-
And another follow-up article:
A spokesperson for Jenrick said on Friday that Ofer was a “family friend” and that the minister had notified officials, who advised him to step back from the decision on Sirius.
But the spokesperson did not say when Jenrick recused himself and the Guardian understands he retained oversight of Sirius’s request for support for at least six months after the meeting.
It is, frankly, unbelievable that he hasn't already been sacked. Not that I'm surprised.
-
This is probably one of the more interesting stories in planning in London now. I don't know what the chances are, but I do hope there won't be the approved paying-lip-service-while-destroying-the-site's-historic-character scheme.
-
Anyone in the west London Chiswick area - consultation on the changes that Hounslow council have made by restricting cars in two streets. It's caused a commotion among a vocal few who are doing petitions against it etc:
https://haveyoursay.hounslow.gov.uk/traffic-and-transport/streetspace-feedback/
-
Thanks for that. I've started a thread about modal filtering now, so perhaps say it there, too?
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/353238/
The kind of modal filtering being done there doesn't have anything to do with the town planning system. It's perfectly possible to filter something by putting new development where there was previously a right of way, or indeed to block it entirely, but that's not what's currently going on.
-
Hm, it's not as if any LFGSS thread has ever stayed on topic, but I have started a new thread specifically about modal filtering (as per three posts above):
https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/353238/
:)
-
Another round for the Bishopsgate Goodsyard saga.
https://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/councils-side-with-bishopsgate-goodsyard-campaigners-1-6950628
-
More information with a bearing on the Jenrick scandal.
It's simply incredible that he hasn't resigned/been forced to resign.
-
I've often thought the same.
With any issue, even with sleaze and corruption, one thing to know is that there is mostly only a small number of people who really care about it. Everybody else will be too busy with their own lives to care, except when they happen to be among those people who for some reason are really triggered by an issue.
The way this used to work was always that there were usually not that many issues that were being reported, e.g. many things were hushed up, or diversions created, and the media didn't have the same ability to absolutely shower people with news yet. Plus, inequality has risen markedly in the last couple of decades, and it's a lot easier for people to engage if they don't constantly have to worry about paying the bills.
However, I think the biggest change has probably been through the data that's available through exploitation by anti-social media. I think this not only shows that most people don't care much about most issues, but also what they do care about, and what they understand (e.g., heavily technical planning issues are not widely understood and therefore not easilhy cared about) so that data-exploiting politicians know what they need to be careful about and where they can just be brazen. Some issues will cross over, and these will then have to be subverted by stealth, e.g. the NHS, which has been being destroyed for years by a thousand little privatisations so that there isn't one big issue to hang public concern on, but lots of little things that most people couldn't engage with properly if they tried.
You never used to see the constant attacks on the media and the judiciary as a professional class, as well as other professional classes lumped together as 'metropolitan elite' and that sort of claptrap. Basically, everyone who has an important role in society that is somehow inconvenient for venal politicians gets attacked in this way, often using the tactic that Trump uses all the time, i.e. to accuse others of what he himself is guilty of, especially if that's done from a position of unaccountable power. It's harder if you've been put on the back foot and you have to react. However, the undermining of (certain sections of) the media certainly has an effect on how reporting on stories like the Jenrick cases is perceived, and undoubtedly blunts their impact.
-
I think people attention spam has become incredibly shortened with the huge increase in news and commentary availability.
When some sort of corruption happens or even its whitewashing there is very quickly something else to talk about and very little time for the established media to dig there heals and establish a public furore that demands resignation, or even and admission of guilt. The patience to delve into details is now too boring, and the next news snippet/scandal is only a click away, most people appetite will be satisfied with only a skim of vague details.
Trumps lie upon lie means people will forget that last one within hours, as he create deflection and whataboutry, or even justification.
The last time I saw the media do proper digging was the expenses scandal and still mp got away scot free.
How priti patel is home secretary is beyond me after the Israel debacle, we should never have seen her again after that.
Even Hancocks neighbour getting involved in the covid tests with out any experience should seriously investigated especially considering the initial Turkish ppe was rejected as an unapproved supplier. But it barely made the radar. -
I agree with all of that. Who knows what the main factor is, but the whole thing feels so much more controlled now than it did twenty years ago. I mean, it was controlled even then, but if you take one of the very few things that cut across, like the Windrush scandal--that should have brought the Government down, particularly Theresa May. What happened? A bit of gentle damage limitation and a promise to right the wrongs, which has, as recent reporting suggests, turned into a protracted bureaucratic process that isn't doing much for people, while Priti Patel, who I agree shouldn't be in any kind of public office, stirs up the anti-immigrant hatred. While they're probably not worried about the longevity of most stories, some, e.g. ones that might get close to Johnson, are still ones they try to media-manage. With planning, not a chance. It goes over most people's heads to start with, and is quickly swallowed up in the hectic news cycle of cute animal stories, endless opinionated columns and commentary, and the accelerating number of things that are just plainly wrong and that are not being taken care of.
-
A major application for a new Chinese embassy. The site is on the north-eastern corner of the big junction north of Tower Bridge. It looks like a grisly job with a lot of archaeology.
-
This could go into quite a few threads, but I'll put it here for this detail:
Another City development at 22 Bishopsgate is also due to incorporate the largest bicycle park in London with 16,999 space [sic] and Brompton bikes for hire, as well as cycle maintenance, lockers, showers and a free towel service.
It was quite amusing, when Livingstone first introduced cycle parking standards in new office developments, to see how whole floors had to be dedicated to accommodate the number required. The only problem was that the developers later often submitted additional applications to discharge this, with the applications including demonstrations of how few cyclists actually used the parking, and much of these floors was then converted into something else.
-
Not much detail here yet. From the initial illustration, this building doesn't look too good, but at least it's not another coppice of tower blocks.
-
I think I've posted something about this awful building before. Tower blocks are absurd enough even if they're not as thin as this one:
-
Those campaigners deserve very high praise for their foresight:
“They said it would be too difficult to do, but we had an answer for that,” Robertson said. “We had a suspicion before the demolition that they would do something, so we asked English Heritage to think about listing it. They took a plaster cast of every tile, they took pictures and documented everything.”
Great stuff.
I hope this remains a landmark decision that will scare developers off trying similar stunts, although if the building's not documented, who knows what excuses they might try. As the article says, there are more subtle ways of causing a building to deteriorate, but outright demolition is still much harder to counteract.
-
Rode past this today actually - not often that far out West so had no idea this was as far along in the process as it was. Great to see and will try and make a point of going when it reopens. Still raises difficult questions about how to prevent developers wilfully destroying older buildings by lengthy deterioration though...
-
A very major move:
I don't think it's a good idea.
-
On the future of the City--I can't see the below happening yet, as I still suspect that if firms reduce their office footprints in favour of more working from home, you'll only get more firms like them moving in, and if rents go down, taking advantage of them. That said, more mixed use for the City would unquestionably be a good thing.
I do wish they hadn't built all these awful shit buildings there over the last twenty years.
chris0
wildwest
omash27
hvsds
Moof-
Post a reply
About
Town planning in London, planning proposals and applications, and planning decisions
Posted by
@Oliver Schick
I absolutely wouldn't, and I don't live in the Isle of Dogs, either. The thing with CIL and s.106 before it is that the money paid is an absolute pittance compared to the value of developments. It's a licence for appalling development that cash-strapped councils fear they have to take in the general climate of hostility to city councils.
Yes, and illegal. I mean, it's always happened, and not only from Tory donors, and not only involving the Tory party. It's also happened at higher levels than a lowly Housing Secretary. However, in those cases for the most part they didn't get into the public domain like this, partly for lack of evidence, and there's a real danger that, with this one having done so, the planning system, which is bad enough as it is, will be undermined even further.