In response to Ms B Denby, ‘Shame on our council planners’, Friday, November 20, 2015, I would like to ask her, after she has sacked all the planners, to whom she would turn in order for Sheffield City Council to carry out its statutory duty to execute and enforce the complicated planning laws of this country?
I ask because she would be sacking my husband who studied at university for three years full-time and two years part-time to gain the academic qualifications to do his job, and has worked in local authority planning departments for more than 20 years.
It is an unenviable task to interpret planning laws in a sensitive and competent way to ensure that developments in our city meet the needs of residents and businesses now and in the future.
If someone buys a residential property and wishes to turn it into a house of multiple occupancy many things are taken into consideration before a decision is made, including all objections from members of the public.
Ultimately though, it is an amalgamation of national laws, local policies, impact on neighbourhoods and the expertise of our planners that result in a planning application being granted or rejected.
Unfortunately there is no law protecting NIMBYism!
I, too, have objected to planning applications in my neighbourhood and been disappointed that permission has been subsequently granted.
I did not think that it called for the dismissal of a group of highly educated, dedicated council officers.
This is a democratic process, carried out whatever ideological persuasion you lean towards.
Think how much better your neighbourhood would be if there were no planners in the city at all. There would be no-one to stop your neighbour building an extension covering the entire plot, with windows directly overlooking your property. There would be no-one to prevent them turning outbuildings into living accommodation with scant regard for the infrastructure of vital services like power and sewage. That would certainly ‘stink’!
The application you refer to falls well within the policy of limiting houses in multiple occupation to 20 per cent of the total residencies. The publicly available planning committee report states that the area has 9 per cent of such housing. This is hardly ‘swamping’ the area, is it?
Perhaps you would like to reconsider ‘sacking the lot’ of them?