ChatterBank0 min ago
council planning
if council planning officers recommend to their council's development control committee that just one comparatively minor aspect of massive plans to develop a local residence is unacceptable (ie. they say the rest of the plans are acceptable), yet the committee vote unanimously to reject every single aspect of the plans using words like horrifying to describe the plans, when the applicant (owner of the property) then appeals (to bring in the Government Inspector to adjudicate) should the planning officers let the Inspector know that the committee voted unanimously against all aspects of the plans and described them as horrifying, etc? Indeed, are the planning officers legally obliged to relay the full details of the committee's rejection?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flipnflap. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I believe so.
The Planning Officer's job is a technical one and involves assessing the conformance of the proposed development against the policies (mainly local policies within the Council Development Framework). The Planning Committee are councillors, lay people often with little technical knowledge. Planning judgements are personal ones - there are no hard and fast rules - policies say things like 'the form, shape and mass of the proposed development shall be in keeping with the surrounding area'. One person's view is different from another.
When a decision goes to appeal, the job of the Planning Inspectorate is to review the evidence submitted on both sides and the appellant is able to submit a statement stating why he believes the decision is inappropriate. I cannot therefore believe that the Inspector does not review the reasons why the Councillors turned down the original Application.
The Planning Officer's job is a technical one and involves assessing the conformance of the proposed development against the policies (mainly local policies within the Council Development Framework). The Planning Committee are councillors, lay people often with little technical knowledge. Planning judgements are personal ones - there are no hard and fast rules - policies say things like 'the form, shape and mass of the proposed development shall be in keeping with the surrounding area'. One person's view is different from another.
When a decision goes to appeal, the job of the Planning Inspectorate is to review the evidence submitted on both sides and the appellant is able to submit a statement stating why he believes the decision is inappropriate. I cannot therefore believe that the Inspector does not review the reasons why the Councillors turned down the original Application.
WELL, THE iNSPECTORATE definitely WASN'T PROPERLY INFORMED IN MY CASE. One of many suspicious signs that the planning officers in this case were up to no good. I tried complaining to the council, but they'd have none of it. Ditto the Ombudsman, Deputy PM's office, & fraud squad. Any thoughts as to where I can turn to now?
if you've really exhausted all the areas of appeal, then i think the only thing to do is to find out why the plans were rejected and try to come up with another set of plans addressing any concerns in the hope that if you appear flexible enough, they will be approved or at least they will discuss problems beforehand.
:(
:(
Right. Please can we get this straight.
You object to the Application, which was broadly supported by the Planners (the people with the through knowledge of the planning system) but rejected by the Planning Commitee, who used emotive language of various types. The Applicant appealed and the rejection has been overturned on appeal. So you are unhappy?
This sounds like the Inspector is taking the view that the application is broadly in line with wider Government policies. As fredpuli points out, it is Government policy to increase housing densities WITHIN THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES as a means of constraining urban sprawl. This means that perfectly good houses in big plots of land are being pulled down and higher density developments are being put in their place. If you tell us which Council this is, I'll take a look at the Local Development Plan and will be 90% sure of finding a relevant policy that the professional Planners, and the Inspector, are concluding this development aligns to.
Sorry but this is happening all over. No-one has done anything wrong, its nothing to do with fraud. The Councillors who voted against it are either ill-informed or (more likely) making a political stunt to say they supported local opinions. Decisions broadly are determined on the fit to policies.
You object to the Application, which was broadly supported by the Planners (the people with the through knowledge of the planning system) but rejected by the Planning Commitee, who used emotive language of various types. The Applicant appealed and the rejection has been overturned on appeal. So you are unhappy?
This sounds like the Inspector is taking the view that the application is broadly in line with wider Government policies. As fredpuli points out, it is Government policy to increase housing densities WITHIN THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES as a means of constraining urban sprawl. This means that perfectly good houses in big plots of land are being pulled down and higher density developments are being put in their place. If you tell us which Council this is, I'll take a look at the Local Development Plan and will be 90% sure of finding a relevant policy that the professional Planners, and the Inspector, are concluding this development aligns to.
Sorry but this is happening all over. No-one has done anything wrong, its nothing to do with fraud. The Councillors who voted against it are either ill-informed or (more likely) making a political stunt to say they supported local opinions. Decisions broadly are determined on the fit to policies.
1 to 10 of 10
