Planning law....with enough funds can you ever lose?

[funkyrobot]

TooMany2cvs said:

funkyrobot said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And have those people actually done anything about it, other than gripe among themselves?

We all rejected the planning applications that we were entitled to. And I don't mean we just said 'we don't like it'. Each person gave a list of valid concerns that should be taken into account.

However, as usual, the council simply ignored everything. They didn't even counter the points in the responses. Simply said we need houses, there is no local plan that we recognise, tough st.

So, no, the residents haven't done anything towards getting a local plan in place.

It's quite an ignorant statement to make. Then again, I know what you are like and you know everything.

I think the issue is that there aren't that many people even aware of such a thing as the local plan. It's been in development for a while now, but has been kept extremely quiet.

Also, unlike myself, some people aren't bothered about things that don't affect their little bubble.

When I speak to my neighbours, hardly any of them know about the plan. They just responded to the planning notices that appeared through the letter box.

From what I have found out about the plan though, it's pretty much a 'do as we say' affair. There have been a few chances to view it, but it's been the middle of a weekday when I am at work. It's also only being mentioned en masse now as the planning applications using it as an excuse are all but passed.

To me, it seems the gap between the old and the adoption of the new is being used by the council to pass a lot of applications.

[loafer123]

funkyrobot said:

We all rejected the planning applications that we were entitled to. And I don't mean we just said 'we don't like it'. Each person gave a list of valid concerns that should be taken into account.

However, as usual, the council simply ignored everything. They didn't even counter the points in the responses. Simply said we need houses, there is no local plan that we recognise, tough st.

But were the points valid objections showing contravention of the adopted planning policies?

[Swervin_Mervin]

The draft local plan documents are always put out for a period of consultation, and in every case I've ever seen that has included an online portal to view it and make comments. Even then, after a couple of drafts, it has an Examination In Public led by a Planning Inspector independent of the Local Authority, and where locals and developers alike are welcome to attend. Then the Inspector will make his recommendations for any changes before there's a chance of it becoming policy.

And on top of all of that process that you can get involved in, you could also organise yourselves as a community and draft a Neighbourhood Plan.

[funkyrobot]

loafer123 said:

But were the points valid objections showing contravention of the adopted planning policies?

Mine were. They were ignored.

I'll see if I can find the rejection I wrote. It was a few years ago now though.

[funkyrobot]

Swervin_Mervin said:

The draft local plan documents are always put out for a period of consultation, and in every case I've ever seen that has included an online portal to view it and make comments. Even then, after a couple of drafts, it has an Examination In Public led by a Planning Inspector independent of the Local Authority, and where locals and developers alike are welcome to attend. Then the Inspector will make his recommendations for any changes before there's a chance of it becoming policy.

And on top of all of that process that you can get involved in, you could also organise yourselves as a community and draft a Neighbourhood Plan.

As mentioned above, anything I did with the local plan would have made no difference to the field behind my house. The plan still isn't adopted and was apparently being discussed in early 2014 when planning was granted for the field.

The whole point of my annoyance is that the old plan was deemed out of date and the new one hadn't been adopted. Therefore, the council granted permission. They still haven't adopted it now (even though their website states it should have been done last month), and recently passed some more developments based on this fact.

[The Surveyor]

funkyrobot said:

There is a new local plan which the council haven't adopted. I can't remember the specifics, but the old one is decades old.

Thing is though, they are using this excuse to allow building pretty much anywhere. I'm talking about estates with hundred or so houses plus other smaller areas with 30 - 50 houses. It doesn't seem to be in their interest to adopt the plan yet as they use it as an excuse.

Rather than a plan limiting things, it's like it's an open door policy and the council are thriving on it. Much to the annoyance of the people who live around here.

The council are benefitting from a lack of plan.

The Councils are struggling to release enough residential development land to meet the targets issued by central government, that's why local plans are taking longer to adopt at the moment. Central Government have identified a massive target which will both provide more new homes to replace the depleted (and dilapidated) housing stock, and which will help kick-start the construction industry. If a town has a target of say 5,000 new homes, and it's local plan only shows 2,000 plots then you will see why they're under pressure to approve new residential development planning applications.

It is not the council who are benefitting from the plan, its the landowners, the developers, and ultimately it's people who want somewhere to live.

[The Surveyor]

funkyrobot said:

loafer123 said:

But were the points valid objections showing contravention of the adopted planning policies?

Mine were. They were ignored.

I'll see if I can find the rejection I wrote. It was a few years ago now though.

Valid objections aren't ignored, they will be considered against the benefits of the application, and against the wider policy. If the benefits of the development out-weigh the objections then the application will be approved. That's why applications are made by committee, and not just the planning officer, it allows for such debate.

[Ziplobb]

Here on the Isle of Wight which of course is a predominantly rural area which has a big need for affordable housing there have been a number of schemes recently which local planning have refused but which have been upheld at appeal.These developments seek to build high density housing but show little in contribution to local service - where are the doctors, extra hospital beds, school places . roads ? Public services are under severe pressure here - on the mainland if an area is under pressure at least its easy to drive to another area - over here there is a ferry journey involved.

The local council really dont like small development though and stick rigidly to their guns for refusal when faced with an application for a single dwelling in an area where one or two more houses make no difference to the above an in actual fact if handled correctly would enhance an area.

I live in a hamlet of 19 houses - development is barred - I had a chat with a planning consultant a few weeks ago about a single dwelling on a 1/4 acre plot in between two existing dwellings (not on the outskirts) tha I own - he said not a hope in hells chance & I am just wasting my money taking it any further - our hamlet would easily support a small number of extra quality houses without severely impacting on the local area as would many other locations over here - what they wont support is 30 or 50 new houses - the point is that is each small hamlet or village contributed say a dozen new plots then the net effect over the Island is a significant contriubtion to the target that the local authority has to make.

[The Surveyor]

funkyrobot said:

........ the council are allowing the building of 167 houses. Odd that.

Also, the new estate signs went up recently. The site is called '[placename] fields'. What a joke! Tearing up a field and green area then labelling it as a field. The signs even show rolling fields. Yesh, the estate will really look like that.
....

Your own garden would have been a field once, same as the industrial estate at the other side. Rolling fields and habitats that were lost in the past in the same name of progress as the 167 new houses.

[funkyrobot]

The Surveyor said:

funkyrobot said:

........ the council are allowing the building of 167 houses. Odd that.

Also, the new estate signs went up recently. The site is called '[placename] fields'. What a joke! Tearing up a field and green area then labelling it as a field. The signs even show rolling fields. Yesh, the estate will really look like that.
....

Your own garden would have been a field once, same as the industrial estate at the other side. Rolling fields and habitats that were lost in the past in the same name of progress as the 167 new houses.

My garden is still like a small field.

Unfortunately, I wasn't around in 1937 so couldn't have any say on when my house was built.

[funkyrobot]

The Surveyor said:

funkyrobot said:

There is a new local plan which the council haven't adopted. I can't remember the specifics, but the old one is decades old.

Thing is though, they are using this excuse to allow building pretty much anywhere. I'm talking about estates with hundred or so houses plus other smaller areas with 30 - 50 houses. It doesn't seem to be in their interest to adopt the plan yet as they use it as an excuse.

Rather than a plan limiting things, it's like it's an open door policy and the council are thriving on it. Much to the annoyance of the people who live around here.

The council are benefitting from a lack of plan.

The Councils are struggling to release enough residential development land to meet the targets issued by central government, that's why local plans are taking longer to adopt at the moment. Central Government have identified a massive target which will both provide more new homes to replace the depleted (and dilapidated) housing stock, and which will help kick-start the construction industry. If a town has a target of say 5,000 new homes, and it's local plan only shows 2,000 plots then you will see why they're under pressure to approve new residential development planning applications.

It is not the council who are benefitting from the plan, its the landowners, the developers, and ultimately it's people who want somewhere to live.

Fair point.

[funkyrobot]

The Surveyor said:

funkyrobot said:

loafer123 said:

But were the points valid objections showing contravention of the adopted planning policies?

Mine were. They were ignored.

I'll see if I can find the rejection I wrote. It was a few years ago now though.

Valid objections aren't ignored, they will be considered against the benefits of the application, and against the wider policy. If the benefits of the development out-weigh the objections then the application will be approved. That's why applications are made by committee, and not just the planning officer, it allows for such debate.

And again, fair point.

[Riley Blue]

speedyguy said:

Riley Blue said:

Here's an example: a village pub came up for sale and was bought by a developer. The developer didn't put any effort into running the pub as a going concern and, much to the chagrin of villagers, it closed.

Would that be the same villagers who maybe prevented it being a sustainable business by lack of use and support as beer is cheaper in the supermarket innit ?
People don't like change.

They were going to change a localish 'pub' to a 'smokehouse restaurant' and 'all' the regulars opposed it.
A pal went in recently and said it was like a scene from deliverance.

I was using it as an example of how councils can be powerless in the face of developers but yes, it's a prime case of 'if you don't use it, you lose it'.

[The Surveyor]

funkyrobot said:

The Surveyor said:

funkyrobot said:

........ the council are allowing the building of 167 houses. Odd that.

Also, the new estate signs went up recently. The site is called '[placename] fields'. What a joke! Tearing up a field and green area then labelling it as a field. The signs even show rolling fields. Yesh, the estate will really look like that.
....

Your own garden would have been a field once, same as the industrial estate at the other side. Rolling fields and habitats that were lost in the past in the same name of progress as the 167 new houses.

My garden is still like a small field.

Unfortunately, I wasn't around in 1937 so couldn't have any say on when my house was built.

A very fair point

[sparkythecat]

Riley Blue said:

Here's an example: a village pub came up for sale and was bought by a developer. The developer didn't put any effort into running the pub as a going concern and, much to the chagrin of villagers, it closed.
The developer submitted a planning application to demolish it and build nine houses on the site. Against the advice of planning officers and under considerable pressure from villagers, councillors voted to refuse the application which went to appeal.
Planning inpector came and public meeting was held, lots of villagers attended and blathered on about loss of ammenity, detrimental impact on village life etc. etc. The appeal was upheld, the re-development went ahead.
Fighting the appeal (an obviously futile fight) cost the council £75,000 of public money. Developers have councils by the balls, every time.

Have you got a link to this story ?
I ask as we are just embarking on a save the pub campaign in our village. The developers are on the point of submitting a planning application and I wondered what lessons we could learn from your story

[TooMany2cvs]

funkyrobot said:

TooMany2cvs said:

funkyrobot said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And have those people actually done anything about it, other than gripe among themselves?

We all rejected the planning applications that we were entitled to. And I don't mean we just said 'we don't like it'. Each person gave a list of valid concerns that should be taken into account.

However, as usual, the council simply ignored everything. They didn't even counter the points in the responses. Simply said we need houses, there is no local plan that we recognise, tough st.

So, no, the residents haven't done anything towards getting a local plan in place.

It's quite an ignorant statement to make. Then again, I know what you are like and you know everything.

Yeh, I mean - what do I know... I'm only a parish councillor, and wasn't one of the people actually directly involved in the working group of villagers who developed our local plan...

funkyrobot said:

I think the issue is that there aren't that many people even aware of such a thing as the local plan. It's been in development for a while now, but has been kept extremely quiet.

Also, unlike myself, some people aren't bothered about things that don't affect their little bubble.

Even when they do actually affect them. Like this.

funkyrobot said:

When I speak to my neighbours, hardly any of them know about the plan. They just responded to the planning notices that appeared through the letter box.

From what I have found out about the plan though, it's pretty much a 'do as we say' affair. There have been a few chances to view it, but it's been the middle of a weekday when I am at work. It's also only being mentioned en masse now as the planning applications using it as an excuse are all but passed.

The council don't write the plan. The local residents do. The council then approve and adopt it. It seems like there's not been a single local resident bothered enough to actually get involved with it, publicise it to the rest of the residents, and drive it through.

[MKnight702]

voyds9 said:

Well we are having a new warehouse built behind my estate.

Before we moved on to the estate we check, no buildings above 2 stories to be built on adjoining industrial estate.

Application 1. 3 story ware house - rejected - hurrah

Application 2. 2 story warehouse - rejected - hurrah.

Application 3. 2 story warehouse with a bank to screen lower level - passed - boo! It's only the top level we can see so what is the point screening the lower level.

We got the feeling amended plans were just going to be submitted until they were passed.

Just wait, if the commercial planning is the same as residential planning then what will happen is the developer will now submit amendment after amendment, each just under the limit for full resubmission. Each change will go in hot on the heels of the previous one being passed and the end result will be the construction of the building on the original plan if not bigger.

[funkyrobot]

In light of what you have told me 2cvs, I apologise for my comments.

As you say, it looks like nobody has seen the plan through. I didn't even know that it was developed by the residents. To me, it seems like our council have said this is it, come and have a look, and that's it.

I'll look into it in more depth when I can.

Still wouldn't have changed anything on the field behind me as they weren't abiding by any local plan.

Edited by funkyrobot on Tuesday 28th March 13:23

[funkyrobot]

I've just done a bit of digging to find details of the proposed new plan. Interestingly, it only gets worse for where I live. Plan section below:



My house resides near Pin011 (above right of the big R1 lettering). That is the development currently being undertaken.

If you look to the left of the screen you will notice a much larger area earmarked for development (Pin045). In terms of building around me, it's only going to get worse.

Time to seriously consider the move we have been talking about recently.

[anonymous-user]

funkyrobot said:

My garden is still like a small field.

Unfortunately, I wasn't around in 1937 so couldn't have any say on when my house was built.

An 'interesting' argument
Technically anyone living in a house built after 1947 in many "greenbelt" areas maybe needs to wind their neck in a bit.
The same applies to houses built in your era as 'greenbelt' protectionism/nimbyism wasn't around then similar to social media. It doesn't help that many people don't know the difference between greenbelt and greenfield and the inherent different planning policies, worth reading the link below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_(United...
Also I find the quote below interesting