Next question is when I’ll get home. Vocano abated. But BA strike looming and I had crazily booked on BA as a way of supporting the strikers - demonstrating that not everyone defects to Easy Jet because of strike threats. Huh.

It sounds as if you’re having an interesting time. I wish we had umbrella men in Cardiff: just what a forgetful person in a rainy part of the world needs.

Gavin

The lab people keep on saying that they need to build the lab “because of the high incidence of TB” in the area and Camden’s communites are being accused of “spreading disease” with the effect that people are becoming angry. The problems with TB [if they exist at all] should be dealt with by community nurses who can offer vaccination in community centres, NOT by white men in suits on a stage scaring the community by stating that they “need to build a lab becuase of TB in Camden” causing friction within the community here. TB is caused by overcrowding and poor housing conditions it is NOT caused by the Somali, Bengali or Gambian communities living here.

What about the threat of virus leaks caused by lab staff negligence? Labs have cause disease outbreaks such as Foot and Mouth disease and Swine Flu. Labs in built up areas are bad for our health.

The plans have to be turned down for the sake of Camden’s health.

They are not extreme and are not part of the extremism described. Animals Count are peaceful.

Animals Count should and will be supported locally and will be standing in South Islington and Finsbury ward.

Animal Rights activists have links to Far Right extremist groups. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [SHAC] is funded by the parent of a man, Robin Steele, pictured in a swastika t-shirt at a neo nazi British Peoples Party meeting. SHAC will very much be part of the campaign against the Camden lab. Charlotte Lewis of the British National Party is a SHAC activist. Dave Gardner an animal rights activist is a member of the BNP. Sadie Graham animal rights activist is the BNP member arrested for leaking BNP emails. Roberto Fiore an Italian racist terrorist is an animal rights activist with links to Nick Griffin. Troy southgate an AR activist is a National Front associate. Jon Procer a young AR activist has been pictured on a National Front demonstartion. Matthew Gibbons an AR acitivist is an open and photographed member of the hooligan English Defence League responsible for rampages involving thousands of thugs across the UK.

The violent Animal Protection Party and associated groups the Camden Sanity Brigade and Charity Watch have openly joined a cult that believes “aliens have taken over Camden”. Keith Mann a convicted terrorist has links to alien websites on his myspace page. These groups have targeted Cancer Research UK and only Cancer Research UK via websites and blogs.

These extremists must be kept out of Camden at all costs and by any means necessary.

NB Mike Ball hasn’t responded to my polite request for him to join in / comment. Michael

If LPAs are as bad as is often claimed, and delays are unjustified (the critical issue) then why are there not more appeals on grounds of non-determination?

I agree with your comments and happy to be associated with them.

I think this is one of a number of NHPAU projects which treats planning as
a process and fails to understand the substance of the plan making and
planning decision process and the relationship betwen the two.

Even on the terms of the objectives of the project,I would have considered
as factors:
a) whether there were pre-application discussions
b) whether LPA had published core strategy, area action plan or site brief
c) whether application complied with brief
Given govt is so enthusiastic to demonstrate the advantages of
pre-application discussions ( see new development management consultation
paper) and speeding up the number of core strategies approved, it is
curious NHPAU does not appear to be considering these factors.

Even given the narrow process approach, the project does not appear to
consider factors such as:
LPA staff to casework ratio
Number of qualfied planners
Proportion of cases considered by members ( as opposed to officer
delegation).
LPA requirements for supporting documents ( including financial viability
analysis)
Whether or not a section 106 was involved

I also think that application registration/ validation is wrong start
date. Even if you dont count pre-application discussions, application date
is more useful given time often taken to validate an application(
generally because required supporting information is missing). There is
also a case for recording signing off of a section 106 rather than
granting of application. I think this would completely change the results
of the scheme size/ decision time analysis - ie large schemes ( including
prestige schemes) often take longer because of the time the s106 takes to
resolve.

I also think there is a crossover between type of applicant and type of
scheme. HA applications will generally be affordable housing only and will
not therefore require development viability analysis to justify low
proportions of affordable housing. There is a difference between quick
rejections of non compliant schemes and the time taken by LPA to accept
supporting evidence for approval of a scheme which is not fully compliant
but the most compliant option deliverable.

My main concern was Michael Ball’s assertion ( no evidence) that there was
no relationship between time taken to consider a scheme and degree of
scheme compliance with policy. The whole basis of Mayoral intervention in
London was to increase degree of scheme policy compliance - admittedly
with fairly limited effect. Most LPAs would at least argue that the
application assessment process has the same objective. It is unhelpful for
a research project to imply that development control makes no contribution
to scheme qualoity, output or policy compliance, and it is solely an issue
of speed of process.

Michael Ball in pointing out that his analysis only demostrated 30%
correllation on the factors analysed, and then said planning decisions
were all political anyway, drew attention to the limitations of his own
research. The irony is that NHPAU now seem to publish all their
commissioned research without understanding its implications - in this
case that it was so inconclusive. I think it was pefectly reasonable for
us to suggest factors not considered in the research which might be
relevant to the study. Neither of us (unlike Michael) asserted that there
was a clear explanation for why some schemes took longer to be approved
than others.

Now Peter Williams is chair of the NHPAU board we may get a better
research output, or at least a few more caveats in researchers
presentations.

Duncan