Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
What you brought up is the same thing that bothers many people in the industry, government and general public: who and how should have the authority to decide in matters that are so subjective in nature? Many times I've seen planners presenting a fully-compliant application to Council and being challenged by aldermen on why they shouldn't have approved it. And the opposite: when a planner goes outside of the box and recommends something for approval based on relaxed guidelines, he/she is being attacked for doing so by the aldermen who don't agree with the rationale. I am sure you can relate to these scenarios.
It is never 100% right or wrong. There are always different and very subjective views on planning principles and policies, including housing. Which is why I get so frustrated when people see it so black and white.
|
While there are many things that are not black and white, some things are pretty clear and there is a right/wrong answer. When you consider the role of local government, you cannot justify things like the urban/suburban infrastructure subsidy and unorganized/free-for-all fringe development. These things are greatly different to a builder/developer trying something new and being shot down by administration or council.
In cases of compliant projects being denied approval, I'll have to defer to the British precedent once again. In England, they tend to utilize the legal system and courts and let them handle these types of cases. I admire this and find it preferable as the courts have to look at it objectively and according to the planning merits of the development (i.e. how it adheres to plans and guidelines but also how it could accomplish planning goals/objectives). There is a bit of subjectivity when it comes to accomplishing goals and objectives but I'd rather the discretion of a judge than most Councillors.