View Single Post
Old 01-11-2013, 11:11 AM   #347
Addick
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Addick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East London
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
The hope is that it will be a system that functions much better for everyone - particularly the planning staff at the City, who currently work in a pretty stifling and adversarial system. Just look at the term you used - "standing up to developers". That's not what it should be about -an us vs. them mentality. It needs to become far more collaborative and productive.
This has also been a problem in England and the common belief is that when it comes to getting planning approval the default setting from Development Control in English Planning Authorities is to deny planning permission; the applicant has to go to great lengths to prove the worthiness and merits of their plan no matter its quality. The Tories have embarked upon a new planning framework where they intend to shift "the presumption in favour of sustainable development". I think this is probably pertinent for the City in its attempt sort the 'how'.

It would be appropriate if the default setting for handling applications for developments supported in Calgary's MDP was to give planning approval. However, I see a disconnect between the types of development sought in our MDP and the types of development that are able to easily flow through the City's planning and development system. In particular, I'm unsure if the current Land-Use Bylaws address, or are even able to address, the types of development called for in the MDP. So, might Transforming Planning necessitate an overhaul of the LUB or even a move to a post-LUB planning system?
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”

- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Addick is offline   Reply With Quote