"The difference with the Oaks is the Council owns part of the site and can therefore render planning irrelevant by not selling its land."You're presumably aware that there is a strong view from central Government that local authorities, which are suffering quite staggering cuts in funding, should make up the shortfall by disposing of land they own for private development? This is, I believe, also known as 'Conservative Party policy'. There is also a strong view from central Government that public planning controls should be watered down and developers given a freer hand in maximising the return on their assets. This is, I believe, also known as 'Conservative Party policy'.There's also a strong view from the right that environmental concerns such as air pollution, traffic congestion and climate change are lefty tree hugger nonsense and things like the EU legal action to force London's government to comply with the law *after several years of warnings* are the result of meddling bureaucrats who should sod off. They'd very much like this to be 'Conservative Party policy'.Finally, there's a strong view from London's government that development and economic growth should support an increase in population from 8.5 to 10m by 2030 and that taller, denser buildings, more roads and a relaxed attitude to the social effects of overdevelopment are the way to achieve this. This is known as, er, 'Conservative Party policy'.There's an election coming soon. Do be careful where you put your cross.
Thomas Barry ● 4575d