Review: Up

Preamble:
I am by no means a movie expert, as my friends will attest.

I have never seen many of the classic films which would enable me to understand references to them in popular culture, such as Back to the Future, Pulp Fiction, any of the Star Wars or Bond films or Casablanca. But I know what I like and so, in an attempt to lighten the mood of my blog, here are my thoughts on the new Pixar blockbuster, Up.

Review:
The story begins with a simple premisce: a boy and girl meet and fall in love over a shared urge for adventure. Their life together, while not filled with the kind of excitement they imagined, has plenty of fun and enjoyment, and the pair hold firm onto their dream of one day living at the top of Paradise Falls.

But life has a way of changing our plans for us and, as their savings mount up, the dream is regularly thwarted by unexpected outgoings which keep them firmly rooted in the home they bought as newly-weds.

Many years later, the man is forced into action by the threat of being evicted. He chooses an unusual method to help his dreams take flight - and has some unexpected company along the way.

Up is a very touching animation which had me laughing and crying in equal measure. The saddest moments are mostly lost on the young audience, but the story is no less enjoyable for adults. It is even better for its refusal to rely on the voices of Hollywood A-listers to draw in the crowds. Although there are some notable names - Christopher Plummer and John Ratzenberger (Cliff Clavin of Cheers fame) being the biggest - the film is driven by a strong story and some incredible imagination.

Far from predictable, Up is a breath of fresh air for animation fans growing weary of the formulaic offerings of recent years. Those looking to follow will have to raise their game to match.

Opposition or intimidation? The perils of the planning process

Planning applications are probably among the most controversial things a council has to deal with.

Be it new homes, a supermarket or a nursing home, there are often people on both sides of any major application who are prepared to go to almost any length to get their way.

But when it's something people truly believe in and their life looks set to be affected by the outcome, where do they draw the line? At what point does campaigning turn into intimidation or, perhaps even worse, fraud?

Such questions have been asked by residents and officials in Leeds this week. It has emerged that one local man received an acknowledgement for a letter of support he sent to the city council for the proposed changes to the Tesco store on Roundhay Road. But the man, who lives a few miles from the site, did not send any letter, either for or against the plans.

Similarly, two people in the Wetherby area have received acknowledgements for letters they allegedly sent opposing a controversial 170-home development on an area of open land in the centre of Boston Spa. Neither has been involved in the campaign against the development. These do not seem to be merely administrative errors - one gentleman requested a copy of the letter he had apparently sent and found it had his name and address on the top and was signed off from him at the bottom, though the signature was not genuine.

These cases are clearly of concern to planners, throwing the whole planning process into jeopardy. They mean every letter, email or phone call received relating to an application could be called into question. There could be many more fake letters in the system where a resident receiving an acknowledgement letter has merely dismissed it as a mistake, rather than contacting the council.

Those responsible are no doubt trying to further their cause by adding weight to the argument and making it appear there are even more people on their side than may actually be the case. But if their actions are made public, they can only serve to have the opposite effect. Even if the majority of campaigners are playing by the rules, the one or two who decide to take their own path can cast a shadow of doubt over the entire case.

Similarly, a recent case highlighted a Leeds primary school where new yellow lines were to be painted outside the gates to prevent parents from parking dangerously. Many of the parents objected, claiming they needed to drop their children off as close to school as possible. The school, meanwhile, was adamant that parents could afford to walk a few hundred metres in order to avoid a child being run over as he or she tried to cross the road between the many parked cars. Whichever side of the debate local residents fell on to begin with, their minds must surely have been made up by the actions of some of those involved. Anonymous, menacing letters were sent to houses in the surrounding streets, threatening to park across driveways and block in others' cars unless they objected to the proposals. It beggars belief that some people think this approach is likely to get them what they want.

But then there is the grey area between what is acceptable and what is not. Playing strictly by the rules, there is nothing to stop a community rallying against a development on its doorstep. Villagers can set up action groups, committees and campaigns against planning applications in a bid to convince planners to turn it down. With the support of the majority of residents, they can call public meetings, distribute leaflets and approach people in the street to spread their views. But what about those who may support the controversial application? Whether they make their views public or not, being in a minority against a very active majority must be of concern, particularly when many campaigning groups vow to go to "any lengths" to achieve their aims.

Is such pressure enough to deter people from commenting to the council on planning applications? When does campaigning turn into intimidation? And what can councils do to ensure they are getting a true representation of the views of the community, not just the views of those who are most vocal? These questions are likely to remain unanswered without a major reform of the planning system, particularly the consultation process. I, for one, would not envy the person given that task.