Planning Nightmare

[dmsims]

blueg33 said:

that you refused an application because you didn’t like the applicant.

Where (exactly) did he say that?

[elanfan]

OP put a rumour around that if you don’t get your planning permission you’re going to take up the offer you’ve had from the local travellers. The NIMBYs wont like that at all.

[blueg33]

dmsims said:

blueg33 said:

that you refused an application because you didn’t like the applicant.

Where (exactly) did he say that?

Sorry, got it the wrong way round. He voted for, because he didn’t like an objector. Same thing really.

[Ilovejapcrap]

ColinM50 said:

I sit on our district council's development management committee as well as our town's council planning committee which is a consultee to the district council. One avenue that gets all planning committee members backs up is when an objector accuses us of taking backhanders. We had one recently where it was touch and go whether we'd approve or reject a planning application and I know from discussions after the vote, that I, and at least two other councillors, were on the verge of rejecting the application. Until we had a very well spoken parish councillor as an objector call us all a bunch of lying effers, yes she used that word, she accused us of all being bent and on the take in those wrods. At that point I know three of us voted for it more out of outrage than anything else.

Now I'm not for one moment that you persuade a friend to be an objector and abuse the planners but it might work. Not ethical but.................

You should also bear in mind that an awful lot of planning (and other) councillors are just ordinary people with no particular expertise but just want to do what's right for their community. I'd say to anybody in the OP's position to find out which planning officer is, or will be, handling his application and go and see him/her and ask their opinion of what they'd find acceptable before a decision is made.

WTF

[Pheo]

Not all decisions will be black and white in law. Some will be balanced between the two, and at that point I can see if someone on a particular side is abusing you, and you don’t have any other evidence, why would you not come down on the side of those who are courteous?

[Evanivitch]

3M said:

A decade ago I moved into a village my partner and I love.
...
the fact they're 5th generation villagers,
...
However, to say we feel unwelcome here is an understatement. No one cares we've kids in a building without modern electrics, plumbing, insulation or reliable boiler - the fact we have asbestos almost everywhere - that we've just 15 square meters of living space for a family of four.

I'm confused. You've been there 10 years, you have school age children, but the house has become inhabitable and you're not welcomed by the villagers after 10 years!? Seems like this is the culmination of a series of things.

[Equus]

ColinM50 said:

I sit on our district council's development management committee as well as our town's council planning committee which is a consultee to the district council. One avenue that gets all planning committee members backs up is when an objector accuses us of taking backhanders. We had one recently where it was touch and go whether we'd approve or reject a planning application and I know from discussions after the vote, that I, and at least two other councillors, were on the verge of rejecting the application. Until we had a very well spoken parish councillor as an objector call us all a bunch of lying effers, yes she used that word, she accused us of all being bent and on the take in those wrods. At that point I know three of us voted for it more out of outrage than anything else.

Now I'm not for one moment that you persuade a friend to be an objector and abuse the planners but it might work. Not ethical but.................

You should also bear in mind that an awful lot of planning (and other) councillors are just ordinary people with no particular expertise but just want to do what's right for their community. I'd say to anybody in the OP's position to find out which planning officer is, or will be, handling his application and go and see him/her and ask their opinion of what they'd find acceptable before a decision is made.

paulrockliffe said:

It's all OK, they don't take bribes, they just make decisions based on emotion rather than fact and the law.

Staggering.

blueg33 said:

I am sorry but this post just demonstrates the problem. Don’t base your decision on the personality of an objector, FFS, test the application against the policies like you are supposed to. I can’t believe that you are prepared to admit on an open forum that you voted on an application because you didn’t like an objector.

There is no defence for what you did.

Ilovejapcrap said:

WTF

As above; this is absolutely outrageous, and exactly the sort of thing that gets Planning Committees a bad name.

I will take the matter up with the Chief Exec of Huntingdonshire Council.

[blueg33]

Pheo said:

Not all decisions will be black and white in law. Some will be balanced between the two, and at that point I can see if someone on a particular side is abusing you, and you don’t have any other evidence, why would you not come down on the side of those who are courteous?

The reason you don't let that sway your decision is because it means you have a good chance of making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.

This is why I am anti the whole "Planning Committee" structure in the UK.

Politicians should set the policies.

Professional Planning Experts should test the applications against the policies.

The above what happens when applications go to appeal, if it happened at a local level then then system would be slicker, more predictable and better at delivering the homes etc that we need.

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Professional Planning Experts should test the applications against the policies.

Which, of course, they do - but far too often Planning Committees take bad decisions for the wrong reason (as has been admitted here), by disregarding the recommendations given in their professional Officers' reports.

The particularly disgraceful thing here is that whilst it's possible to appeal against a refusal taken by a committee for such inappropriate reasons, what we're talking about in this case is an approval - which it is very difficult to overturn with out the complex and expensive action of a Judicial Review...which would also need evidence that - except in the case of this muppet's extraordinary admission - would be very difficult to come by.

[anonymous-user]

blueg33 said:

The reason you don't let that sway your decision is because it means you have a good chance of making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.

This is why I am anti the whole "Planning Committee" structure in the UK.

Politicians should set the policies.

Professional Planning Experts should test the applications against the policies.

The above what happens when applications go to appeal, if it happened at a local level then then system would be slicker, more predictable and better at delivering the homes etc that we need.

So T&C Planning gets auctioned off, Atkins/Centrica/Virgin buy it. UK Planning gets done by companies with little or no accountability?
I see brown envelopes.

[Equus]

V6 Pushfit said:

So T&C Planning gets auctioned off, Atkins/Centrica/Virgin buy it. UK Planning gets done by companies with little or no accountability?
I see brown envelopes.

They don't need to be private sector Planning professionals.

As it happens, I'm generally in favour of the current structure, as it does provide some degree of accountability. Straightforward applications are dealt with at a professional Officer Delegated level (with its own internal checks and balances), and those which find themselves at Committee are in an environment that is subject to at least some public scrutiny - Committee meetings are open to the public and press, there are professional Officers from both Planning and Democratic/Legal Sevices in attendance to give legal/technical advice, and refusals can be challenged at appeal.

It's far form perfect, but it gives a reasonable degree of accountability and localism.

When a serving Councillor comes out and makes a statement such as we have seen above, however, they deserve to have the book thrown at them in no uncertain terms.

[RedWhiteMonkey]

V6 Pushfit said:

blueg33 said:

The reason you don't let that sway your decision is because it means you have a good chance of making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons.

This is why I am anti the whole "Planning Committee" structure in the UK.

Politicians should set the policies.

Professional Planning Experts should test the applications against the policies.

The above what happens when applications go to appeal, if it happened at a local level then then system would be slicker, more predictable and better at delivering the homes etc that we need.

So T&C Planning gets auctioned off, Atkins/Centrica/Virgin buy it. UK Planning gets done by companies with little or no accountability?
I see brown envelopes.

There are thousands of professional planner working in the public sector. Professional here is meant in the sense of professionally qualified and professionally accredited. I don’t the reference was meant to mean selling out planning services.

[Equus]

RedWhiteMonkey said:

blueg33 said:

Professional Planning Experts should test the applications against the policies.

The above what happens when applications go to appeal, if it happened at a local level...

There are thousands of professional planner working in the public sector. Professional here is meant in the sense of professionally qualified and professionally accredited. I don’t the reference was meant to mean selling out planning services.

(Apologies for selective editing)

Not that I'm in any way criticising the Appeals Inspectorate (though their decisions are not always perfect, either), but you're actually more likely to get a Planning professional (ie. a Chartered Planner, who took a Degree in Planning and has followed Planning as their career path) at local Authority level than at Appeal: the Appeals Inspectorate draws its Inspectors from a number of backgrounds.

Suggestions have been made to privatise Planning, in the same way that Building Control has been privatised, but I agree with V6Pushfit that it would be a VERY bad idea in terms of accountability and public trust.

[ColinM50]

Equus said:

When a serving Councillor comes out and makes a statement such as we have seen above, however, they deserve to have the book thrown at them in no uncertain terms.

So if someone calls you a lying thieving corrupt scrote, that's OK is it? And would'nt affect the way you deal with them?

You misread what I said. I said that on balance I was leaning towards rejecting the application but was so incensed by being called corrupt, that I changed my mind and voted for it. Maybe in retrospect I shouldn't have let her insults affect my decision, but I bet you would too. Oh and to be clear I'm one of 22 councillors on this committee

[Equus]

ColinM50 said:

So if someone calls you a lying thieving corrupt scrote, that's OK is it? And would'nt affect the way you deal with them?

If you're acting in a position of public responsibility and trust, yes, absolutely, and no, it wouldn't.

Your Officers deal with this level of abuse and innuendo on a daily basis. They do so professionally, with very little thanks from anyone.

But we're not talking about the way you dealt with them: we're talking about the way you dealt with an application, that it was your public duty to deal with impartially and on the basis of material considerations only.

As blueg33 said, there is no excuse for what you did. You are not fit to hold the office you put yourself forward to be elected to.

[ColinM50]

Cor, it must be great to be perfect.

[monthefish]

Equus said:

Try not to let it get as far as a refusal, if you can - talk to the Planning Case Officer after the 4 week consultation period is up, and try to stay in the loop with them... if it starts to look like a refusal, it may be better to withdraw the application and rethink it.

^^^
Wise, wise words.

Someone I know (who was in the hands of an ineffective planning consultant) had their application refused, and then refused again on appeal. The reasons for the original refusal could easily have been mitigated and/or other precedents found, but now that the refusal is in place, they've got an insurmountable task in getting an approval now.

Edited by monthefish on Tuesday 29th January 11:24

[Equus]

ColinM50 said:

Cor, it must be great to be perfect.

I'm far from it; but I'm nowhere near stupid enough to either let that sort of crass abuse affect my professional decision making, or to declare it on a public forum.

Neither have I chosen to set myself above my peers by seeking election to public office.

[monthefish]

I think the point is that, rightly or wrongly, human emotion and feeling will come into planning decision.

Bring on the robots I say.

[Gareth79]

I'd agree to go with what you want and what the planning dept think is likely to be approved.

I grew up in a small village and the parish council usually want NO development or change, unless it's their house or their friends, but much to their annoyance, their views thankfully have very little impact on the process.

Also I'd agree that it will be forgotten about quite quickly. People seem to fear the worst about the impact of something, then when they see it's actually fine, it looks nice and it improves your life they will be all nice again.