket but isn't being used as the access to the proposed development which will have a priority junction with right turn lane around 100m away and a service access off another road to the rear. The site was previously a bus depot (I've redacted the Councillors names):

Cllr 'A' said: “I think from my point of view this one was blindingly obvious that it was going to be overturned.” He later said: “I just want to follow up on Cllr 'B's' comment that we didn’t have any technical evidence. I’m not aware of any but if any should come to light I’d be interested in knowing what it is.

“As far as I understand all we are basing the committee’s refusal on, I wouldn’t refuse it, is hearsay, rumour and speculation whereas they have a considerable wealth of safety-based analysis and technical detail to state what they are planning is acceptable and we are going off feelings and thoughts. If there is any evidence out there that we haven’t seen I would be welcome to see it and have my view changed.”

Cllr 'C' said: “Quite disappointed that they have won this appeal especially as local people we know how dangerous this roundabout in this area can be.”

Cllr 'D' said: “I’m going to find it very difficult to approve this application too because I feel strongly about the traffic issues. But we have to acknowledge the inspector’s report which makes it obvious that in the inspector’s opinion that the committee behaved unreasonably but we can’t do anything about that. I don’t think we have a choice but to approve the application.

Cllr 'E' said:- “It amazes me that we as a planning committee have made a decision, not 100%, but we made a decision on local knowledge yet you can get someone stuck in an office somewhere who can come and overrule everything about us. Absolutely disgusted that this decision has been overuled. Dreadful. I don’t know why we bother as a planning committee.”

Councillor 'A' actually understands the process and that you have to refer to policy when making decisions then use actual evidence to back up a refusal. The others are all just reiterating their ignorance (as identified by Councillor 'A') and basically saying if it costs the Council significant sums of money to ignore the process. I know the roundabout very well and probably use it once a week on average. At certain times it gets congested but it isn't unsafe with two slight accidents and a serious in the past 5 years (the serious was a pedestrian crossing the access to the supermarket). Accident rates at the roundabout have actually significantly reduced in the 10 years since it started serving the supermarket too and this is all readily available information. If the Councillors had a genuine safety concern their officers would have easily been able to support this with the necessary data and yet couldn't do so. This cost the authority £17k in costs for the Developer and still the Councillors were unprepared to accept they were wrong (two voted against the revised application even after losing the Appeal).

1 of 235,876,542.

I particularly likes the final comment where the Councillor plays the put upon innocent victim of an unfair system rather than an incompetent person who failed to do their job properly.

A reminder that these are the same people then getting involved in property development and royally screwing it up.

rjsterry

https://twitter.com/russellcurtis/status/1718890226884727063?t=z-AO2k6nV3zhN0s8-_RkHg&s=19

TheBigBean

They seem to have allowed 200 sq metres per home. Presumably that doesn't consider all the extra stuff such as roads.