Planning Nightmare

[blueg33]

The thread will be cached somewhere.

[anonymous-user]

48k said:

Staggering. I am genuinely shocked by this.

Fully expect this thread to mysteriously vanish shortly...

It probably will now you’ve raised it like that. Well done.

it’s hardly a biggie though, it’s human nature. The public at planning meetings can sway the committee - get a polished barrister-like presentation and it’s likely go towards a yes vote, get a swearing nutjob and it won’t.

[mcdjl]

Is there meant to be a default position? By that I mean unless there's a (good / valid) reason not to it will be passed?

[paulrockliffe]

mcdjl said:

Is there meant to be a default position? By that I mean unless there's a (good / valid) reason not to it will be passed?

Default position is approval unless it contradict the relevant planning policies.

[blueg33]

paulrockliffe said:

mcdjl said:

Is there meant to be a default position? By that I mean unless there's a (good / valid) reason not to it will be passed?

Default position is approval unless it contradict the relevant planning policies.

Except in Cotswold District where the default seems to be refuse regardless of policy.......

Cotswold North Committee said:

I can’t believe our officers have let us down again by recommending an application for approval. I move the it’s refused. Seconded, vote unanimous. Application refused

The application complied with all policies. The above was the total debate.

[Equus]

elanfan said:

Equis - if you indeed make formal complaint to the council will you please keep us informed of how the complaint is received, progress and outcome.

It wouldn't be appropriate for me to make further comment at this time, but when it is, I will.

48k said:

Fully expect this thread to mysteriously vanish shortly...

It wouldn't matter if it does. But any attempt to permanently delete or alter some of the information posted might conceivably be viewed as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

mcdjl said:

Is there meant to be a default position? By that I mean unless there's a (good / valid) reason not to it will be passed?

Yes, absolutely;

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF said:

Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For decision-taking this means:

• approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
• where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The bit of the NPPF that Colin needed to read and memorise was:

Paragraph 2 said:

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

(my bold)

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Cotswold North Committee said:

I can’t believe our officers have let us down again by recommending an application for approval.

Sorry, but you've got to see the funny side of that one?! Bless 'em!

[blueg33]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

Cotswold North Committee said:

I can’t believe our officers have let us down again by recommending an application for approval.

Sorry, but you've got to see the funny side of that one?! Bless 'em!

It was hard to be amused with nearly £200k of working capital spent and £3m profit at risk.

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

It was hard to be amused with nearly £200k of working capital spent and £3m profit at risk.

Yes, I can imagine.

My saving grace is that I have a VERY black sense of humour.

... and of course, in that sort of situation, we'll usually be getting paid to handle the appeal, which softens the blow quite a bit! Still very frustrating when you've put a lot of work into an application, and they ignore policy and their Officer Recommendation altogether, though.

[blueg33]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

It was hard to be amused with nearly £200k of working capital spent and £3m profit at risk.

Yes, I can imagine.

My saving grace is that I have a VERY black sense of humour.

... and of course, in that sort of situation, we'll usually be getting paid to handle the appeal, which softens the blow quite a bit! Still very frustrating when you've put a lot of work into an application, and they ignore policy and their Officer Recommendation altogether, though.

Plus delays mean more stress on cash flows and the group FD giving me grief, shareholders giving me grief and a raft of consultants charging me more because there is now more work to do.

My most used phrase in the office is “I fking hate planning.”

[anonymous-user]

My personal issue is lack of uniformity - a big greenfield application goes through with little bother but some poxy little extension in a ste ‘70’s estate and only just over PD is refused on design grounds, or a portacabin withiin a farmyard refused as its curtilage and green belt and could just be seen from a footpath half a mile away.

[Highway Star]

Cotswold North Committee said:

I can’t believe our officers have let us down again by recommending an application for approval. I move the it’s refused. Seconded, vote unanimous. Application refused

I deal with Cotswold all the time, Committee can be tricky, but at times is comedy gold. As is the Council they share their services with.

A client of mine was once described during the Members' debate on his application as "the Devil incarnate" by a member of a Planning Committee in the Cotswolds, I had to physically restrain my client from taking him to task, let's say. The application (for dormer windows in the rear elevation) was refused as expected, but allowed at appeal.

Though I do sympathise with Members, I've seen them have papers thrown at them, threatened with assault and spat at in Planning Committee by objecting (objectionable?) members of the public when they have approved applications.

[arfursleep]

V6 Pushfit said:

My personal issue is lack of uniformity - a big greenfield application goes through with little bother but some poxy little extension in a ste ‘70’s estate and only just over PD is refused on design grounds, or a portacabin withiin a farmyard refused as its curtilage and green belt and could just be seen from a footpath half a mile away.

Friends had plans a rear & side extension rejected. Appealed with altered plans meeting suggestions by PO, rejected. Appealed with further amendments, rejected. They gave up.

At the same time, at the top of their street (literally 100yrds away) developer built 5 houses after buying 2 adjoining houses and knocking them down. These 5 houses contravened some of the rules/laws that my friends plans had been rejected on...such as distance between them, lack of access, lack of light, visual appearance etc.

5 years later and friends submitted vastly different plans (although some parts are same as previous specific rejected points) - passed with endorsement from (new) PO and committee...

[Rangeroverover]

If you want clear evidence of planning committees going rogue have a watch of the BBC doc about planning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tw844/episodes...

[dmsims]

Rangeroverover said:

If you want clear evidence of planning committees going rogue have a watch of the BBC doc about planning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tw844/episodes...

None of the 8 episodes are available to play

[blueg33]

V6 Pushfit said:

My personal issue is lack of uniformity - a big greenfield application goes through with little bother but some poxy little extension in a ste ‘70’s estate and only just over PD is refused on design grounds, or a portacabin withiin a farmyard refused as its curtilage and green belt and could just be seen from a footpath half a mile away.

I suspect the lack of uniformity in those applications is more down to applicant experience and knowledge than anything else. Coupled with the fact that policies vary from district to district.

Today’s planning argument got me goes along the lines of

Officer: The vis splay can’t be maintained, I will have to refuse on highway safety grounds

Me: er the vissplay is entirely within the public highway as per the plans you provided

Officer: oh is it? Sorry to drag you here to discuss

Me: thanks it’s only 4 hours each way


Normally my team deal with this sort of stuff, but this project is hyper critical to the business so I get the honours

Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 30th January 15:36

[48k]

V6 Pushfit said:

48k said:

Staggering. I am genuinely shocked by this.

Fully expect this thread to mysteriously vanish shortly...

It probably will now you’ve raised it like that. Well done.

Righto!

[Shappers24]

blueg33 said:

V6 Pushfit said:

My personal issue is lack of uniformity - a big greenfield application goes through with little bother but some poxy little extension in a ste ‘70’s estate and only just over PD is refused on design grounds, or a portacabin withiin a farmyard refused as its curtilage and green belt and could just be seen from a footpath half a mile away.

I suspect the lack of uniformity in those applications is more down to applicant experience and knowledge than anything else. Coupled with the fact that policies vary from district to district.

Today’s planning argument got me goes along the lines of

Officer: The vis splay can’t be maintained, I will have to refuse on highway safety grounds

Me: er the vissplay is entirely within the public highway as per the plans you provided

Officer: oh is it? Sorry to drag you here to discuss

Me: thanks it’s only 4 hours each way


Normally my team deal with this sort of stuff, but this project is hyper critical to the business so I get the honours

Edited by blueg33 on Wednesday 30th January 15:36

And the flip side of that experience; I Have spent many moons doing highways DM and I’ve lost count of the amount of developers who have argued until they are blue in the face that their massively sub standard visi splays will be fine... think you get it on both sides of the table to be fair.

On a wider planning note; a lot of decisions are never black and white and often depends on your interpretation of planning policy, which will no doubt differ whether you are an objectors, committee members and other professionals. Take highways and NPPF; for nearly 7 years we’ve been grappling with the argument of ‘severity’... and even inspectors are unable to give a definition of what is considered a severe impact. It differs from location to location. In this regards I think having a planning committee is an important check and balance, and does allow some element of localism to shine through, albeit not being a perfect system.

It does raise an eyebrow when committee goes against officer recommendation...

[Ken Figenus]

Some very experienced people her and some who kindly helped and advised me on a dev (still hasn't happened...may yet call!).

But Colin was 49/51 and flipping both ways on a project and then the guy got horribly arsey and insulting with them so really he then reaped what he sowed. None of you pros would be like that in a professional business situation and if the decision wasn't a marginal one or in fact in no way went against clear planning policy then its simply an unwise admission about karma rather than planning. Probably!

[steve2]

V6 Pushfit said:

My personal issue is lack of uniformity - a big greenfield application goes through with little bother but some poxy little extension in a ste ‘70’s estate and only just over PD is refused on design grounds, or a portacabin withiin a farmyard refused as its curtilage and green belt and could just be seen from a footpath half a mile away.

This is what I find frustrating as we can se that a small extension will do no harm but is not within PD but as we have ongoing at the moment an application for a barn style development for offices but you can plainly see that it will be changed into a residential barn in a couple of years,
It is on farmland that has stables attached so we can see what will happen in a few years time.