Planning Nightmare
Discussion
steve2 said:
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.
I like working in rural barn conversion offices, some near us on a stud. Much more relaxed, plus a nice view from your desk. It is on farmland that has stables attached so we can see what will happen in a few years time.
I'd think building them to assume an allowable change of use, would be would be a risky stratagy.
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.
I fear Colin that you’ve brought this on yourself and you need to face the consequences I’m afraid.
Rather belatedly, since there was an outcome in late October, but I am reminded that I promised to update this thread.I fear Colin that you’ve brought this on yourself and you need to face the consequences I’m afraid.
Decision HERE
As of the December Planning Committee, however, Cllr Maslen remains an active member of the Development Management committee. I have made inquiries with the Democratic Services Team to seek an explanation of this.
I've logged on for the first time in ages to comment on this! Can't say I'm shocked that it's Huntingdonshire. We made a complaint about some unauthorised development - it took seven months and our local MP to get an answer as to whether it was in breach of planning. It is. Five months later and it still hasn't been served with an enforcement notice. And it's not just a small lean too either - its a five acre agricultural site...
Equus said:
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.
I fear Colin that you’ve brought this on yourself and you need to face the consequences I’m afraid.
Rather belatedly, since there was an outcome in late October, but I am reminded that I promised to update this thread.I fear Colin that you’ve brought this on yourself and you need to face the consequences I’m afraid.
Decision HERE
As of the December Planning Committee, however, Cllr Maslen remains an active member of the Development Management committee. I have made inquiries with the Democratic Services Team to seek an explanation of this.
If I'm honest, it wasn't the indiscretion that bothered me - it was the fact that he (and, he claimed, other Members of the Committee) were taking Planning decisions other than on the grounds of Planning policy and merit.
Unfortunately, as you'd expect, the rest of the committee closed ranks; Colin himself refused to speak to the investigation or even attend the hearing, as I understand it, and hence it has not been possible to identify who the other Members he referred to were.
I'm not sure if the Local Authority has fully recognised the seriousness of the issue - it's about an elected Member taking decisions, essentially based on personal favouritism.
If it were up to me, he'd have be dismissed as a Councillor, barred from ever holding office with the Authority again, and referred to the police/CPS for investigation of Misconduct in Public Office (which is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
That may seem draconian, but there is little enough public faith in the Planning system as it is, so where such (thankfully rare) abuses as this come to light, we need to come down on them hard.
Unfortunately, as you'd expect, the rest of the committee closed ranks; Colin himself refused to speak to the investigation or even attend the hearing, as I understand it, and hence it has not been possible to identify who the other Members he referred to were.
I'm not sure if the Local Authority has fully recognised the seriousness of the issue - it's about an elected Member taking decisions, essentially based on personal favouritism.
If it were up to me, he'd have be dismissed as a Councillor, barred from ever holding office with the Authority again, and referred to the police/CPS for investigation of Misconduct in Public Office (which is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
That may seem draconian, but there is little enough public faith in the Planning system as it is, so where such (thankfully rare) abuses as this come to light, we need to come down on them hard.
On the wider subject that has been discussed (and notwithstanding that Councillors obviously should at least keep a good appearance of impartiality) I would have to point out that a lot of council employed "professionals" are anything but and making them answer to elected officials has (in my limited experience) been the only way of getting them to do their job.
The poor communication and degree of box ticking, self serving, time wasting administration that happens in my local borough is almost enough to make me think a privatised system would be better.
The poor communication and degree of box ticking, self serving, time wasting administration that happens in my local borough is almost enough to make me think a privatised system would be better.
Equus said:
If I'm honest, it wasn't the indiscretion that bothered me - it was the fact that he (and, he claimed, other Members of the Committee) were taking Planning decisions other than on the grounds of Planning policy and merit.
Unfortunately, as you'd expect, the rest of the committee closed ranks; Colin himself refused to speak to the investigation or even attend the hearing, as I understand it, and hence it has not been possible to identify who the other Members he referred to were.
I'm not sure if the Local Authority has fully recognised the seriousness of the issue - it's about an elected Member taking decisions, essentially based on personal favouritism.
If it were up to me, he'd have be dismissed as a Councillor, barred from ever holding office with the Authority again, and referred to the police/CPS for investigation of Misconduct in Public Office (which is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
That may seem draconian, but there is little enough public faith in the Planning system as it is, so where such (thankfully rare) abuses as this come to light, we need to come down on them hard.
I agree, examples need to be made. Planning decision should only ever be made on the merits of the proposal tested against adopted policy. Ultimately it would save the public purse the costs of many lost appeals, bring more trust and reliability into the process and make politicians think more carefully about the policies they have made.Unfortunately, as you'd expect, the rest of the committee closed ranks; Colin himself refused to speak to the investigation or even attend the hearing, as I understand it, and hence it has not been possible to identify who the other Members he referred to were.
I'm not sure if the Local Authority has fully recognised the seriousness of the issue - it's about an elected Member taking decisions, essentially based on personal favouritism.
If it were up to me, he'd have be dismissed as a Councillor, barred from ever holding office with the Authority again, and referred to the police/CPS for investigation of Misconduct in Public Office (which is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment).
That may seem draconian, but there is little enough public faith in the Planning system as it is, so where such (thankfully rare) abuses as this come to light, we need to come down on them hard.
As someone who has dealt with disciplinary processes within the public sector for malfeasance in public office , I actually don't think this is a runner based on what has been said here (there may of course be more to it than that).
Whilst he was very, very foolish to say what he said , it's a very high threshold to get a positive cps charging decision for something like this. This bloke could say he just misunderstood his obligations and had misdirected himself as to how he (and his colleagues) should and could approach each application. That doesn't mean that he didn't cock up what he was meant to be doing. But I suspect it's not enough for the cps to run with malfeasance. I suspect the council didn't want to lift the lid on it in any material way because there is the risk of any decision he was involved in being tainted. Coupled with the ineffective internal investigation due to his non compliance, and the lack of findings there, the CPS won't want to know imo.
Whilst he was very, very foolish to say what he said , it's a very high threshold to get a positive cps charging decision for something like this. This bloke could say he just misunderstood his obligations and had misdirected himself as to how he (and his colleagues) should and could approach each application. That doesn't mean that he didn't cock up what he was meant to be doing. But I suspect it's not enough for the cps to run with malfeasance. I suspect the council didn't want to lift the lid on it in any material way because there is the risk of any decision he was involved in being tainted. Coupled with the ineffective internal investigation due to his non compliance, and the lack of findings there, the CPS won't want to know imo.
princeperch said:
Whilst he was very, very foolish to say what he said, it's a very high threshold to get a positive cps charging decision for something like this....
You're probably right, though I was actually surprised to see that they have found him to be in breach of the rule that says he must '...take decisions for good and substantial reasons... stating the reasons for your decisions where those reasons are not otherwise apparent.' not (as I half expected) the less serious (legally) matter, associated with the statements on this internet forum, of conducting himself in a manner likely to bring the Authority into disrepute.He could have presumably deflected the former (had he bothered to turn up at the hearing) by simply saying that he was making things up, to make himself look important?
Sheepshanks said:
blueg33 said:
Planning decision should only ever be made on the merits of the proposal tested against adopted policy.
If that was the case then wouldn’t they always be black and white? There’d be no need for a vote.Its worth noting that many areas will grant consent without going to committee if there are few or no objections, but if 20 residents write in with non valid objections it will go to committee, politican subjectivity and bias comes into play. applications get refused and have to go to appeal. I have seen it dozens of times, and my policy is to never make an application that you know will go to appeal (ie, always meet policy).
In the last 5 years I have had 1 refusal out of 80 resi development applications. The refused development was in Gloucestershire and was for independent living for disabled people. A neighbour objected because "I don't want people like that looking at me". Officer supported the application as did head of planning. At the committee the officer was switched (subsequently found out it was requested by a member), new officer changed the report to recommend refuse, the chair allowed members of the public to pass notes to members during the committee meeting (which is illegal) but would not allow us to speak or address the new reasons for refusal and so the application was refused.
I could have committed another £50k to the project, run an appeal and won easily with costs which tax payers would have had to pay. I elected not to do this purely as we had enough going on elsewhere to make the time commitment a pain.
Over the years I have won numerous appeals where refusal has been because on non planning related subjective decisions by committee members. On one, the tax payer covered about £130,000 of costs where members ignored their own policy and said that a brownfield site was not for residential development despite being identified in the SHLAA.
Sheepshanks said:
If that was the case then wouldn’t they always be black and white? There’d be no need for a vote.
No, not necessarily. At risk of gross oversimplification:1) Planning Law recognises that some things (even matters of policy) can be subjective. For example, the NPPF tells us (among many other things) that: "...Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments...are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping". You can't write a policy that objectively and measurably defines whether that requirement is met (some Authorities try to do it by using the 'Building for Life' standard, though that is itself subjective).
2) The objective of planning is to balance positive and negative impacts. It is recognised that pretty much all development has some negative impacts associated with it, but the Planning system has to judge whether these are outweighed by positive benefits. In some cases, Planning Officers will recommend approval for proposals which go against specific policies, because they believe that overall the scheme offers benefits that outweigh the non-compliance. Almost invariably, such cases are referred to the Planning Committee.
3) For reasons of democracy (no, really... we're supposed to have one), every Council has a 'scheme of officer delegation', which sets criteria for which applications need to be decided by elected members instead of delegated to professional Planning Officers... but in those cases, the above principles should be applied - not whether the applicant is your mate from down the pub or, as in this case, that you don't much like his attitude.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 31st December 10:55
dmsims said:
Seriously how do you fix (maybe not the right word!) planning system ?
Blueg33 will differ with my opinion on this, I know, but given the complexities involved, the UK system is actually pretty good, and capable of working well when it is administered correctly. But that's why we need to throw the book at anyone found deliberately breaking the rules.
And for the most part professional Planning Officers are honest and conscientious. It's the Elected Members who are rather more random.
One simple improvement would simply be to remove decision-making powers from elected Members, but instead give them the ability to 'call in' any decision made by their professional officers to be assessed independently by the Appeals Inspectorate.
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 31st December 11:07
Equus said:
dmsims said:
Seriously how do you fix (maybe not the right word!) planning system ?
Blueg33 will differ with my opinion on this, I know, but given the complexities involved, the UK system is actually pretty good, and capable of working well when it is administered correctly. But that's why we need to throw the book at anyone found deliberately breaking the rules.
And for the most part professional Planning Officers are honest and conscientious. It's the Elected Members who are rather more random.
On simple improvement would simply be to remove decision-making powers from elected Members, but instead give them the ability to 'call in' any decision made by their professional officers to be assessed independently by the Appeals Inspectorate.
I like your strategy about call in to the inspectorate rather than have politicians grandstanding over a development proposal.
For me as I have said before, the professional officers should make the decision based on test against policy, the policy is set by the politicians.
Its similar to the courts, politicians make the laws and set the punishments. The courts then test and apply the punishments. Politicians don't get to decide whether each defendant has committed a crime, they trust the machine they put in place to do the job
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff