12th August 2012, 11:28 PM
The infinite number of monkeys have been busy, but this ain't exactly a script for Hamlet... (I do wish Mssrs Breakitup & Flogitoff would stop developing policy by the "Open mouth, insert foot" method!)
Since the main driver is reducing the Gov't bill for heritage services, I can't see any of the four options being policed by a cadre of well-informed LPA officers. Instead, one of the options calls for a wild west where the developer hires his own heritage officer to push through a positive recommendation - can you say "conflict of interest"? If the whole point of the LBC system is to conserve LBs against the forces of short-term convenience-led alteration, there needs to be a strong conservative (lower-case "c") set of judges making sure we don't lose historic fabric, which means providing adequate funding from central Gov't to the LPAs so staff levels can be maintained. The four "options" given can only cost jobs in the heritage sector by reducing the number of developments that get affected by LBC, not only from suddenly-redundant "pension grabbers" but also from hard-workin' Units o' One who find the developers no longer need them to clear up those pesky Conditions if they can get the development slipped past the system without any scrutiny! The only winners are the owners...
Since the main driver is reducing the Gov't bill for heritage services, I can't see any of the four options being policed by a cadre of well-informed LPA officers. Instead, one of the options calls for a wild west where the developer hires his own heritage officer to push through a positive recommendation - can you say "conflict of interest"? If the whole point of the LBC system is to conserve LBs against the forces of short-term convenience-led alteration, there needs to be a strong conservative (lower-case "c") set of judges making sure we don't lose historic fabric, which means providing adequate funding from central Gov't to the LPAs so staff levels can be maintained. The four "options" given can only cost jobs in the heritage sector by reducing the number of developments that get affected by LBC, not only from suddenly-redundant "pension grabbers" but also from hard-workin' Units o' One who find the developers no longer need them to clear up those pesky Conditions if they can get the development slipped past the system without any scrutiny! The only winners are the owners...