Today's most viewed
| GOLFING GREATNESS |  | | | STAGE AND MUSIC GUIDE | | | | NEW RELEASE | | | | OUT ON DVD | | | | GIBSON ON THE BOX | | |
|
|
|
More flats, flats, flats
 |
| APPROVED: Plans for 63 flats at the derelict Fircroft hotel site in Boscombe are going ahead |
CIVIC chiefs Monday night approved plans for nearly 100 new flats in Bournemouth, despite scores of objections from local residents.
Five flat schemes came before the borough's planning board and only one - proposals to convert a house in Lowther Road, Charminster, into six flats - was refused permission.
The largest development - revised plans for 63 flats on the site of the now derelict Fircroft hotel at Owls Road, Boscombe - won approval despite opposition from local residents and ward councillors.
Twenty-nine private apartments, 22 holiday flats and 12 affordable housing units will be built on the site with 42 parking spaces.
Voicing local residents' concerns, Cllr Phil Stanley-Watts said the six-storey flat block was "still too bulky," adding: "The Fircroft is part of Boscombe's heritage; why can't developers restore it instead of demolish it?"
Sharing his sentiments, Cllr Chris Wakefield said: "We have had a lot of people ring us about this application; they are concerned about the scale of the development."
But board member Cllr David Smith welcomed the revised scheme and moved that consent should be granted. His move was seconded by Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."
Vice-chairman Cllr Ron Whittaker also supported the Linden Homes' application. He said: "I wish a developer would come along and restore the Fir-croft but it's not going to happen."
Cllr Beryl Baxter said the developers had listened to the board's concerns while Cllr Ian Lancashire described the new scheme as "a massive improvement".
Chairman Cllr John Beesley urged developers to bulldoze the Fircroft hotel as soon as possible following vandalism at the site.
The move to grant approval was carried by a unanimous 9-0 vote.
While one flat scheme in Lowther Road was turned down plans to build a three-storey block of six flats on a nearby plot were approved despite 21 letters of objection being sent to the Town Hall.
A scheme for a two- to three- storey block of 14 flats at Privet Road, Winton, also won favour along with plans for 14 flats at Merlewood Close, Meyrick Park.
7:00pm Tuesday 20th May 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Charlie on 7:06pm Tue 20 May 08
More flats which will remain emtpy.
More flats which will remain emtpy.
Posted by: PETE WOODLEY on 7:11pm Tue 20 May 08
Did we expect anything different,as i said before money talks.
Did we expect anything different,as i said before money talks.
Posted by: dancingdog777, Christchurch on 7:11pm Tue 20 May 08
Once again the councillors ignore the wishes of the people who voted for them.
Isn't that dishonest of them? Can't we sack them for it?
Once again the councillors ignore the wishes of the people who voted for them.
Isn't that dishonest of them? Can't we sack them for it?
Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 8:07pm Tue 20 May 08
[bold]"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."[/bold]
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 8:08pm Tue 20 May 08
Surely this scheme isnt too bad and its about time someone pt money into Boscombe and if they are going to do then good luck......however, 12 affordable units...social housing ? I wouldnt be buying there if there were going to be problem families living there.
In the long run most houses/hotels will be replaced with blocks of flats as the council earn extra money from all the rates - more champagne all round in the town hall !
Surely this scheme isnt too bad and its about time someone pt money into Boscombe and if they are going to do then good luck......however, 12 affordable units...social housing ? I wouldnt be buying there if there were going to be problem families living there.
In the long run most houses/hotels will be replaced with blocks of flats as the council earn extra money from all the rates - more champagne all round in the town hall !
Posted by: Dorset Red, Dorset on 8:38pm Tue 20 May 08
I'm not sure where the connection between social housing and problem families comes into things.
Is Alumchineboy saying that simply because somebody choses to rent thier home they are, by default a problem family?
If this logic is applied across Europe we must therefore assume that the vast majority of families in Germany are problem families!!
So... if we are not to provide social housing within new developments, where would Alumchineboy suggest we put them? Or would his view be that "It ain't my problem. I'm alright Jack!"?
I'm not sure where the connection between social housing and problem families comes into things.
Is Alumchineboy saying that simply because somebody choses to rent thier home they are, by default a problem family?
If this logic is applied across Europe we must therefore assume that the vast majority of families in Germany are problem families!!
So... if we are not to provide social housing within new developments, where would Alumchineboy suggest we put them? Or would his view be that "It ain't my problem. I'm alright Jack!"?
Posted by: Richard, Bournemouth on 8:47pm Tue 20 May 08
It amazes me how Cllr Bailey got on the Planning Board, she's completely clueless.
The trouble is, the local Tories and Lib Dems are all useless and there's simply nobody else to vote for that stands a remote chance, so we'll just see-saw from one to the other.
It amazes me how Cllr Bailey got on the Planning Board, she's completely clueless.
The trouble is, the local Tories and Lib Dems are all useless and there's simply nobody else to vote for that stands a remote chance, so we'll just see-saw from one to the other.
Posted by: snorth8554, bournemouth on 8:57pm Tue 20 May 08
Richard please do not single out Cllr Bailey as being clueless this I fear is a trait inherited by our whole tory council. None of them seem to have a mind of their own and are swayed by promises of chairs etc by their uberfuhrer Cllr mcloughlin. Of course they will not lift a finger to save the hotel or recreate it, all they do is destroy things and close them despite popular opposition. All wecan do is grin and bear it and prey they do not get in again at the next election. Mind you having said that the german people tolerated Hitler for a lot longer!!!!!
Richard please do not single out Cllr Bailey as being clueless this I fear is a trait inherited by our whole tory council. None of them seem to have a mind of their own and are swayed by promises of chairs etc by their uberfuhrer Cllr mcloughlin. Of course they will not lift a finger to save the hotel or recreate it, all they do is destroy things and close them despite popular opposition. All wecan do is grin and bear it and prey they do not get in again at the next election. Mind you having said that the german people tolerated Hitler for a lot longer!!!!!
Posted by: rob.meadows, Bournemouth on 9:01pm Tue 20 May 08
The last two public meetings Cllr Linda Bailey has attended she has ran out in tears.Clueless is an understatement !!
The last two public meetings Cllr Linda Bailey has attended she has ran out in tears.Clueless is an understatement !!
Posted by: PETE WOODLEY on 9:10pm Tue 20 May 08
[quote][bold]rob.meadows[/bold] wrote:
The last two public meetings Cllr Linda Bailey has attended she has ran out in tears.Clueless is an understatement !![/quote] wasnt she supported by cllr ted taylor.
rob.meadows wrote:
The last two public meetings Cllr Linda Bailey has attended she has ran out in tears.Clueless is an understatement !!
wasnt she supported by cllr ted taylor.
Posted by: ljw, bournemouth on 10:25pm Tue 20 May 08
unbelievable...!
Posted by: rob.meadows, Bournemouth on 10:43pm Tue 20 May 08
[quote][bold]PETE WOODLEY[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]rob.meadows[/bold] wrote: The last two public meetings Cllr Linda Bailey has attended she has ran out in tears.Clueless is an understatement !![/quote] wasnt she supported by cllr ted taylor.[/quote] Yes,pete she was.She was his escort when he was mayor.
PETE WOODLEY wrote:
rob.meadows wrote: The last two public meetings Cllr Linda Bailey has attended she has ran out in tears.Clueless is an understatement !!
wasnt she supported by cllr ted taylor.
Yes,pete she was.She was his escort when he was mayor.
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 8:06am Wed 21 May 08
The affordable homes often go to housing associations....peop
le on their waiting lists are offered these types of flats. Good luck of you are a purchaser as a friend of mine who has purchased a flat in the large blick next to St. pauls roundabout has had his life tainted by noisy, messy and agressive 'affordable homes' tennants.
The affordable homes often go to housing associations....peop
le on their waiting lists are offered these types of flats. Good luck of you are a purchaser as a friend of mine who has purchased a flat in the large blick next to St. pauls roundabout has had his life tainted by noisy, messy and agressive 'affordable homes' tennants.
Posted by: Gastines, St.Malo ex Bournemouth on 8:06am Wed 21 May 08
I wonder what the local residents would like instead? The Fircoft Hotel like many others in Bournemouth are out of date,that type of business has long gone, killed off by lack of investment by the Council in improving infrastructure and entertainment facilities. Remember how long it took to make a decision on the Winter Gardens,add to the that the Ice Rink/Swimming Pools etc.etc. Lovely beaches,now questionable plus can you find anywhere to park even if you can afford to pay? As these Hotels are just not viable,would you like to make a living from one given all the rules and regulations involved with building/health & safety/fire regs and employment?Think yourself lucky you haven't got a Winter Gardens site next door for years,you would have if the Council owned it and tried to make a decision.
I wonder what the local residents would like instead? The Fircoft Hotel like many others in Bournemouth are out of date,that type of business has long gone, killed off by lack of investment by the Council in improving infrastructure and entertainment facilities. Remember how long it took to make a decision on the Winter Gardens,add to the that the Ice Rink/Swimming Pools etc.etc. Lovely beaches,now questionable plus can you find anywhere to park even if you can afford to pay? As these Hotels are just not viable,would you like to make a living from one given all the rules and regulations involved with building/health & safety/fire regs and employment?Think yourself lucky you haven't got a Winter Gardens site next door for years,you would have if the Council owned it and tried to make a decision.
Posted by: Dorset Red, Dorset on 8:18am Wed 21 May 08
Gastines, you complain about regulations stifling business but would anybody seriously want to stay in a hotel that WASN'T governed by health and safety laws and fire regulations?
I once visited Eastern Europe in the days before the Iron Curtain came down and I've seen what unregulated accomodation can be like! I'd much rather stay somehwere I had a reasonable chance of surviving the night!
Deregulation and market forces are NOT the answer to everbody's problems (as is become painfully clear as more and more probes reveal how the public are being ripped off by big business... think gas, electricity, pensions, property prices, railways, etc etc etc).
Gastines, you complain about regulations stifling business but would anybody seriously want to stay in a hotel that WASN'T governed by health and safety laws and fire regulations?
I once visited Eastern Europe in the days before the Iron Curtain came down and I've seen what unregulated accomodation can be like! I'd much rather stay somehwere I had a reasonable chance of surviving the night!
Deregulation and market forces are NOT the answer to everbody's problems (as is become painfully clear as more and more probes reveal how the public are being ripped off by big business... think gas, electricity, pensions, property prices, railways, etc etc etc).
Posted by: anton, uk on 9:04am Wed 21 May 08
Must be some tasty incentive for agreeing this. Just look at Shelly Manor, taken from the people of Bournemouth to whome it was left in trust, flogged off by the Council. Look at it now, half derelict, no building work has gone on for months! Either the developers are out of money or no one is willing to pay the stupid prices demanded. Last thing we need is more of the same. Council hang your heads in shame' you are wrecking this town.
Must be some tasty incentive for agreeing this. Just look at Shelly Manor, taken from the people of Bournemouth to whome it was left in trust, flogged off by the Council. Look at it now, half derelict, no building work has gone on for months! Either the developers are out of money or no one is willing to pay the stupid prices demanded. Last thing we need is more of the same. Council hang your heads in shame' you are wrecking this town.
Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 9:52am Wed 21 May 08
Very well put Anton.
Sadly even if a carrot has been offered Linden Homes have a little recent history of jiggery pokery! Just ask the good people of Teddington about the new development at Sandy Lane and the forty extra flats, not, sadly, the title of last years pantomime!!!
Very well put Anton.
Sadly even if a carrot has been offered Linden Homes have a little recent history of jiggery pokery! Just ask the good people of Teddington about the new development at Sandy Lane and the forty extra flats, not, sadly, the title of last years pantomime!!!
Posted by: debbie2110, bournemouth on 10:59am Wed 21 May 08
Social housing, or even the new flats do not cause the problems. Problem is that the infrastructure will not be improved sufficiently to cope with all the new traffic, most of the flats will be provided with just one parking space forcing the other car owners to park in the already overcrowded streets. It’s about time a standard ‘new build’ criterion was bought into play. I looked at the new build flats on Knyverton Road and found them to be over priced with bedrooms far too small for a king-size bed and wardrobe with very difficult access to the one allocated parking space.
If the government started looking forward and realising that new land could not be created and that at some stage building will have to stop in the south perhaps they could provide incentives for immigrants, refugees and long term unemployed to move to less densely populated areas of the country and revive their economy. North Wales, parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland to name a few. There would then be adequate low cost homes all over the country, as more of the places currently on buy to let would be released to first time buyers.
All well and good crying about the level of development and over development of Bournemouth, Boscombe, Poole etc but the real solution lies not with our inadequate local councils but with the government its self for not making legislation to stop low quality rabbit hutches being built with so little regard to the existing residents or the environment. In point of fact it was the government that have created the problems by failing to resolve the housing problems in a realistic or sustainable manor and demanding instead that areas in the South meet ridiculously high quotas on new homes.
Roll on the next election and lets hope Apathy United doesn’t give us the same result as the last one!
Social housing, or even the new flats do not cause the problems. Problem is that the infrastructure will not be improved sufficiently to cope with all the new traffic, most of the flats will be provided with just one parking space forcing the other car owners to park in the already overcrowded streets. It’s about time a standard ‘new build’ criterion was bought into play. I looked at the new build flats on Knyverton Road and found them to be over priced with bedrooms far too small for a king-size bed and wardrobe with very difficult access to the one allocated parking space.
If the government started looking forward and realising that new land could not be created and that at some stage building will have to stop in the south perhaps they could provide incentives for immigrants, refugees and long term unemployed to move to less densely populated areas of the country and revive their economy. North Wales, parts of Scotland, Northern Ireland to name a few. There would then be adequate low cost homes all over the country, as more of the places currently on buy to let would be released to first time buyers.
All well and good crying about the level of development and over development of Bournemouth, Boscombe, Poole etc but the real solution lies not with our inadequate local councils but with the government its self for not making legislation to stop low quality rabbit hutches being built with so little regard to the existing residents or the environment. In point of fact it was the government that have created the problems by failing to resolve the housing problems in a realistic or sustainable manor and demanding instead that areas in the South meet ridiculously high quotas on new homes.
Roll on the next election and lets hope Apathy United doesn’t give us the same result as the last one!
Posted by: Gastines, St.Malo ex Bournemouth on 12:03pm Wed 21 May 08
To answer Dorset Red's point. I wasn't complaining about the Regs. I was merely pointing out that if the visitor cash is not rolling in,it is very difficult to find the cash to pay for the Regs.plus all the updates and changes to the Regs. By the way,I think you may find that since the Berlin Wall days things have improved in MOST of Europe.EG. B&B hereabouts,double room /.en-suite/with fire doors and smoke alarm,inspected by the Tourism Office and Insurance Co., 45-55 euros.That is for 2 people not each.Not sure about Estern Europe,haven't been there for a while.
To answer Dorset Red's point. I wasn't complaining about the Regs. I was merely pointing out that if the visitor cash is not rolling in,it is very difficult to find the cash to pay for the Regs.plus all the updates and changes to the Regs. By the way,I think you may find that since the Berlin Wall days things have improved in MOST of Europe.EG. B&B hereabouts,double room /.en-suite/with fire doors and smoke alarm,inspected by the Tourism Office and Insurance Co., 45-55 euros.That is for 2 people not each.Not sure about Estern Europe,haven't been there for a while.
Posted by: Christopher, Wallisdown & Winton West on 12:20pm Wed 21 May 08
Firstly I would like to point out I do not read that Gastines stated he would stay in a hotel without all the regulations, like most of us he would want all the regulations in place. What he is saying one of the reasons the hotel business is down is because of all the costs, administration, etc etc to run a hotel.
Anyway, what is the point of our council offering time for people to put in their oppositions to any development if they are not going to be taken notice of or heard. What ever happens, our illustrious council will take no notice and go ahead because of the financial benefits that befit the council for the development.
Because of the way Boscombe is, it is obvious that any accommodation built in this area will end up the same as the so called affordable social flats did at St. Pauls.
By the way Cllr Bailey, do move to Boscombe, then ask yourself the same question.
Firstly I would like to point out I do not read that Gastines stated he would stay in a hotel without all the regulations, like most of us he would want all the regulations in place. What he is saying one of the reasons the hotel business is down is because of all the costs, administration, etc etc to run a hotel.
Anyway, what is the point of our council offering time for people to put in their oppositions to any development if they are not going to be taken notice of or heard. What ever happens, our illustrious council will take no notice and go ahead because of the financial benefits that befit the council for the development.
Because of the way Boscombe is, it is obvious that any accommodation built in this area will end up the same as the so called affordable social flats did at St. Pauls.
By the way Cllr Bailey, do move to Boscombe, then ask yourself the same question.
Posted by: Ed, Bournemouth on 12:23pm Wed 21 May 08
[italic]
Why build so many more homes?
The Lib Dem Council is building far in excess of what is deemed appropriate by Government targets. As the Council develop over 1,000 new homes in Bournemouth every year, with little investment in roads, transport or the sewage system, they threaten to erode the very character of our town.[/italic]
The above was taken from the website of the Bournemouth East Conservatives under the heading [bold]Lib Dems approve over 1,000 new homes every year[/bold].
I would welcome a comment from one of our current council members as to how things are now different.
Why build so many more homes?
The Lib Dem Council is building far in excess of what is deemed appropriate by Government targets. As the Council develop over 1,000 new homes in Bournemouth every year, with little investment in roads, transport or the sewage system, they threaten to erode the very character of our town.
The above was taken from the website of the Bournemouth East Conservatives under the heading
Lib Dems approve over 1,000 new homes every year.
I would welcome a comment from one of our current council members as to how things are now different.
Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 1:16pm Wed 21 May 08
I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed.
"Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole."
This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area.
What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over.
Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery.
Good.
Innit.
I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed.
"Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole."
This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area.
What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over.
Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery.
Good.
Innit.
Posted by: Beaker, Bournemouth on 1:30pm Wed 21 May 08
Whoever makes these decisions should be sacked immediately.
Whoever makes these decisions should be sacked immediately.
Posted by: Ed, Bournemouth on 2:21pm Wed 21 May 08
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote:
I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit. [/quote] Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections.
The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.
Trifecta wrote:
I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit.
Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections.
The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.
Posted by: PETE WOODLEY on 2:45pm Wed 21 May 08
[quote][bold]Ed[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote:
I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit. [/quote] Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections.
The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.[/quote] So "ED"?,What are you trying to say ?,Is it that both the tories and libs are wrong,and labour could do better,or the libs and labour together could do better,you do wander on,trying to hide your identity,and political allegiance.Its waffling,and you are good at it.The main political parties are all as bad as each other,and until we vote for the person and NOT the party,nothing will change.
Ed wrote:
Trifecta wrote:
I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit.
Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections.
The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.
So "ED"?,What are you trying to say ?,Is it that both the tories and libs are wrong,and labour could do better,or the libs and labour together could do better,you do wander on,trying to hide your identity,and political allegiance.Its waffling,and you are good at it.The main political parties are all as bad as each other,and until we vote for the person and NOT the party,nothing will change.
Posted by: Ed, Bournemouth on 3:14pm Wed 21 May 08
[quote][bold]PETE WOODLEY[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ed[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote: I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit. [/quote] Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections. The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.[/quote] So "ED"?,What are you trying to say ?,Is it that both the tories and libs are wrong,and labour could do better,or the libs and labour together could do better,you do wander on,trying to hide your identity,and political allegiance.Its waffling,and you are good at it.The main political parties are all as bad as each other,and until we vote for the person and NOT the party,nothing will change.[/quote] The point I was making was that one of the platforms that the Conservatives got elected upon was to reduce the over development of Bournemouth. Yet they continue to allow all these developments, despite opposition from local residents. However, in Parliament Tobias isn’t blaming the over development on local councils but on central Government.
What I am getting is how two faced people are in politics, they will spin the facts in whatever way they like to get into power.
As for my political allegiance, I don’t have one, much as it pains me I do have to admit that I agree with you that we should vote for the person and not the party.
I could say more but don’t want to be accused of waffling.
PETE WOODLEY wrote:
Ed wrote: Trifecta wrote: I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit.
Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections. The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.
So "ED"?,What are you trying to say ?,Is it that both the tories and libs are wrong,and labour could do better,or the libs and labour together could do better,you do wander on,trying to hide your identity,and political allegiance.Its waffling,and you are good at it.The main political parties are all as bad as each other,and until we vote for the person and NOT the party,nothing will change.
The point I was making was that one of the platforms that the Conservatives got elected upon was to reduce the over development of Bournemouth. Yet they continue to allow all these developments, despite opposition from local residents. However, in Parliament Tobias isn’t blaming the over development on local councils but on central Government.
What I am getting is how two faced people are in politics, they will spin the facts in whatever way they like to get into power.
As for my political allegiance, I don’t have one, much as it pains me I do have to admit that I agree with you that we should vote for the person and not the party.
I could say more but don’t want to be accused of waffling.
Posted by: PETE WOODLEY on 4:16pm Wed 21 May 08
[quote][bold]Ed[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]PETE WOODLEY[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ed[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote: I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit. [/quote] Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections. The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.[/quote] So "ED"?,What are you trying to say ?,Is it that both the tories and libs are wrong,and labour could do better,or the libs and labour together could do better,you do wander on,trying to hide your identity,and political allegiance.Its waffling,and you are good at it.The main political parties are all as bad as each other,and until we vote for the person and NOT the party,nothing will change.[/quote] The point I was making was that one of the platforms that the Conservatives got elected upon was to reduce the over development of Bournemouth. Yet they continue to allow all these developments, despite opposition from local residents. However, in Parliament Tobias isn’t blaming the over development on local councils but on central Government.
What I am getting is how two faced people are in politics, they will spin the facts in whatever way they like to get into power.
As for my political allegiance, I don’t have one, much as it pains me I do have to admit that I agree with you that we should vote for the person and not the party.
I could say more but don’t want to be accused of waffling.
[/quote] I cant believe that you are so naive to believe anything said by any party especially before a election.least of all by a certain MP.The excuse being used by our local councillors is that if they refuse,then developers will appeal,and it will cost the ratepayers money.Did i see that voting in favour was 9-0,what happened to the councillors who said they were against ?.I like you am against the current trend of Flats, Flats, Flats,i do not see that it is solving a local housing shortage,as more are bought for rent,or by outsiders moving down,while locals still wait on the housing lists.As for affordable housing like at priestley rd,affordable for who ?.
Ed wrote:
PETE WOODLEY wrote:
Ed wrote: Trifecta wrote: I have taken the following quote from Hansard and it does shed a little light Ed. "Bournemouth is already committing more than 640 dwellings every single year. We have now been told to up that number by another 200. That is an astonishing number, when we have also heard that the north-east of England actually wants more dwellings. It does seem to be a disparity in the logic of a unified strategy for the housing requirement for the country as a whole." This is a quote from Mr.Elwood's speech, on the 8th January this year, and would indicate (the whole speech lays much of the blame on the South-West Assembly)that we are lumped into an area with Cornwall and Devon that does a simple equation of numbers of people divided by physical area. What is overlooked is that Bournemouth and the surrounding area is densely populated whilst Bodmin Moor has a bit of space left over. Apparently this government has identified 21 areas where there is to be plenty more building. And we have won that lottery. Good. Innit.
Trifecta - I had read the same report, sadly only after the local elections. The light that it does shed is that on the one hand Tobias is in Parliment making the above statement, whilst locally the Conservatives are blaming the Lib Dems in their election campaigns.
So "ED"?,What are you trying to say ?,Is it that both the tories and libs are wrong,and labour could do better,or the libs and labour together could do better,you do wander on,trying to hide your identity,and political allegiance.Its waffling,and you are good at it.The main political parties are all as bad as each other,and until we vote for the person and NOT the party,nothing will change.
The point I was making was that one of the platforms that the Conservatives got elected upon was to reduce the over development of Bournemouth. Yet they continue to allow all these developments, despite opposition from local residents. However, in Parliament Tobias isn’t blaming the over development on local councils but on central Government.
What I am getting is how two faced people are in politics, they will spin the facts in whatever way they like to get into power.
As for my political allegiance, I don’t have one, much as it pains me I do have to admit that I agree with you that we should vote for the person and not the party.
I could say more but don’t want to be accused of waffling.
I cant believe that you are so naive to believe anything said by any party especially before a election.least of all by a certain MP.The excuse being used by our local councillors is that if they refuse,then developers will appeal,and it will cost the ratepayers money.Did i see that voting in favour was 9-0,what happened to the councillors who said they were against ?.I like you am against the current trend of Flats, Flats, Flats,i do not see that it is solving a local housing shortage,as more are bought for rent,or by outsiders moving down,while locals still wait on the housing lists.As for affordable housing like at priestley rd,affordable for who ?.
Posted by: Mark Anderson, Queen's Park on 4:48pm Wed 21 May 08
As the Queen's park ward Councillor I stood up in the planning meeting to support my residents and fight the two planning applications in Queen's Park!
One had already got permision to be converted into flats given by the previous administration, it came before planning in November when I managedto get the proposal refused, this time we didn't have much chance against the new scheme of adding an extra flat as it had incorporated ALL of our objections, although if they try to alter it I will again be in the planning meeting and fighting it.
The second the residents and I had thrown out although I suspect this will not be the last application on this site!
I stood to fight overdevelopment in Queen's Park and within the constraints imposed on us by central government that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do!
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park Ward
As the Queen's park ward Councillor I stood up in the planning meeting to support my residents and fight the two planning applications in Queen's Park!
One had already got permision to be converted into flats given by the previous administration, it came before planning in November when I managedto get the proposal refused, this time we didn't have much chance against the new scheme of adding an extra flat as it had incorporated ALL of our objections, although if they try to alter it I will again be in the planning meeting and fighting it.
The second the residents and I had thrown out although I suspect this will not be the last application on this site!
I stood to fight overdevelopment in Queen's Park and within the constraints imposed on us by central government that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do!
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park Ward
Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 5:39pm Wed 21 May 08
Thank you for coming on and identifying yourself Mr.Anderson and I wondered if you can answer this question?
Is it possible, or legal, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that we have enough shoddy, empty flats in the conurbation?
Do developers have to show a [italic]need[/italic]?
Thank you for coming on and identifying yourself Mr.Anderson and I wondered if you can answer this question?
Is it possible, or legal, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that we have enough shoddy, empty flats in the conurbation?
Do developers have to show a
need?
Posted by: PETE WOODLEY on 5:41pm Wed 21 May 08
[quote][bold]Mark Anderson[/bold] wrote:
As the Queen's park ward Councillor I stood up in the planning meeting to support my residents and fight the two planning applications in Queen's Park!
One had already got permision to be converted into flats given by the previous administration, it came before planning in November when I managedto get the proposal refused, this time we didn't have much chance against the new scheme of adding an extra flat as it had incorporated ALL of our objections, although if they try to alter it I will again be in the planning meeting and fighting it.
The second the residents and I had thrown out although I suspect this will not be the last application on this site!
I stood to fight overdevelopment in Queen's Park and within the constraints imposed on us by central government that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do!
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park Ward[/quote] At least you have replied here with your full name,and given your views,unlike the many cowards who insult anonymously,For me its appreciated.
Mark Anderson wrote:
As the Queen's park ward Councillor I stood up in the planning meeting to support my residents and fight the two planning applications in Queen's Park!
One had already got permision to be converted into flats given by the previous administration, it came before planning in November when I managedto get the proposal refused, this time we didn't have much chance against the new scheme of adding an extra flat as it had incorporated ALL of our objections, although if they try to alter it I will again be in the planning meeting and fighting it.
The second the residents and I had thrown out although I suspect this will not be the last application on this site!
I stood to fight overdevelopment in Queen's Park and within the constraints imposed on us by central government that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do!
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park Ward
At least you have replied here with your full name,and given your views,unlike the many cowards who insult anonymously,For me its appreciated.
Posted by: PETE WOODLEY on 5:44pm Wed 21 May 08
[quote][bold]Mark Anderson[/bold] wrote:
As the Queen's park ward Councillor I stood up in the planning meeting to support my residents and fight the two planning applications in Queen's Park!
One had already got permision to be converted into flats given by the previous administration, it came before planning in November when I managedto get the proposal refused, this time we didn't have much chance against the new scheme of adding an extra flat as it had incorporated ALL of our objections, although if they try to alter it I will again be in the planning meeting and fighting it.
The second the residents and I had thrown out although I suspect this will not be the last application on this site!
I stood to fight overdevelopment in Queen's Park and within the constraints imposed on us by central government that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do!
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park Ward[/quote] At least you have replied here with your full name,and given your views,unlike the many cowards who insult anonymously,For me its appreciated.
Mark Anderson wrote:
As the Queen's park ward Councillor I stood up in the planning meeting to support my residents and fight the two planning applications in Queen's Park!
One had already got permision to be converted into flats given by the previous administration, it came before planning in November when I managedto get the proposal refused, this time we didn't have much chance against the new scheme of adding an extra flat as it had incorporated ALL of our objections, although if they try to alter it I will again be in the planning meeting and fighting it.
The second the residents and I had thrown out although I suspect this will not be the last application on this site!
I stood to fight overdevelopment in Queen's Park and within the constraints imposed on us by central government that's exactly what I am doing and will continue to do!
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park Ward
At least you have replied here with your full name,and given your views,unlike the many cowards who insult anonymously,For me its appreciated.
Posted by: Christopher, Wallisdown & Winton West on 6:24pm Wed 21 May 08
Thank you Mark Anderson for enlightening us with regards to your ward, and your actions within the Council on development of flat.
If only lots more had the same panache as you did, and let us now what is happening regarding this matter in other wards.
I too would like to read your answer to Trifecta's question. Or, what is the procedure regarding this.
Thank you Mark Anderson for enlightening us with regards to your ward, and your actions within the Council on development of flat.
If only lots more had the same panache as you did, and let us now what is happening regarding this matter in other wards.
I too would like to read your answer to Trifecta's question. Or, what is the procedure regarding this.
Posted by: seafrontpatroller, Beach Hut on 6:28pm Wed 21 May 08
If there were so many objections to the redevelopment of what used to be the Fircroft Hotel how come voting went 9-0 in favour? So much for democracy!
If there were so many objections to the redevelopment of what used to be the Fircroft Hotel how come voting went 9-0 in favour? So much for democracy!
Posted by: Mark Anderson on 10:33am Thu 22 May 08
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote:
Thank you for coming on and identifying yourself Mr.Anderson and I wondered if you can answer this question? Is it possible, or legal, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that we have enough shoddy, empty flats in the conurbation? Do developers have to show a [italic]need[/italic]?[/quote] Trifecta,
Please don't hold me to account on this as I'm not a member of the planning board, [bold]BUT[/bold] having said that my belief is that the current government does not allow us to refuse planning permission on the grounds you mentioned! I wish they did! The planning board is I'm afraid very restricted in what it can refuse (planning grounds as laid down by the government), when I was a planning Councillor under a Conservative government! we had much more flexibility and leaway to refuse and I'm sure we wouldn't have the number of flats we now have!
As you are possibly aware Queen's Park is one of the wards that has suffered more than most with flat development and I am very concerned about the number of one bedroom flats being developed in the town, particularly as they by their very design (in my opinion) lead to a transient rather than stable population and this again in my opinion leads to neglect in the surrounding area, as people just use the flat as a place to sleep and thus have no interest in the surrounding area rather than bring up families etc which is more likely with two or more bedroom flats. I have consistently maintained this view and I have been quoted on this several times in the past.
I hope that helps.
Trifecta wrote:
Thank you for coming on and identifying yourself Mr.Anderson and I wondered if you can answer this question? Is it possible, or legal, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that we have enough shoddy, empty flats in the conurbation? Do developers have to show a need?
Trifecta,
Please don't hold me to account on this as I'm not a member of the planning board,
BUT having said that my belief is that the current government does not allow us to refuse planning permission on the grounds you mentioned! I wish they did! The planning board is I'm afraid very restricted in what it can refuse (planning grounds as laid down by the government), when I was a planning Councillor under a Conservative government! we had much more flexibility and leaway to refuse and I'm sure we wouldn't have the number of flats we now have!
As you are possibly aware Queen's Park is one of the wards that has suffered more than most with flat development and I am very concerned about the number of one bedroom flats being developed in the town, particularly as they by their very design (in my opinion) lead to a transient rather than stable population and this again in my opinion leads to neglect in the surrounding area, as people just use the flat as a place to sleep and thus have no interest in the surrounding area rather than bring up families etc which is more likely with two or more bedroom flats. I have consistently maintained this view and I have been quoted on this several times in the past.
I hope that helps.
Posted by: Nighthawk, Bournemouth on 11:19am Thu 22 May 08
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote:
[bold]"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."[/bold]
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
[/quote] Dump it in Cllr Linda Bailey's back garden. Would she still be proud? I doubt it very much.
Trifecta wrote:
"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
Dump it in Cllr Linda Bailey's back garden. Would she still be proud? I doubt it very much.
Posted by: Nighthawk, Bournemouth on 11:23am Thu 22 May 08
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote:
[bold]"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."[/bold]
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
[/quote] Dump it in her back garden, or better still, DON'T BUILD THE UGLY GROTESQUE BUILDING IN THE FIRST PLACE. BOURNEMOUTH IS CHOKED TO DEATH WITH TOO MANY FLATS AND TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS AND BENEFIT SCROUNGERS.
Trifecta wrote:
"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
Dump it in her back garden, or better still, DON'T BUILD THE UGLY GROTESQUE BUILDING IN THE FIRST PLACE. BOURNEMOUTH IS CHOKED TO DEATH WITH TOO MANY FLATS AND TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS AND BENEFIT SCROUNGERS.
Posted by: Nighthawk, Bournemouth on 11:23am Thu 22 May 08
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote:
[bold]"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."[/bold]
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
[/quote] Dump it in her back garden, or better still, DON'T BUILD THE UGLY GROTESQUE BUILDING IN THE FIRST PLACE. BOURNEMOUTH IS CHOKED TO DEATH WITH TOO MANY FLATS AND TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS AND BENEFIT SCROUNGERS.
Trifecta wrote:
"Cllr Linda Bailey who said: "I would be proud to have this building in Boscombe."
As you live in Talbot Woods I can understand your point of view madam.
Dump it in her back garden, or better still, DON'T BUILD THE UGLY GROTESQUE BUILDING IN THE FIRST PLACE. BOURNEMOUTH IS CHOKED TO DEATH WITH TOO MANY FLATS AND TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS AND BENEFIT SCROUNGERS.
Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 11:40am Thu 22 May 08
Thank you very much Mr.Anderson for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated.
Sadly, I think I already knew your answer to my question. But it is far better to get this from the "horses mouth". As it were!
At the risk of opening up a political debate that may be inappropriate on this forum may I ask if you have any idea which way the wind might be blowing regarding this question and the new Conservative government that we will undoubtedly be getting in 2010?
Thank you again.
Thank you very much Mr.Anderson for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated.
Sadly, I think I already knew your answer to my question. But it is far better to get this from the "horses mouth". As it were!
At the risk of opening up a political debate that may be inappropriate on this forum may I ask if you have any idea which way the wind might be blowing regarding this question and the new Conservative government that we will undoubtedly be getting in 2010?
Thank you again.
Posted by: Dorset Red, Dorset on 2:36pm Thu 22 May 08
[quote][bold]Mark Anderson[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Trifecta[/bold] wrote: Thank you for coming on and identifying yourself Mr.Anderson and I wondered if you can answer this question? Is it possible, or legal, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that we have enough shoddy, empty flats in the conurbation? Do developers have to show a [italic]need[/italic]?[/quote] Trifecta, Please don't hold me to account on this as I'm not a member of the planning board, [bold]BUT[/bold] having said that my belief is that the current government does not allow us to refuse planning permission on the grounds you mentioned! I wish they did! The planning board is I'm afraid very restricted in what it can refuse (planning grounds as laid down by the government), when I was a planning Councillor under a Conservative government! we had much more flexibility and leaway to refuse and I'm sure we wouldn't have the number of flats we now have! As you are possibly aware Queen's Park is one of the wards that has suffered more than most with flat development and I am very concerned about the number of one bedroom flats being developed in the town, particularly as they by their very design (in my opinion) lead to a transient rather than stable population and this again in my opinion leads to neglect in the surrounding area, as people just use the flat as a place to sleep and thus have no interest in the surrounding area rather than bring up families etc which is more likely with two or more bedroom flats. I have consistently maintained this view and I have been quoted on this several times in the past. I hope that helps.[/quote] MR Anderson,
please could you tell us which of the Planning Policy Guidance Notes have changed significantly since 1997?
The excuses I am hearing about not being able to win decisions at appeal are EXACTLY THE SAME as the excuses I heard when I was a member of a planning committee under a Conservative government.
Don't try to blame this situation on the current "New Labour" shambles. They are merely continuing a system which favours the developers and was set up by your own party!!
Mark Anderson wrote:
Trifecta wrote: Thank you for coming on and identifying yourself Mr.Anderson and I wondered if you can answer this question? Is it possible, or legal, to refuse planning permission on the grounds that we have enough shoddy, empty flats in the conurbation? Do developers have to show a need?
Trifecta, Please don't hold me to account on this as I'm not a member of the planning board, BUT having said that my belief is that the current government does not allow us to refuse planning permission on the grounds you mentioned! I wish they did! The planning board is I'm afraid very restricted in what it can refuse (planning grounds as laid down by the government), when I was a planning Councillor under a Conservative government! we had much more flexibility and leaway to refuse and I'm sure we wouldn't have the number of flats we now have! As you are possibly aware Queen's Park is one of the wards that has suffered more than most with flat development and I am very concerned about the number of one bedroom flats being developed in the town, particularly as they by their very design (in my opinion) lead to a transient rather than stable population and this again in my opinion leads to neglect in the surrounding area, as people just use the flat as a place to sleep and thus have no interest in the surrounding area rather than bring up families etc which is more likely with two or more bedroom flats. I have consistently maintained this view and I have been quoted on this several times in the past. I hope that helps.
MR Anderson,
please could you tell us which of the Planning Policy Guidance Notes have changed significantly since 1997?
The excuses I am hearing about not being able to win decisions at appeal are EXACTLY THE SAME as the excuses I heard when I was a member of a planning committee under a Conservative government.
Don't try to blame this situation on the current "New Labour" shambles. They are merely continuing a system which favours the developers and was set up by your own party!!
Posted by: Mark Anderson, Queen's Park on 12:59pm Fri 23 May 08
[quote]Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 11:40am Thu 22 May 08
At the risk of opening up a political debate that may be inappropriate on this forum may I ask if you have any idea which way the wind might be blowing regarding this question and the new Conservative government that we will undoubtedly be getting in 2010?
[/quote]
Trifecta, my apologies for taking time to respond BUT I wanted to ensure I got the correct information! I have spoken to several colleagues both locally and nationally and have received the following advice/comment "Although a new Conservative government will not be able to make a difference financially in the first couple of years, there are many changes we may see – such as an abolition of the Regional Assemblies, greater localism around planning, a modification/removal of housing targets, substantial changes to of planning through PPS’s, etc."
I hope that gives you a flavour of what might happen, and once again my apologies for the time taken
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park
Posted by: Trifecta, Southbourne on 11:40am Thu 22 May 08
At the risk of opening up a political debate that may be inappropriate on this forum may I ask if you have any idea which way the wind might be blowing regarding this question and the new Conservative government that we will undoubtedly be getting in 2010?
Trifecta, my apologies for taking time to respond BUT I wanted to ensure I got the correct information! I have spoken to several colleagues both locally and nationally and have received the following advice/comment "Although a new Conservative government will not be able to make a difference financially in the first couple of years, there are many changes we may see – such as an abolition of the Regional Assemblies, greater localism around planning, a modification/removal of housing targets, substantial changes to of planning through PPS’s, etc."
I hope that gives you a flavour of what might happen, and once again my apologies for the time taken
Cllr Mark Anderson
Queen's Park
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
