Abuse of planning process
Discussion
Without going into too much detail .
Local residents have been opposed to a development in ,what we consider , an unsuitable location ( don’t accuse us of being Nimbies) the subject of the application is an emotive subject .
A considerable number of objections were made on the planning portal relating to the development ,mainly relating to increased traffic and poor geology of the land , these were all made before the closing date for comments . There is an overwhelming majority of objections to the development .
Because of the subject of the development is emotive, the council are obviously disappointed at the outcome of the application , and have quietly moved the final date for comments to allow an additional 2 months , and it appears have colluded with the developers in gathering support for the development from people well away from the development .As such there has been a sudden upsurge in comments in favour of the development in the last 48 hrs
Is it possible in some way to compel the council to adhere the original date for comments .As this a blatant attempt to engineer the outcome of the planning process
Local residents have been opposed to a development in ,what we consider , an unsuitable location ( don’t accuse us of being Nimbies) the subject of the application is an emotive subject .
A considerable number of objections were made on the planning portal relating to the development ,mainly relating to increased traffic and poor geology of the land , these were all made before the closing date for comments . There is an overwhelming majority of objections to the development .
Because of the subject of the development is emotive, the council are obviously disappointed at the outcome of the application , and have quietly moved the final date for comments to allow an additional 2 months , and it appears have colluded with the developers in gathering support for the development from people well away from the development .As such there has been a sudden upsurge in comments in favour of the development in the last 48 hrs
Is it possible in some way to compel the council to adhere the original date for comments .As this a blatant attempt to engineer the outcome of the planning process
MXRod said:
Without going into too much detail .
Local residents have been opposed to a development in ,what we consider , an unsuitable location ( don’t accuse us of being Nimbies) the subject of the application is an emotive subject .
A considerable number of objections were made on the planning portal relating to the development ,mainly relating to increased traffic and poor geology of the land , these were all made before the closing date for comments . There is an overwhelming majority of objections to the development .
Because of the subject of the development is emotive, the council are obviously disappointed at the outcome of the application , and have quietly moved the final date for comments to allow an additional 2 months , and it appears have colluded with the developers in gathering support for the development from people well away from the development .As such there has been a sudden upsurge in comments in favour of the development in the last 48 hrs
Is it possible in some way to compel the council to adhere the original date for comments .As this a blatant attempt to engineer the outcome of the planning process
Is it a religious building?Local residents have been opposed to a development in ,what we consider , an unsuitable location ( don’t accuse us of being Nimbies) the subject of the application is an emotive subject .
A considerable number of objections were made on the planning portal relating to the development ,mainly relating to increased traffic and poor geology of the land , these were all made before the closing date for comments . There is an overwhelming majority of objections to the development .
Because of the subject of the development is emotive, the council are obviously disappointed at the outcome of the application , and have quietly moved the final date for comments to allow an additional 2 months , and it appears have colluded with the developers in gathering support for the development from people well away from the development .As such there has been a sudden upsurge in comments in favour of the development in the last 48 hrs
Is it possible in some way to compel the council to adhere the original date for comments .As this a blatant attempt to engineer the outcome of the planning process
Louis Balfour said:
Is it a religious building?
Not religious , but of a type that is without doubt required .As soon as I am more specific we will be accused of being nimbies .Within the councils area there are far more suitable tracts of land that could be used without the pressure on local roads by an additional 250 daily traffic movements on the vicinity of a primary school.
The land chosen has a high water table and with heavy rain regularly floods neighbouring gardens. And was quietly changed from green belt to brownfield .
MXRod said:
Louis Balfour said:
Is it a religious building?
Not religious , but of a type that is without doubt required .As soon as I am more specific we will be accused of being nimbies .Within the councils area there are far more suitable tracts of land that could be used without the pressure on local roads by an additional 250 daily traffic movements on the vicinity of a primary school.
The land chosen has a high water table and with heavy rain regularly floods neighbouring gardens. And was quietly changed from green belt to brownfield .
Brief google. There's a pdf link in it (Not in my backyard: Local people and the planning process) which might be of interest.
https://planningaid.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/...
https://planningaid.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/...
You need to be more specific re: your objections, many of which appear irrelevant. What “poor geology” grounds are you objecting on? Why do you say the council are “obviously disappointed at the outcome of the application”? (I assume you mean strength of local opposition, as the application hasn’t been determined yet so can’t have an ‘outcome’).
It’s not at all unusual for LPAs to extend the deadline for comments, especially where a proposal raises numerous issues and the council may require additional info in order to determine it. It’s not possible to compel the council to adhere to the original date for comments.
What evidence do you have that the council appears to have colluded with the developers, is seeking to keep people well away from the development and is attempting to engineer the outcome of the planning process?
It’s irrelevant whether there are more suitable sites for the devt; the council has to determine the proposal before it. If it’s refused, it’s for the developer to seek alternative locations if they wish.
The Environment Agency will be a consultee on flood matters.
The land won’t have been quietly changed from green belt to brownfield by the council but will have gone through a statutory consultation process, probably in a local plan review.
You should confine your objections to material planning considerations (see planningportal.co.uk) and not emotive and irrelevant matters, including unsubstantiated claims of collusion and malpractice.
It’s not at all unusual for LPAs to extend the deadline for comments, especially where a proposal raises numerous issues and the council may require additional info in order to determine it. It’s not possible to compel the council to adhere to the original date for comments.
What evidence do you have that the council appears to have colluded with the developers, is seeking to keep people well away from the development and is attempting to engineer the outcome of the planning process?
It’s irrelevant whether there are more suitable sites for the devt; the council has to determine the proposal before it. If it’s refused, it’s for the developer to seek alternative locations if they wish.
The Environment Agency will be a consultee on flood matters.
The land won’t have been quietly changed from green belt to brownfield by the council but will have gone through a statutory consultation process, probably in a local plan review.
You should confine your objections to material planning considerations (see planningportal.co.uk) and not emotive and irrelevant matters, including unsubstantiated claims of collusion and malpractice.
Edited by Escort3500 on Friday 14th May 08:58
To answer some of the comments , there was a public consultation carried out on behalf of the developers , it was clear then the local residents knew far more about the land and area than the developers.
Comments were largely ignored with the attitude “we know best” even to the point of dismissing local knowledge regarding protected wildlife species .Traffic surveys were carried during “lock down “ then extrapolated to represent the normal .
The land and geoloigy problems were known about as far back as 1936 when a proposed housing development was abandoned due to water table problems
We already have the support of the CPRE .
It is people who do not live adjacent to the proposed development , but have an interest that have been called upon to comment on and support the development .
The planning portal was to be closed to comments mid April , and the application had no additional comments until yesterday ,Thursday, when the first public notice appeared on a lamp post adjacent to the proposed development , then co-incidentally there was upsurge of comments on the planning portal , I cannot believe these are not linked
With regard to the brown/green field change , yes there was a public consultation , only its existence was published on a little read, online local newspaper , as was the outcome .If you are a “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy “fan . think the Vogons and the plans for the “pan Galactic Highway”. That is how the local council are operating
Comments were largely ignored with the attitude “we know best” even to the point of dismissing local knowledge regarding protected wildlife species .Traffic surveys were carried during “lock down “ then extrapolated to represent the normal .
The land and geoloigy problems were known about as far back as 1936 when a proposed housing development was abandoned due to water table problems
We already have the support of the CPRE .
It is people who do not live adjacent to the proposed development , but have an interest that have been called upon to comment on and support the development .
The planning portal was to be closed to comments mid April , and the application had no additional comments until yesterday ,Thursday, when the first public notice appeared on a lamp post adjacent to the proposed development , then co-incidentally there was upsurge of comments on the planning portal , I cannot believe these are not linked
With regard to the brown/green field change , yes there was a public consultation , only its existence was published on a little read, online local newspaper , as was the outcome .If you are a “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy “fan . think the Vogons and the plans for the “pan Galactic Highway”. That is how the local council are operating
Edited by MXRod on Friday 14th May 09:19
Edited by MXRod on Friday 14th May 09:23
The statutory notification periods are the absolute minimum requirement. The council can accept comments at any point up to the issue of the decision notice. If they hadn't displayed the site notice then they would need to allow a minimum of 8 weeks from the date it went up.
The volume of public comments on a planning application carries almost no weight at all. To quote a Planning Inspector: "A good point well made is not improved by repetition". Very rarely do the pubic raise a legitimate planning consideration that the officer wouldn't have considered.
I very much doubt that the planning department of a council would intentionally try and solicit public comments because they're an administrative pain in the backside to deal with. Politicians might try to garner support for a scheme but as I said above, letters of support or objection carry very little weight anyway.
There are many ways to deal with a high water table. That argument is a hiding to nothing.
The volume of public comments on a planning application carries almost no weight at all. To quote a Planning Inspector: "A good point well made is not improved by repetition". Very rarely do the pubic raise a legitimate planning consideration that the officer wouldn't have considered.
I very much doubt that the planning department of a council would intentionally try and solicit public comments because they're an administrative pain in the backside to deal with. Politicians might try to garner support for a scheme but as I said above, letters of support or objection carry very little weight anyway.
There are many ways to deal with a high water table. That argument is a hiding to nothing.
Edited by quinny100 on Friday 14th May 09:30
Do you know what pupils they are considering?
My wife spent many years teaching special needs - predominantly mental & physical disabilities from mild to very severe depending which school she was at.
The only 'special school' that caused any local issues due to pupil behaviour was the pupil referral unit, which was a very different thing.
My wife spent many years teaching special needs - predominantly mental & physical disabilities from mild to very severe depending which school she was at.
The only 'special school' that caused any local issues due to pupil behaviour was the pupil referral unit, which was a very different thing.
Having positive feedback from further afield is probably quite reasonable for a SEND school. All it would have taken is 1 parent waiting to get the word out on a facebook group to generate a lot of support.
SEND schools pull pupils from a much larger area than a mainstream school and while there may be no directly local requirement it may be best placed based on analysis of waiting lists for places at existing schools.
The design and planning should take into account the need for the pupils to be driven to and from school, although many run minibus services which would help.
SEND schools pull pupils from a much larger area than a mainstream school and while there may be no directly local requirement it may be best placed based on analysis of waiting lists for places at existing schools.
The design and planning should take into account the need for the pupils to be driven to and from school, although many run minibus services which would help.
paintman said:
Do you know what pupils they are considering?
My wife spent many years teaching special needs - predominantly mental & physical disabilities from mild to very severe depending which school she was at.
The only 'special school' that caused any local issues due to pupil behaviour was the pupil referral unit, which was a very different thing.
It is a broad spectrum school for special needs , in fact my daughter is an HLTA in such a school.My wife spent many years teaching special needs - predominantly mental & physical disabilities from mild to very severe depending which school she was at.
The only 'special school' that caused any local issues due to pupil behaviour was the pupil referral unit, which was a very different thing.
To be clear no one who has objected to the location of the school has any problem with the need for such a school , it is just the location and problems therein I have already mentioned .
No amount of discussion here can help people understand we are not nimbies.
250 vehicle movements daily on narrow residential roads to service the school , a road that already has pedestrians walking to a nearby primary school.
Edited by MXRod on Friday 14th May 10:12
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff