Chances of building on green belt?
Discussion
Wilmslowboy said:
perhaps I was a little dramatic to use the word corrupt and also to suggest greenbelt (as opposed to farmland) ...however quote from local paper.....
He sounds politically inept, but on the other hand he does seem to have been promoting central Government policy (a Government democratically elected by you good folks, let's remember!) of boosting development.Don't forget that current (central government) Planning Policy is based on a fundamental presumption in favour of sustainable development. There is also clear guidance issued to Planners which says that they should be working with applicants and developers to proactively find solutions that enable development, rather than resisting it (though most of them need reminding of this rather frequently, I find!).
Clearly, anyone attempting to deliver that Policy is never going to be terribly popular with Middle England's NIMBY's.
Equus said:
blueg33 said:
The planning system is flawed rather than corrupt.
Ironically, that's partly the price you pay for a bureaucratic system that is sufficiently transparent, objective and with enough oversight to prevent corruption.It's very unwieldy, and under-resourced on the LPA side - which admittedly gives big developers something of an advantage, since they can run rings around the LPA's; infrastructure being a case in point, as the LPA's don't have sufficient resource to properly analyse what's going on in their area.
But I can't see any easy way of significantly improving it either, without compromising the basic democracy and incorruptibility of the process.
hidetheelephants said:
It needs proper planning to decide where major developments are going to be, what infrastructure they will need and build it so it's ready when the development is underway; as this will cause massive uplift for landowners it would need legislation to tithe this uplift if/when it is realised to pay for the infrastructure. It isn't development per se that's the problem, it's unplanned and piecemeal development.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but I presume you're aware that we already have such a 'tithe' system in the form of Section 106 Agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy? It's charged to the developer, rather than the landowner, but the net result is the same... it comes off the land value and sales revenues, at the end of the day.I've been involved with developments that have paid for everything from new road networks, schools, and heath centres, through to extra cemetery space for the additional dead people we apparently generate (presumably as a result of the health centres not being up to snuff).
On the one hand, I recognise that the infrastructure is necessary to support the development, but on the other hand it rankles slightly that it's not developers who create the people who live in these new houses: they already exist, paying taxes and looking for somewhere to live, and continue paying taxes after they've moved in...
Maybe the Government should be using our taxes more wisely, and investing some of it in the infrastructure growth that is necessary to suport economic growth as a whole, instead of expecting developers (which ultimately means homebuyers) to fund it all?
Equus said:
<sensible and interesting stuff>
Maybe the Government should be using our taxes more wisely, and investing some of it in the infrastructure growth that is necessary to suport economic growth as a whole, instead of expecting developers (which ultimately means homebuyers) to fund it all?
Not likely, more's the pity. Government on a national and local scale is riven with inefficiency and the bees in the bonnets of insane councillors. A small local example is a dilapidated 19thC mansion that belongs to the council but is surplus to requirements and is up for disposal; it is a sparsely populated rural area with poor infrastructure, few services and bad roads. A nonprofit development company was formed by the community council and through a lot of volunteer graft and some rural/green development grants put together a business plan, which in turn unlocked more rural/green grants and loans that reached the valuation figure from Savills. There's legislation in Scotland that where there is a proposed community buy-out, the property cannot be marketed for 12 months, so with this in effect the locals began negotiating with the council; or rather they would have if the council weren't set against it, arguing that the district valuer reckoned it was worth twice as much and overlooking commitments given to the locals that the price was negotiable. If there was something they could procrastinate over they did so, waited out the 12 months and then 'sold' the property to someone who has talked a lot about spa resorts, wedding venues, boutique hotels, etc but hasn't actually made with the money; the combined additional costs incurred due to the 12 months stalling and the extra time since the 'sale' adds up to more than the difference between the money the locals offered and the 'amount' offered by the non-buyer, and is still rising because the deal will never happen and the council will continue to incur costs. The dilapidated pile will continue to slowly rot through neglect, just like every other vacant property owned by the council; just up the road from me there's a victorian schoolhouse which the council have been 'trying' to sell for over 5 years, several times the local rag has reported folk entering negotiations to buy it, but nothing more is ever heard. It would make quite a nice house if restored but will need a pile of money put in.Maybe the Government should be using our taxes more wisely, and investing some of it in the infrastructure growth that is necessary to suport economic growth as a whole, instead of expecting developers (which ultimately means homebuyers) to fund it all?
So let's get this right, I live in MGB, I applied for planning because what I wanted to do marginally exceeded my Development Rights. It was refused point blank with no negotiation or advice, just a straight no. I phoned the planning officer who's name was on the refusal and was first was told that if I wanted a meeting to discuss the refusal there'd be an £80 charge as a "householder" This was followed up with "perhaps engage a Planning Consultant"
I googled and found a local firm listed as Planning Consultants who's website showed lots of good success and read very well. I phoned them and spoke to the partner that specialised in Householder Applications, quoted a couple of grand and told there was "high confidence" of success but when discussing the application it became obvious he already knew details I hadn't told him and were not shown on the application portal. Then the penny dropped when reading something from the refusal report that the Planning Officer and Planning Consultant had the same surname, bit more digging and well I never that's a cheeky little husband and wife team. Looks like a refusal pays for a nice week in the Caribbean but of course that's not curuption just a flawed system.
I refused to play ball and am still fighting on my own.
I googled and found a local firm listed as Planning Consultants who's website showed lots of good success and read very well. I phoned them and spoke to the partner that specialised in Householder Applications, quoted a couple of grand and told there was "high confidence" of success but when discussing the application it became obvious he already knew details I hadn't told him and were not shown on the application portal. Then the penny dropped when reading something from the refusal report that the Planning Officer and Planning Consultant had the same surname, bit more digging and well I never that's a cheeky little husband and wife team. Looks like a refusal pays for a nice week in the Caribbean but of course that's not curuption just a flawed system.
I refused to play ball and am still fighting on my own.
Wilmslowboy said:
perhaps I was a little dramatic to use the word corrupt and also to suggest greenbelt (as opposed to farmland) ...however quote from local paper.....
Ah, Mike Jones of Cheshire East. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-35...This thread has gone way off topic, but as a planner working with top 10 house builders day in day out, it's made for interesting reading!
So let's get this right, I live in MGB, I applied for planning because what I wanted to do marginally exceeded my Development Rights. It was refused point blank with no negotiation or advice, just a straight no. I phoned the planning officer who's name was on the refusal and was first was told that if I wanted a meeting to discuss the refusal there'd be an £80 charge as a "householder" This was followed up with "perhaps engage a Planning Consultant"
I googled and found a local firm listed as Planning Consultants who's website showed lots of good success and read very well. I phoned them and spoke to the partner that specialised in Householder Applications, quoted a couple of grand and told there was "high confidence" of success but when discussing the application it became obvious he already knew details I hadn't told him and were not shown on the application portal. Then the penny dropped when reading something from the refusal report that the Planning Officer and Planning Consultant had the same surname, bit more digging and well I never that's a cheeky little husband and wife team. Looks like a refusal pays for a nice week in the Caribbean but of course that's not curuption just a flawed system.
I refused to play ball and am still fighting on my own.
I googled and found a local firm listed as Planning Consultants who's website showed lots of good success and read very well. I phoned them and spoke to the partner that specialised in Householder Applications, quoted a couple of grand and told there was "high confidence" of success but when discussing the application it became obvious he already knew details I hadn't told him and were not shown on the application portal. Then the penny dropped when reading something from the refusal report that the Planning Officer and Planning Consultant had the same surname, bit more digging and well I never that's a cheeky little husband and wife team. Looks like a refusal pays for a nice week in the Caribbean but of course that's not curuption just a flawed system.
I refused to play ball and am still fighting on my own.
If you can prove that, make a complaint. Thats a very rare circumstance.
In any event, its unlikey the officer will make the decision, it will go to committee, so the checks and balances will come into play, plus you can always Appeal.
Your example is still not a case of corrupt developers bribing corrupt planners.
In any event, its unlikey the officer will make the decision, it will go to committee, so the checks and balances will come into play, plus you can always Appeal.
Your example is still not a case of corrupt developers bribing corrupt planners.
Edited by blueg33 on Saturday 20th August 00:54
Mel said:
Looks like a refusal pays for a nice week in the Caribbean but of course that's not curuption just a flawed system.
blueg33 said:
Your example is still not a case of corrupt developers bribing corrupt planners.
Aside from the fact that it all sounds a bit tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory (who forced you to go to that Planning Consultant? Do they have a son who works for GCHQ and controls your Google?), I'd observe from the final post on this thread that the poster appears to have problems with every professional he encounters. This tends to suggest that the problem doesn't necessarily lie with the professionals involved... 
As with Police Officers, a lot of the outcome depends on passing the Attitude Test.
Did you actually bother to speak to the Case Officer during the processing of your application? They are busy people... if you show no interest in your minor and trivial application, neither will they, and yes, if they think it's not ideal, they'll (often) rubber stamp it with an Officer Delegated refusal without bothering to contact you.
Standard practice is to give them until the end of the 28-day Statutory Consultation period, then give them a friendly call to ask if they've had a good chance to assess it yet, what comments have they received, are they minded to approve it, and if not, what are the main issues you need to address. It does occasionally happen, but it's most unusual for a Planner to refuse to engage with the applicant and issue a refusal with no warning, where the applicant has made this sort of effort.
It sounds as though they are trying to charge you for a pre-application meeting on a prospective re-submission (which they are entitled to do).
If you submit an appeal (which is free of charge), they're pretty much obliged to hold a meeting with you (free of charge) to discuss the 'Statement of Common Ground' (technically not required for the lowest level of appeal - known as 'Written Representations', but acknowledged good practice even for that).
Again, pretty much standard practice (depending on circumstances) is to submit an appeal in parallel with a (free go) resubmission of your application. Appeals cause a lot of grief and paperwork for Planning Officers, and reduce their control by taking any conditions out of their hands if you are successful, so if their decision was marginal, they'll often work with you to resolve any outstanding issues on the resubmission, in return for you withdrawing the appeal and saving them the effort.
All of this you might have known, if you'd passed the attitude test.
Equus said:
Standard practice is to give them until the end of the 28-day Statutory Consultation period, then give them a friendly call to ask if they've had a good chance to assess it yet, what comments have they received, are they minded to approve it, and if not, what are the main issues you need to address. It does occasionally happen, but it's most unusual for a Planner to refuse to engage with the applicant and issue a refusal with no warning, where the applicant has made this sort of effort.
If you submit an appeal (which is free of charge), they're pretty much obliged to hold a meeting with you (free of charge) to discuss the 'Statement of Common Ground' (technically not required for the lowest level of appeal - known as 'Written Representations', but acknowledged good practice even for that).
In fairness I submitted an Application after I'd waited months for a reply to a Pre Submission that the Planner had requested me to submit and then told me she was "too busy" and was only replying to Planning Applications !If you submit an appeal (which is free of charge), they're pretty much obliged to hold a meeting with you (free of charge) to discuss the 'Statement of Common Ground' (technically not required for the lowest level of appeal - known as 'Written Representations', but acknowledged good practice even for that).
I called every week and she was "too busy" or it was "too early" to discuss it.
Except the final week when it was "too late" to discuss it.
This was for a new house alongside my existing house and it was refused by her under delegated powers despite the area being zoned for housing !
She said it was "too small a plot" despite me submitting the areas of the nearest 20 plots and it was larger than all but two of them !
Consequently nothing Planners do, surprises me any more.
I won on Appeal but again there was zero discussion.
It's certainly not unusual to be told that 'live' applications take precedence (and fair enough, to an extent).
Did you pay for the pre-app? If so, they usually have written standards for the level of response including timescales.
Otherwise, Polite Persistence usually Pays.
You do occasionally encounter the sort of thing you have described - I've just had one in North Kesteven that went almost identically (and is now about to go to appeal). But on that one I know for a fact that there are political reasons that they don't want 'my' application to be passed, because it would open the floodgates to lots of similar applications.They also probably knew that if they engaged with me as they were supposed to, all their 'objections' could have been easily resolved or dismissed, so their only option was to stonewall me and hope that the applicant doesn't have the appetite for an appeal.
Did you pay for the pre-app? If so, they usually have written standards for the level of response including timescales.
Otherwise, Polite Persistence usually Pays.
You do occasionally encounter the sort of thing you have described - I've just had one in North Kesteven that went almost identically (and is now about to go to appeal). But on that one I know for a fact that there are political reasons that they don't want 'my' application to be passed, because it would open the floodgates to lots of similar applications.They also probably knew that if they engaged with me as they were supposed to, all their 'objections' could have been easily resolved or dismissed, so their only option was to stonewall me and hope that the applicant doesn't have the appetite for an appeal.
Equus said:
It's certainly not unusual to be told that 'live' applications take precedence (and fair enough, to an extent).
Did you pay for the pre-app? If so, they usually have written standards for the level of response including timescales.
Otherwise, Polite Persistence usually Pays.
You do occasionally encounter the sort of thing you have described - I've just had one in North Kesteven that went almost identically (and is now about to go to appeal). But on that one I know for a fact that there are political reasons that they don't want 'my' application to be passed, because it would open the floodgates to lots of similar applications.They also probably knew that if they engaged with me as they were supposed to, all their 'objections' could have been easily resolved or dismissed, so their only option was to stonewall me and hope that the applicant doesn't have the appetite for an appeal.
Surely the solution for the Authority is to have an adopted plan in place. Its still a plan led system. If they had the plan the floodgates couldn't be opened without you promoting changes through the local plan process.Did you pay for the pre-app? If so, they usually have written standards for the level of response including timescales.
Otherwise, Polite Persistence usually Pays.
You do occasionally encounter the sort of thing you have described - I've just had one in North Kesteven that went almost identically (and is now about to go to appeal). But on that one I know for a fact that there are political reasons that they don't want 'my' application to be passed, because it would open the floodgates to lots of similar applications.They also probably knew that if they engaged with me as they were supposed to, all their 'objections' could have been easily resolved or dismissed, so their only option was to stonewall me and hope that the applicant doesn't have the appetite for an appeal.
Some planning depths are overstretched, some officers are a PITA but generally its not too bad. We have had just one refusal in the last 4 years and we make 20-24 applications pa in just one part of the business
blueg33 said:
Surely the solution for the Authority is to have an adopted plan in place. Its still a plan led system. If they had the plan the floodgates couldn't be opened without you promoting changes through the local plan process.
You missed out the word 'robust'! - even the emerging new Local Plan has holes in it and wouldn't cover the issue we're appealing on.And, to be fair, this is Lincolnshire we're talking about and so the floodgates aren't very large... it's not as if anyone would want to build tens of thousands of houses there, even if they could. But yes, it would help if their current Plan and policies weren't woefully out of date.
Again, I'm sure that lack of internal resources would be their excuse - all these bothersome customers tying up their time with pre-apps, and then appealing when the fail to get the support they need to make the application succeed.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff