Our planning inspector dear Manchester!
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1011988.ece
Now, however, Griffiths finds himself at the centre of a political storm,
accused of blighting historic sites to help the government meet its renewable
energy targets by giving the go-ahead for wind farms in some of Britain’s most
sensitive landscapes.
In his most recent ruling, Griffiths gave permission for four wind turbines to
be built on the Duke of Gloucester's land in Northamptonshire close to the
grade I listed Tudor summer house, Lyveden New Bield, which belongs to the
National Trust.
Both the trust and English Heritage are examining Griffiths’s ruling. “We will
be reviewing whether the inspector gave proper consideration to Lyveden and[/LEFT]
if this gives rise to a possible legal challenge,” English Heritage said.
Describing Griffiths’s ruling in the Naseby case as “provocative” and “antidemocratic”,
he said: “Mr Griffiths has got a number of his most recent
decisions completely wrong.”
PDF here:
http://www.lizlake.com/images/stories/pdf/Inspector_Blight_article.pdf
This aligns Eric Pickles ideals with Paul Griffiths similar agendas)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8999705/Wind-farm-to-be-built-at-site-of-decisive-Civil-War-battle.html
As trying to be more careful with my 'language' I'll copy other peoples opinions from forums and articles on Paul Griffiths who made #LRFS report and was choosen by Eric Pickles.
"The main problem with the Inspectorate is that inspectors think they know it all, misguidedly think they are doing a service for the community but, because they are mostly technical illiterates, sophistically academically deprived of practical experience".
"Griffiths seems to be destroying England's countryside and planning process single handed. The man is a complete arse".
About corruption "I bet you’re glad you made the jump. Part of you piece would not be possible if you were still in the Conservatives" on MEP website Roger Helms who agrees with following statements
"I hope you will alert the inspector to your blog entry. These people need to know that their idiocy is being noticed".
About money and vested interests
"It’s all about defining who makes money, and who pays, by force;
1. Create the perception of crisis.
2. Proffer your own pre-determined, convenient solution.
3. Lobby your solution into law (via committee, legislative body, executive order, etc…)
4. Profit by force at the expense of the masses.
5. Repeat".
Critcism by an MEP on the planning process "Great Idea David. I was told that the Inspector, Mr. Paul Griffiths (the same one who allowed the egregious wind-farm within a mile of my home) was hearing an appeal in Thrapston, Northants, and I very nearly went there to accost him. But thinking better of it, I contacted the Planning Inspectorate and asked for Mr. Griffiths’ e-mail address. They refused to give it to me. It’s against the rules. So as an elected MEP I can’t contact a public official on a matter of concern to a constituent. Unbelievable again. But I did send an incandescent e-mail to the Planning Inspectorate’s complaints line. I’ll let you know if I hear from them".
I'm sure there's a lot more out there! Doesn't sound many people all over the UK were happy they got lumbered with this chosen one!
I will or will see if a journalist will ask Paul Griffiths if he regrets his decision (of course he won't confirm that, but nice to ask I think). Ironically in 80 pages of the report a lot is against Britannia and was sceptical that they'd 'do anything' yet one of the key reasons he turned down MCC was Argent would finish late 2014! Whereas Britannia promised to finish 6 months before! That worked out well didn't it!
Great Logic! I wonder if he still he the same / his own opinion (still)? What's very ironic is he doesn't seem supportive of Britannia through much of the report and doubts what they say... er why then...
I will look at this report in detail and have encouraged some journalists to (whether they will or not)... but tonight just posting (as this is a needed break away from Xmas relatives)!!!
Still - I think as a system, if a SoC&LG, whatever party, whatever political biases, can pre-empt support from their planning officer for possible opinions, where is the impartiality? A Daily Express article here puts their contentious decisions again in the same breath (
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/297150/MPS-bid-to-halt-hot-air-Chris-Huhne-s-wind-farms).
I don't think Manchester should NOT question these policy/ these decision makers/ this planning inspector in detail. Just an opinion.
Also not that happy that Pickles office reply basically removes him from any decision making or doesn't have a paper trail of what he has written to make his decision unless he just agrees with whatever the planning officer says