Parkland Walk Development - Please Read

I was halfway through a detailed reply to all your points, but felt it wasn't working....lets just agree to disagree.

I never do that. Disagreeing is just fine on its own. :)

My point is that it's temporary access and they have a pretty good proposal to minimise disruption and damage. It's only temporary, but it seems that a lot of the objection is carried over from the original planning application which is appoved and is very unlikely to be overturned. So it doesn't really matter what I say - people have made up their minds and are objecting to the whole thing and not just the CMP.

Well, that's part of what I was saying. Remember, though, that the approval was only conditional, and unless the conditions are discharged to the satisfaction of the Planning Committee, the consent isn't worth much. It can be read in two ways--one would be that consent is there and the conditions are a mere formality that is just waved through, and the other would be that the conditions are really quite important and it will be very difficult to discharge them satisfactorily. All too often it ends up being the former, but I think in this case it could well be the latter.

(Just speculating here, but could the conditional approval (as I've said above, I find it rather puzzling that the authority approved this one) be a consequence of the Government's deeply misguided 'presumption in favour of development' as part of the NPPF? It would be interesting to find out if there has been any rise in conditional approvals and undischarged conditions since. I haven't done much reading around planning since, so I'm not really up-to-date.)

I've seen stranger things happen than an application like this not being followed through. I think what this highlights in any case is that better planning guidance relating to the Parkland Walk is needed.

Looking at the overall picture I would imagine their current plan is less disruptive than the wheelbarrow option......we will see what actually gets approved if anything. It's usually just money that makes the final decision on whether it goes ahead.....I'm sure the wheelbarrow option would cost more, but basements cost a fortune anyway.

Well, it's debatable what's least disruptive. If the applicants' claim about the tremendous extension to the length of the construction period in case of wheelbarrows is true, then that would cause more disruption; I have no doubt that this would extend the period, but I'm very doubtful that it would be as much as they state. As I said above, there are wider principles at stake.

I would have thought any vehicle damage to the trail will be easily remedied. The fields at Glastonbury seem to recover pretty well. Take a look at what they are doing on the Heath - I'm sure it will survive once they put all the muck back. The proposal does include skip lorries and a 4x4 with trailer on the walk....check out appendix A.

I haven't seen what's being done on the Heath, as I don't live in the area. I've seen plenty of cases, though, in which lots of promises were made for reinstatement afterwards and they were very rarely followed through. As a recent example, very serious damage was caused to Porter's Field in Walthamstow Marshes when it was used as the site of the Basketball Training Arena during the Olympics (and as a planning process, what went on there was simply scandalous). I'd be very reluctant to accept any such assurances.

I have no personal interest in this, but am sympathetic as I have been involved in a couple of planning applications in the past. Common sense rarely prevails, as people dig their heels in and the process drags on forever. This can mean that a site is an eyesore for years while it is resolved so no-one is happy.

It is certainly true that developers often leave sites as 'eyesores' for extended periods of time to exert pressure. Here we have apparently already seen that happening. It is entirely the fault of the developer, who should certainly not have moved materials on-site in advance of any full approval for development. More often than not, I have seen this tactic applied in bad faith.

Once again, campaigners question the principle of development of this site. Formerly public railway land is proposed to be developed as a private residence. In my view, for reasons stated above, it is right to oppose this here. I'm only an occasional user of the Parkland Walk, but it has still left a lasting impression on me that makes me feel strongly enough to care about it. I know with what passion campaigners in my area defend the natural world in London (as far as that can be said to exist), and I can only imagine that the Friends of Parkland Walk must feel likewise. To suggest that this is a lack of common sense is really not acceptable.