David_Wallis

Ideas??

David

LG John

As in opposing someones application or opposing a refusal of planning permission - i.e. what is your standpoint on this?? Also, we'll need some sort of idea of the problem/issue/development/etc

fast bloke

horses head on the applicants door

bung planners a couple of grand


As SB says - need more details

LG John

3 years as a planning officer and not one single offer to date Someone offered me a cup of tea and a biscuit once Planners don't take 'bribes' because usually they are too regulated - i.e. they don't take the decisions. Building control officers on the other hand can easily be paid to 'turn a blind eye'

fast bloke

SB - Get your business card reprinted -

"SB - Planning officer
Tel: 0898 nought two nice

open to large bribes"


btw - I want 10% for the advice

LG John

LOL

ajm

Time to plant a rare orchid in the applicants garden!

mart360

It depends who is putting forwatd the application..

we had 32 individual objections to a recent "council development"

points raised were

blocking fire escapes

blocking natural light to windows.... within 2 ft of a boundary

building higher than the surrounding buildings

privacy etc


parking issues



guess what, local councillors passed it....


wtf

non of them even live in the area!!!




mart

FASTER MIKE!!

just done this and succeded get as many people that it concerns to write letters to your local councilor stating your reason for objecting.
my example was a restaurant and take away, my objection was limited parking, also and risk of illegal parking(double yellow lines)

hope this is of some help and good luck

mike

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Dave

1st off, keep it legal & moral highground. The thing is that all your arguments have to be/seem reasonable and within the guidelines of the local planning authority.

You're not hinting here, but things like "It'll devalue my house" won't work.

Neighbourliness is an actual concern these days, which is "would you think this is acceptable if it was done to you".

We fought a campaign against our neighbour for their stable (you might remember) & won, because of "neighbourliness" and actually getting up, finding support and turning up on the day to say your piece. The night before, I was dropping deputations through each and every (planning) council member's front door, saying why we objected.

We fought a clean campaign, using the tools available to us, to put forward reasonable and understandable objections in a clear manner - unlike our neighbour. We overturned Planning Office recommendations for acceptance.

It can be a very emotive time, but let your head rule and use what legal means you can to the maximum to get the result you want.

(btw - look out for my wife today, roads round your way won't be safe yellow/white Mini Cooper with private reg)

LG John

Like that makes any difference! The planning system just doesn't work like that - i.e. people looking out for each other, etc. Planning legislation states that ALL planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan (comprising structure plans & local plans) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore the starting point in the determination of ANY planning application is the local and structure plan policies relevant to that developement in that area. If the proposal is consistent with those policies it has a very good chance of being approved. Some policies might be an exact science others might be a bit more emotive. For example some might say, 'an extension will not exceed the footprint of the original building' whereas at another council a similar policy may read, 'any extension will be of an appropriate scale, form and positioning' The ONLY way you can go against an adopted local or structure plan policy is if material considerations outweigh the policy and even then you'll probably have to advertise it as an approval contrary to policy. Planning case law (in court) has established that things like, 'it'll devalue my property' or 'I'll loose a view' or 'my neighbours have spent too much on their house already' are not material considerations. Light, impact on privacy and amenity, etc are all material but usually these things are covered by the development plans anyway. In fact where I work the development plans are IMHO pretty good and for this reason having now determined 1200 planning applications I don't think a neighbour has EVER raised something that I hadn't already taken account of through my assessment relative to policy or just by spotting a material issue on site. As an officer I make a professional decision based only on the development plan and material considerations. I've refused applications where the applicant has been a total babe and it breaks my heart to do so and I've approved applications where the applicant is the biggest pr!ck alive. It is a profession decision and if there are no objections or 100,000 non-material objections it won't affect my recommendation. The only time numbers might come into play is to sway local councillors but where I work our local councillors are very good in that they listen to our professional advice and can see past people rallying round to get objection.

I'm afraid to say it by NIMBY ism (not in my back yard) is rife in this country and I'll bet a lot of you (and probably me if development was to occur on my backyard) are guilty of it - a sad state of affairs really. If you are going to object to a planning application take a hard think about why you are doing it and also build some evidence into your argument. You need to outline what the development will do to your amenity/whatever and why its harmful. You wouldn't dream of turning up to court after being assulted and just saying, 'he hit me I was off work for a week so I want money' You'd produce evidence and you wouldn't even be there unless you had some shred of evidence and could prove you'd actually been harmed.

There are obviously good/bad planning officers and strange decisions taken by councillors - sometimes against planning recommendation but I will say that usually what a planning officer will report as a recommendation is relatively consistent and in line with the provisions of the legislation. Its just hassle city if its not because if we refuse something thats consistent with the development plan, etc we just get done over at appeal!

I realise this is a long post but I'd like some people to realise just how annoying it can be when the accusations start flying and when people clearly don't understand the way the system works. Just today I had an application for an extension to a house that took the form of a small porch (couldn't swing a cat in it!) on the side of the house towards the rear (back) garden. The neighbour accross the road (i.e. could hardly see the porch and is 30m from it) objected on the grounds of overdevelopment. I mean come on!!! I tiny porch!! It was quite clear it was just a neighbour despute and as usual muggin's here gets caught up in it. For every 1 objection letter I read that is well written with good clear and consise arguements I read 20 that are spurious and very often just NIMBY'ism or jelousy. Yet these people huff and puff and hate planners when I recommend approval of an application that is consistent with development plan policy and all other material planning considerations (i.e. I follow planning law!). And yet we (SN) wonder when Saxo posts up, 'I've had enough of life' midway through the week - man did I choose the wrong job

And in true, 'McDonalds made me fat so I'll sue them' style we are considering 3rd party rights of appeal in this country. Mark my words if this happens planning authorities through the UK will grind to a hault and this will have a massive impact on development and in turn the economy. Imagine how many people will exercise there 3rd party right when the Council approves a development of 200 houses in their area!!! Madness!

David_Wallis

saxo boy I read a bit of your post and its true but I got bored
just lifted off...

sorry...

I dont want do do anything illegal.. but suggestions are welcone.. obviously i'm joking.. email me if you think im not...

anyway.. what are the best ways... tpo's etc

David

LG John

You have to give us some indication of the specifics of the case before anyone can give any sort of meaningful advice. You mentioned TPO's - if a development is promoting the removal of TPO'd trees the council will need a really good reason to accept that and will probably require planting of replacement trees. Very often the planning department would act on the expert advice given to them by their landscape department.

ProperCharlie

tree officer alert!

tree officer alert!

often the tree officer will submit a report explaining why the development should be modified to preserve existing trees, and then another part of the LPA will draw up a complicated S. 106 agreement so they can get a new roundabout or something and whatever i'd recommended would get completely ignored...

sometimes you could get meaningful changes made, though.

Tentenths

Saxoboy,

Very interesting post. Maybe you could give me a steer on this one. The land behind our house has recently been developed, but the developers "forgot" (yeh, right!) that there was a TPO on an established 30 ft holly tree and took it out. As the tree used to screen our garden/house from the adjacent land we were, to put it mildly, a bit miffed.

We tackled the developers about it, the net result being that they replaced it with a 5 ft sapling, having allegedly had this approved by the council. Frankly, I didn't believe this at the time - but I have now noticed that the sapling has also now disappeared. Is it worth me drawing this to the council's attention, or are they likely to simply ignore it (bearing in mind what you've said above)?

Many thanks.

PS Is it a planning requirement that bathrooms on new builds should have obscured glass windows?

LG John

No idea regarding the tree the only way to know the score is to phone the planning department or landscape (or similar) department and ask what the score is.

Obscure glazing would only be required if there was an issue of overlooking from that window to a neighbouring property. If you can see joe bloggs take a slash you have to wonder what on earth the developer was thinking Again the planning department can advise if obscure glass was specified in the drawings or required by way of a condition.

Tentenths

Saxoboy,

Thanks for that. I'll take both issues up with the council (verbally initally) and see how they react. Although the houses aren't quite finished we can easily see straight into the bathrooms (particularly now the tree has gone!) as they're only 90 ft or so away. Ironically, our only real concerns when we responded to the original planning application were that we assumed that the council would insist on the TPO'd tree remaining and that because the 1st floor of the new houses would look straight into our garden/house (and we them) we assumed that approval would be subject to obscured glass in the bathrooms.

ProperCharlie

i would definitely notify the LPA that the sapling has gone. you could also say that it wasn't a very suitable replacement and that a semi-mature tree would be more appropriate.

V45DSM

**** yourself - don't wash your pants and wear 'eau de Germalene' then get yourself elected on to the council. You can now happily block the planning applications of anyone you don't like the look of. Oh...and pass any submitted by your mates, mason buddies, the pigs, magistrates...

mart360

Saxo boy,

prhaps i should elaborate on my nimby comments

the application was initially from a local business who wanted to redevelop there site..

they wished to move there exsisting business to one corner of the plot, and open a convieniance store.


this was opposed by residants, & the local police..

the case was thrown out.... because there were allready convieniance stores in the area and another would be overkill.

one local councillor was heard to remark " we cant have all that noise its bad enough with the dairy there " ... the dairy closed 20 years ago!!!!!!!!!



2 yrs later they tried again this time to have a sub post office on the site as well.

again there were objections including a report from the post ofice stating that you can only have so many sub postoffices in a given area, and that they could not sanction the development.


however the local council had just amazingly 3 months prior to the application refused to renew the leases on a block of local ( 1/4) mile away
shops...

yes you guessed 1 convienance store & a sub postoffice and an
off licence .... coincidance????


Luckily there was a major objection from the old bill with regrds to the limited parking, and the possible nuasance factor.

again it was thrown out...


then they tried to put on housing .....

it started as 3 houses, and 6 flats ,,, this then went through various changes until it became 13 flats,,, the occupants of which we were assured would be proffesional people....


this also died a death............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...




until....




cars suddenly started to get parking tickets on them yet they were not parked on the double yellow lines.... they were on the old hard standing / pavement area of the business that was there.... and had parked there for in excess of 20 years... all the way through the original applications....


curious, people asked questions, and then they found out.....


the local business had sold the land..............................to the council....


and how do you get parked cars to move,,, give them tickets...

then lo and behold a planning application for lo cost social housing.....

13 flats,,, the same 13 flats that were refused 2 yrs earlier......


again the residents swung into action,,, and then the 13 flats became 11

more objections flew and suddenly,,, the local police saw no reason to object,,, parking was never an issue they claimed ,,,,ffs the local council had just given 11 free spaces to the occupants of the flats and now 11 residants had to try and find parking spaces,,,

what galled was one of the parking spaces was where the next door neighbour used to park his car and got a ticket ... yet now it was ok?????


the buiding is three storeys high , all exsisting buildings are 2 storey and built round the turn of the century,, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


not one of the local councillors who voted the thing through lives anywhere near ............

most live in little villages or areas of the city that have exclusive postcodes!!!

prhaps if we were to propose such a development near them it would get approved...............

i think not..

and yes we used well balanced arguments, all correctly researched. yet all the objections that they highlight in there plannng regs we not taken into consideration...............


moral of the tale


put everything in writing and if its a local council move cos it will go through


mart

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

V45DSM

Constructive & useful post m8


SB

We had a not too good one - slimy two-faced toad springs to mind but we had level-headed and sensible councillors thankfully. I bet if I go round to our old house now, the neighbour's house colour ( to which we did not object) but was refused 18mnths ago, it'll not have changed. The PO was pulled at our committee meeting in March 03 about it, but said it was under discussion

Sorry, I know that prat is not representative of you all - apologies.

LoFi

I come to ScoobyNet to get away from planning (as I also am a planning officer) and now it is here too. Think I'll leave it to Saxo Boy. By the way SB, third party right of appeal is here, or haven't you been putting your reason for approval on decision notices since 5 December

And Mart,

The decisions in that case all seem perfectly rational to me, except perhaps the police changing their mind and your comments regarding the sort of people who might occupy flats. Hmmm, surrounding development is all turn of the century so lets not build any more houses for people to live in (there really is a housing shortage - have you seen house prices lately) and everything else is 2-storey so 3-storey must be bad, Ummm, there seem to be a lot of buildings of different heights all over the place, oh dear. Come on . . .

LoFi

LG John

I hope thats not in scotland too because we've not been doing it Not that it would be a problem we have to write full detailed file notes for every decision even down to 'installation of a flue and fan' where there is no objection, etc.

Re: height, etc - I agree that mixed heights, etc can make for attractive urban spaces. The problem is most people fear change and I do include myself in this - its a natural human reaction.

The one thing I will say is there is (sadly) a LOT to be said for moaning and moaning and moaning and moaning to your local councillor. Some developers have pushed through cr@p applications just by refusing to back down and being complete b@stards. As I said before in my authority our councillors are very good at seeing through this but its not the case the country over and certainly not just prior to local elections ()

LG John

btw lofi - what made you take the decision to go to university for four years and effectively tie a rope round your neck and hand the world the other end

I recall a uni courses booklet and thinking, 'that looks interesting' <shakes head>

LoFi

Seemed like a good idea at the time. It has it's moments. I have a collection of 4 'thank you' cards, that's gotta count for something

LoFi

LG John

In my first week as a DC officer I got a letter saying how, 'quick and efficient and friendly I was in dealing with an application'. Since then I've had nothing but complaints

David_Wallis

ps.. this is to demolish two house opposite and replace with 9-10 flats.

mart360

lofi

i will clarify further.

given that 11 1 bed flats have been placed onto the site,

it was deemed that only single persons/ couples would be able to take occupancy

the flats are located on a pretty busy residential road, and the nearest municipal park is some considerable distance away.

the risk of an accident occuring was the overiding factor


interesting comment about house sizes??

quick q for you

would you approve a modern 3 story house with a gable ended roof in an area that has strict planning regs to preserve the "exsisting character of the surrounding area"?? all turn of the century semis..


the point i was trying to get accross was nothing had changed with the submitted plans,,, only the people submitting them...

ie from private company to local council...


Mart

LoFi

Possibly. Character is a difficult and wide ranging concept. Current recent experience defending an appeal at a public inquiry suggests that in terms of housing Inspectors consider character in a wide context, as advocated by central government advice in PPG3. The tendency is to look at character in a wide sense, as in the character of an area or a whole settlement rather than the immediate surroundings, neighbouring properties or street. For example, the proposal is for terraced housing but there is no other terrace in the street but in the settlement as a whole terracing does exist, so is there a harm to character? Whether this is a good or bad is a matter for debate but I guess the reason it's happening this way is that planning is policy driven and current central policy is to be less restrictive and less perscriptive in terms of development for housing in order to make better use of the land available. Should we be so precious about greenfields at the expense of the 'character' of existing built up areas?

Hope this helps. By the way the bit missing from you elaboration is the reason for the earlier refusal of the 13 flats and when this decision was taken. I don't really what to know as I'd rather just stick to planning in general and leave the detail, no doubt, to your ombudsman complaint.

David - the best way to object is to be objective, put it all in writing, talk to the local councillors on your development control committee. Unfortunately the type of development you describe is just what the government are after, and with low parking standards too.

LoFi

LG John

Determining the character of a building, street or area is one of the most difficult things to do. Its so simple just to look at it and say, 'right there are 10 single storey houses of a 1960s design therefore no other form of building can be placed.'

What then if someone came along and proposed a contemporary building with mono-pitched roofs over 1.5 storeys of accomodation that matched prefectly the plot ratios and building positioning of the other housing. Its mono-pitched roofs may reflect the 60s design, its retained the plot ratio's and hasn't gone silly in height - it may just reflect the character enough.

Our deparment was sent on an urban design course and our tutor told us that one of the most important things in streetscape design is to fixate on one point but allow total variety in everything else. He got us each to draw a building but the criteria was that it would only be 'X' wide and between 1-3 storey's high. Other than that we able to use any design, materials or colours of our choosing. At the end we cut them out and randomly placed them together. We had staggered roof-lines, gables, pitched roofs, flat roofs, glazing, stone, render, completely different fenistration pattern and general mixed bag of design and styles. When they were placed together it looked interesting but also attractive and somehow 'right' The reason for this was the uniformity yet variety. It was very much like a Dutch street - visit Amsterdam and tell me though don't have beautiful terraces despite the total variety from building to building