How planning works.

Well well well.

Its taken a fair bit of digging, but essentially, outside of a conservation area, the long and the short of it is,

"At the whim of the planning department of your local council".

Now strictly, thy are supposed to have a Plan, and get that plan rubber stamped by Hazel Blears, but as long as it contains th requisite pap like 'affordable housing' 'attention to ethnic minorities' and 'job creation' it appears the plan can be almost anything you like.

And how its interpreted is of course 'subject to review on an individual basis'.

So you end up with about 12 people who essentially, if they don't get caught, can allow or deny planning permission on an entirely arbitrary basis. And whose jobs depend more or less on the head of planning...

Now if that person happens to be an honest decent public servant, who puts together a plan (and sticks to it) that reflects what the local electorate want, all well and good. But if that person is a corrupt individual with an offshore account in the Bermudas, and a few chums on the committee..its a positive *invitation* to corruption isn't it? Not that I in any way impute such planning officers exist.

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment..

T Dan smith.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

You forgot "eco-friendly"

Yep. Planning is pretty inconsistent. If a developer wants to build something controversial then he/she can keep reapplying for planning permission and eventually they will get it.

It happened down our road when an application for an extension to a house was turned down as "out of keeping" and a new application for the demolition of the same house and the building of two ugly houses in its place was allowed.

Reply to
Mark

I should point out that the distinction between planning officers and the planning committee is often blurred.

Planning officers are civil servants and, by and large, try to do a good job in difficult circumstances, following the "Plan". They do not take any planning decisions, they make recommendations.

The decisions are taken by the planning committee, who are not civil servants but people who want to be in politics. I know someone who watched a planning committee at work and a few extension applications followed the recommendations and were turned down and an identical one was approved (against recommendation).

While there are always bad apples, it's poor form to accuse all planning officers of corruption. If one had to choose between civil servants and politicians for corruption, where would you look first?

Reply to
Bob Mannix

What, you mean occasionally they might want a Range Rover and a skiing trip instead of a BMW and 2 weeks in the Carribean before you can build your eyesore housing estate?

Reply to
Huge

========================================= You might do a bit of research into what the Ombudsman has to offer. If you have evidence of corruption or improper practices he might be able to help despite his rather limited powers.

You could also try a direct personal letter to Hazel Blears in her own constituency because politicians become much more sensitive to public opinion when election time draws near.

Cic.

Reply to
Cicero

Around 15+ years ago ASDA wanted PP for a supermarket locally. Local council denied it. ASDA appealed to Govmint (tory at the time) and were granted permission. The fact that ASDA donated very large sums of money to the tory party apparently went unoticed.

Local council got the arse & wouldn't allow the sale of Geoarge clothing, wouldn't allow them to have a coffee shop & wouldn't let them build a roundabout to allow access, resulting in traffic chaos for local residents.

Money talks. Merit walks.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

It's generally not so much corruption as intimidation. Even if planning officials and the planning committee don't like a proposal from a big developer, they know that they cannot turn it down without a very strong reason. Otherwise the developer will simply take it to appeal, and with their superior legal muscle they will win with costs awarded against the council, which will then be censured for wasting public money on hopeless causes. So they simply give in to the inevitable, and grant the application straight away.

Another factor is that most planning officials have an eye to possible career progression into private practice. Since large development companies would then be potential clients, or even potential employers, those officials don't want to make too many enemies... and once again, this form of pressure doesn't cost the developers a single penny.

With private applicants it's a different story. If the officials and/or the committee don't like something - for whatever reasons, good or bad - they are much more free to follow their inclinations and turn it down.

Been there, seen it all happen. When a decision goes against us, it may make us feel better to believe it was all due to corruption, but that doesn't seem very likely when in fact the developers can get the same results for free.

Reply to
Ian White

That is spinelessness.

Well you are saying basically that the system is broken: So time to take it up with the MP's anyway..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

BMWs and Carribean holidays, mostly.

Reply to
Huge

I have said plenty of unkind things about planners and planning committees over the years, but I don't believe that corruption is a material influence.

With smaller developments the temptation is to bow to the NIMBY fraternity knowing that the time and cost of an appeal makes one unlikely - easier for the applicant to come back with a scaled-down application.

With large developments my limited experience of LBRuT was that the planning committee chairman was more than aware that an ill-founded refusal would lead to a successful appeal and costs against the authority so applications would be approved in spite of well orchestrated public objections. Awarding costs against LAs when refusals are without merit was a very positive change: I remember one application before this being refused by my [Conservative] LA. The officer had said that it would be almost certainly allowed on appeal, to which the chairman cynically said that if so he would write to all the objectors pointing out that their local Conservative council had batted for them but they had been overruled by a Labour minister.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

They probably have a better idea of what housebuyers want than the average councillor.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

How many people objected? How many people shop there each week? I used to get incensed at the objections to every major development in LBRuT on the grounds that (a) no one wants it; and (b) if it's allowed the result will be traffic chaos.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

None of the locals IIRC, the council decided there was no need for a supermarket in the area, despite there not being one for miles around. Loads of people shop there, car park always near full, queues at the checkouts every time I go there.

ASDA were prepared to build a roundabout to improve access, but were denied permission. Chaos is caused by the lack of roundabout.

Reply to
The Medway Handyman

Not always. In some areas planning officers have "delegated powers" which means they do make the decision in some applications.

It's mainly down to financial pressures, rather than corruption but it is still frustrating. The planning officers made several pointless changes to my extension plans. I wish I'd known in advance - I could have got them to design it for free.

Reply to
Mark

Not the one that built two ugly houses near me which are still unsold after about 3 years.

Reply to
Mark

Well we went in and had a chat before submitting to avoid such problems, he said it looked fine as long as we had no objections from the neighbours and so it was on submission.

Reply to
Bob Mannix

I paid someone to do the design (who used to work in the planning office). He did warn me that they may mess about with it. I was not prepared for the level of pointless changes I was forced to make.

Another house of a similar design to mine was granted planning permission for a very similar extension without the modifications that was made to mine.

The one I really objected to was that I was forced to set back the extension from the existing house line, making the extension smaller, uglier and more expensive to build.

Reply to
Mark

Well YMMV but, as far as I have heard, that is a very common stipulation and so not unexpected. I don't mean to suggest it was correct (or not) in your particular case, but common nonetheless. It's normally to avoid a flat, almost unbroken line of frontages (again, I'm not commenting on your particular case).

Reply to
Bob Mannix
[snip]

It was suggested that I set back the extension above my garage by at least half a brick to reduce the visual difference with the existing frontage. I didn't, but hid the join under the downpipe (my idea). Later I moved the downpipe when I rebuilt the remnants of the garage roof, and the join doesn't show, as the mortar and bricks match. The extension was built within 5 years of the original building, If I was doing it now I would probably offset it at the join could then be made without having to stitch into the existing bricks (which wouldn't match after 30 years anyway).

Reply to
<me9

I wonder why it was applied to my house and not to one a few doors down, nor one opposite. It seems very arbitary to me.

The guy who designed it told me this rule was designed to ensure you can tell which part of a house is an extension in the case of historic or significant buildings, neither of which applies to my 1960s semi!

Reply to
Mark

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.