Any of this sound familiar?
From debates heard in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons:
3 Feb 2009 : Column 194WH
…over Fowgay hall—admittedly, it was an unlovely property—on the site of which now stand 14 flats. It is a 0.17 acre plot, every inch of which has been built on, with the car park having to go underground. It is so out of kilter with the area that it beggars belief that it was approved on appeal. Builders wear down local communities by persistently reapplying. They make an application knowing that it will not be accepted. They then re-submit and re-submit, causing tremendous stress and worry in local communities, and in the end they slip in just under the bar. And that is the end of a happy residential area and, often, of its character.
We need properly planned communities. The Government should consider strengthening legislation to facilitate a much more holistic approach to our planning system. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, local communities need a much greater say in decisions affecting the character of their area.
I have three suggestions that I hope the Government will consider. On the ability of developers to continue re-submitting applications, should we not have a “three strikes and you’re out” system to prevent the constant worry?
How about this one, from the archives of Property Week:
Local authorities permitted to refuse repeat applications; government clamps down on developers that try to ‘wear down resistance’.
Source: Property Week
Publication Date: 12-AUG-05
THE GOVERNMENT HAS UNVEILED planning powers to stop developers pressuring local authorities into granting consent for unpopular schemes.
Phil Woolas, a minister at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, said last week the clampdown was necessary because developers tried to ‘wear down resistance to inappropriate development’ by submitting repeat applications.
Now take a look at this one, titled “Developers Wear Down Opponents“:
That was taken from The Evening Independent, St. Petersburg, Florida… December 23, 1972.
It’s an old… old! … tried-and-true tactic being used against the good people of Eastwood.
What do you think? Will it work here?