Any Planning Experts here?
Discussion
Need a bit of advice from the PH massive here about a planning app which we are now having some issues with, it relates to a rejected planning application which we are planning to resubmit on the free resubmission with 12 months basis, i'll put a brief timeline on,
Nov - plans rejected
Dec - paid for a pre planning meeting
Jan - planning officer retires and it takes 4/6 weeks to allocate a new one
Feb - new officer goes on long term sick leave and takes another 4/6 weeks to have a new one allocated
Jul - finally get the planning meeting after months of requests and planning officer delays
Oct - ready for resubmission withing the correct timeline to resubmit with the original fee
Now we have an issue, the new planning regulations stipulate (apparently) that if there is a bat survey required then it needs to have been done at the last roosting season prior to submission. It used to be that as long as the survey was done within the last 2 years then it was fine.
The implications for us now are that..
A. Our planning application will be delayed for another 6 months
B. We will have to pay for another bat survey AND another planning app
Our issue is that nowhere on the website does it say anything about this new survey rule. Not on the 'local list' or indeed nowhere on the site. The architect said he knew nothing about this and that at the pre app meeting the officer should have pointed this out, especially seeing as he knew that such a report formed part of the application AND that he would/should have know about the rule change. It does specifically say on the council website that as part of a paid pre app meeting an officer will provide all the requirements for your app. He didn't mention this point and the notes sent by him show that also.
Issue 2 is that apparently this stipulation only came into force in March of this year. Nowhere on the website does it say that any rules were changed this year, not even in the specific paragraphs where it talks about ecology surveys.
I'm not sure who's at fault here, us/architect/council, but I do feel that the council's transmission of this information was somewhat lacking. Especially given the mental time delays we've had with the reallocation of planning officers and all the extra time and cancelled meetings that ended up taking us 7 months to get a pre app meeting.
The question I have is, if any PHer's have an insight, is that do we have any grounds here for complaint? I feel the council need to allow validation of the plans and relax the survey requirement for us or at least extend our window for free resubmission?
The plans were for 3 new build houses, 4 barn conversions so I think it's for 7 dwellings and the fee is a reasonably high amount of money.
Any guidance or thoughts most appreciated.
Nov - plans rejected
Dec - paid for a pre planning meeting
Jan - planning officer retires and it takes 4/6 weeks to allocate a new one
Feb - new officer goes on long term sick leave and takes another 4/6 weeks to have a new one allocated
Jul - finally get the planning meeting after months of requests and planning officer delays
Oct - ready for resubmission withing the correct timeline to resubmit with the original fee
Now we have an issue, the new planning regulations stipulate (apparently) that if there is a bat survey required then it needs to have been done at the last roosting season prior to submission. It used to be that as long as the survey was done within the last 2 years then it was fine.
The implications for us now are that..
A. Our planning application will be delayed for another 6 months
B. We will have to pay for another bat survey AND another planning app
Our issue is that nowhere on the website does it say anything about this new survey rule. Not on the 'local list' or indeed nowhere on the site. The architect said he knew nothing about this and that at the pre app meeting the officer should have pointed this out, especially seeing as he knew that such a report formed part of the application AND that he would/should have know about the rule change. It does specifically say on the council website that as part of a paid pre app meeting an officer will provide all the requirements for your app. He didn't mention this point and the notes sent by him show that also.
Issue 2 is that apparently this stipulation only came into force in March of this year. Nowhere on the website does it say that any rules were changed this year, not even in the specific paragraphs where it talks about ecology surveys.
I'm not sure who's at fault here, us/architect/council, but I do feel that the council's transmission of this information was somewhat lacking. Especially given the mental time delays we've had with the reallocation of planning officers and all the extra time and cancelled meetings that ended up taking us 7 months to get a pre app meeting.
The question I have is, if any PHer's have an insight, is that do we have any grounds here for complaint? I feel the council need to allow validation of the plans and relax the survey requirement for us or at least extend our window for free resubmission?
The plans were for 3 new build houses, 4 barn conversions so I think it's for 7 dwellings and the fee is a reasonably high amount of money.
Any guidance or thoughts most appreciated.
Sounds complicated, but first thing is that anyone even remotely competent should have asked for the validation requirements when you had your meeting with the Planner in July (which would have allowed you time to get the surveys done this season). Though I guess it's understandable to have assumed that there would be no changes to validation requirements from the previous application.
It might be worth checking the Council's 'terms of service' for pre-app meetings: they sometimes list the information that they promise to give you in return for your pre-application fee, and if validation requirements are among them, you may have some comeback (though ultimately it's up to you to ask them for this information, if you want it at the pre-app stage).
It might also be worth looking at the wording of the new policy, and your particular situation on the site, to see whether it is reasonable for them to insist on this as a validation requirement instead of saying that survey and mitigation can be dealt with by means of a condition on the approval.
In terms of grounds for complaint and reparation for any shortcomings on the LPA's part, you need to recognise that their hands are tied by Planning law, to some degree. They may be able to waive the fee (I'd have to check on the technical legalities), for example, but they may not be in a position to bend policy, either at local or national level, if their genuine belief is that you need a bat report to comply with Planning and protected species legislation.
Contact me via my profile, if you want someone to look into the matter for you properly.
It might be worth checking the Council's 'terms of service' for pre-app meetings: they sometimes list the information that they promise to give you in return for your pre-application fee, and if validation requirements are among them, you may have some comeback (though ultimately it's up to you to ask them for this information, if you want it at the pre-app stage).
It might also be worth looking at the wording of the new policy, and your particular situation on the site, to see whether it is reasonable for them to insist on this as a validation requirement instead of saying that survey and mitigation can be dealt with by means of a condition on the approval.
In terms of grounds for complaint and reparation for any shortcomings on the LPA's part, you need to recognise that their hands are tied by Planning law, to some degree. They may be able to waive the fee (I'd have to check on the technical legalities), for example, but they may not be in a position to bend policy, either at local or national level, if their genuine belief is that you need a bat report to comply with Planning and protected species legislation.
Contact me via my profile, if you want someone to look into the matter for you properly.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 23 October 19:06
its very difficult to advise on this without understanding the scheme specifics, reviewing the previous application and the pre-app advice you've received.
This may be about more than just validation requirements....
The fine details of issues like this would not normally be covered by a local validation list which tend to be more generic. The issue with protected species (particularly bats) is that the Council will need to be certain that in granting permission your development will not cause harm and if the site supports them sufficient mitigation measures can be delivered by the development. Thanks to caselaw, bat surveys (as with any european protected species) cannot be secured by a planning condition.
Some queries - Did ecology form part of the previous reasons for refusal? Was your original application supported by a survey(s) done by a qualified ecologist and if so did it identify any particular issues that required mitigation (i.e. a bat roost)? As part of the pre-app did the Council seek views from consultees (such as their ecologist)?
Its important to note that in the context of a resubmission, the Council are obliged to start their consideration against the reasons and policies that made up the previous decision and should not introduce new issues unless they have good reason (i.e. changes to the development plan policy or new material considerations arising since previous determination).
I can appreciate you are in a tricky situation with timings, associated costs, risk etc. The delays with obtaining advice from the Council are unfortunate but sadly not unusual at the moment as resources are very stretched. The legislation for fees's is very rigid, validation requirements (leading to a dispute over whether an application is valid or not) can be challenged at appeal (vary rare and time consuming) i'd therefore suggest your best bet is to have someone drill down into the detail and recommend a strategy to assist you and your architect.
I've advised and continue to work on projects which have similarities to this, I'd be happy to either advise you further or point you in the direction of a fellow chartered town planner along with the other professionals you may need (btw i'm a planning consultant based in the east midlands but work nationwide) feel free to pm me
.
just one further thought, are your barns in active agricultural use and has your architect checked to see if they would benefit from permitted development rights for the conversion?
This may be about more than just validation requirements....
The fine details of issues like this would not normally be covered by a local validation list which tend to be more generic. The issue with protected species (particularly bats) is that the Council will need to be certain that in granting permission your development will not cause harm and if the site supports them sufficient mitigation measures can be delivered by the development. Thanks to caselaw, bat surveys (as with any european protected species) cannot be secured by a planning condition.
Some queries - Did ecology form part of the previous reasons for refusal? Was your original application supported by a survey(s) done by a qualified ecologist and if so did it identify any particular issues that required mitigation (i.e. a bat roost)? As part of the pre-app did the Council seek views from consultees (such as their ecologist)?
Its important to note that in the context of a resubmission, the Council are obliged to start their consideration against the reasons and policies that made up the previous decision and should not introduce new issues unless they have good reason (i.e. changes to the development plan policy or new material considerations arising since previous determination).
I can appreciate you are in a tricky situation with timings, associated costs, risk etc. The delays with obtaining advice from the Council are unfortunate but sadly not unusual at the moment as resources are very stretched. The legislation for fees's is very rigid, validation requirements (leading to a dispute over whether an application is valid or not) can be challenged at appeal (vary rare and time consuming) i'd therefore suggest your best bet is to have someone drill down into the detail and recommend a strategy to assist you and your architect.
I've advised and continue to work on projects which have similarities to this, I'd be happy to either advise you further or point you in the direction of a fellow chartered town planner along with the other professionals you may need (btw i'm a planning consultant based in the east midlands but work nationwide) feel free to pm me
. just one further thought, are your barns in active agricultural use and has your architect checked to see if they would benefit from permitted development rights for the conversion?
Thankyou both for your advice,
Our original planning app was in Aug 2015 and was supported by a properly qualified bat survey that the council ecologist was happy with. Our refusal was cited as the houses being too high and not of a design that the council were happy with. No ecology issues. In all the subsequent correspondance, both written and verbal the planning officer has indicated he is happy to recommend the scheme, subject to some parameters and infact even on the decision day the planning committee head stated 'yes we accept planning on that site is inevitable, just not this'.
It's a late stage problem now as the revised plans are done as per their parameters, ready to submit and I think we have approximately a week to resubmit.
It just comes across to me as administrative issue as opposed to planning one and I do feel not of our doing and one that could have been easily resolved if the pre app advice had been a touch more comprehensive.
The barns are actually a stable and a coach-house, council have no issue in granting them permission.
Our original planning app was in Aug 2015 and was supported by a properly qualified bat survey that the council ecologist was happy with. Our refusal was cited as the houses being too high and not of a design that the council were happy with. No ecology issues. In all the subsequent correspondance, both written and verbal the planning officer has indicated he is happy to recommend the scheme, subject to some parameters and infact even on the decision day the planning committee head stated 'yes we accept planning on that site is inevitable, just not this'.
It's a late stage problem now as the revised plans are done as per their parameters, ready to submit and I think we have approximately a week to resubmit.
It just comes across to me as administrative issue as opposed to planning one and I do feel not of our doing and one that could have been easily resolved if the pre app advice had been a touch more comprehensive.
The barns are actually a stable and a coach-house, council have no issue in granting them permission.
zedstar said:
Thankyou both for your advice,
Our original planning app was in Aug 2015 and was supported by a properly qualified bat survey that the council ecologist was happy with. Our refusal was cited as the houses being too high and not of a design that the council were happy with. No ecology issues. In all the subsequent correspondance, both written and verbal the planning officer has indicated he is happy to recommend the scheme, subject to some parameters and infact even on the decision day the planning committee head stated 'yes we accept planning on that site is inevitable, just not this'.
It's a late stage problem now as the revised plans are done as per their parameters, ready to submit and I think we have approximately a week to resubmit.
It just comes across to me as administrative issue as opposed to planning one and I do feel not of our doing and one that could have been easily resolved if the pre app advice had been a touch more comprehensive.
The barns are actually a stable and a coach-house, council have no issue in granting them permission.
Have you sought the view of the ecologist used to produced the report? If not it might be worth asking them to review this issue and discuss with the ecologist used by the Council? They may be able to agree a pragmatic solution for you.Our original planning app was in Aug 2015 and was supported by a properly qualified bat survey that the council ecologist was happy with. Our refusal was cited as the houses being too high and not of a design that the council were happy with. No ecology issues. In all the subsequent correspondance, both written and verbal the planning officer has indicated he is happy to recommend the scheme, subject to some parameters and infact even on the decision day the planning committee head stated 'yes we accept planning on that site is inevitable, just not this'.
It's a late stage problem now as the revised plans are done as per their parameters, ready to submit and I think we have approximately a week to resubmit.
It just comes across to me as administrative issue as opposed to planning one and I do feel not of our doing and one that could have been easily resolved if the pre app advice had been a touch more comprehensive.
The barns are actually a stable and a coach-house, council have no issue in granting them permission.
Also, was the scheme refused at committee against an officer recommendation?
Pre apps are more hassle than they are worth except for large schemes. Councils can't resource them, as you have found out. There is basically no come back for the poor service you have had.
From what you have said, you are stuck until the new survey season, but speak to the ecologist to see if they can get you a shortcut.
From what you have said, you are stuck until the new survey season, but speak to the ecologist to see if they can get you a shortcut.
mx5cl said:
Have you sought the view of the ecologist used to produced the report? If not it might be worth asking them to review this issue and discuss with the ecologist used by the Council? They may be able to agree a pragmatic solution for you.
Also, was the scheme refused at committee against an officer recommendation?
Apparently (!) he has was the one who pointed this out when he was asked to 'condition' his report or something? I'll talk to him tomorrow and see what he says, good idea.Also, was the scheme refused at committee against an officer recommendation?
The plans were not supported by the planning officer, the committee followed suit.
In an attempt to get matters moving, you could update the draft Section 106 within your Planning Application to include the undertaking of the Bat Survey and subsequent remedial works within the 106 Agreement.
That way you will at least (if successful this time) have your planning consent on a Conditional Basis that only requires the discharging of conditions rather than having to wait a further 6 months to even submit your planning application.
That way you will at least (if successful this time) have your planning consent on a Conditional Basis that only requires the discharging of conditions rather than having to wait a further 6 months to even submit your planning application.
Myc said:
In an attempt to get matters moving, you could update the draft Section 106 within your Planning Application to include the undertaking of the Bat Survey and subsequent remedial works within the 106 Agreement.
That way you will at least (if successful this time) have your planning consent on a Conditional Basis that only requires the discharging of conditions rather than having to wait a further 6 months to even submit your planning application.
This is not an appropriate purpose and function for a Section 106 agreement.That way you will at least (if successful this time) have your planning consent on a Conditional Basis that only requires the discharging of conditions rather than having to wait a further 6 months to even submit your planning application.
Equus said:
Myc said:
In an attempt to get matters moving, you could update the draft Section 106 within your Planning Application to include the undertaking of the Bat Survey and subsequent remedial works within the 106 Agreement.
That way you will at least (if successful this time) have your planning consent on a Conditional Basis that only requires the discharging of conditions rather than having to wait a further 6 months to even submit your planning application.
This is not an appropriate purpose and function for a Section 106 agreement.That way you will at least (if successful this time) have your planning consent on a Conditional Basis that only requires the discharging of conditions rather than having to wait a further 6 months to even submit your planning application.
We've got a meeting tomorrow with the architects, I think our only option at the moment may be to remove the coach house from the planning app and re apply as an amendment next year. At least that way we can get planning for the 3 houses, I'll see what happens tomorrow.
Thanks for the words so far...
Thanks for the words so far...
Good luck with the meeting.
I assume you need the updated survey because you are trying to prove the absence of bats. If the survey is too old, then it does not provide sufficient proof.
The age of the survey is not a Town and County Planning Act issue. It is an EPSL matter (European Protected Species Licensing) your ecologist should be advising you rather than the planners.
Fighting against the legal requirements is not going to work. You need to play the system and removing the area affected by the bat survey seems like a good workaround.
I assume you need the updated survey because you are trying to prove the absence of bats. If the survey is too old, then it does not provide sufficient proof.
The age of the survey is not a Town and County Planning Act issue. It is an EPSL matter (European Protected Species Licensing) your ecologist should be advising you rather than the planners.
Fighting against the legal requirements is not going to work. You need to play the system and removing the area affected by the bat survey seems like a good workaround.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff