Are Planning Regs fit for purpose.

[Fenman]

With respect that's why I'm saying "I", I'm not attempting to impose my opinion on anyone and I get rather annoyed whenver expressing an opinion results in that accusation. It's saying "don't you dare have an opinion."

...

 

Hence me prefacing it with "with respect". No idea why my opinion would make you annoyed; we are both, after all, participating in an online forum for discussion. I don't think either of us is going to be able to impose our will on the planning system.

 

Paul

[chris p bacon]

Is there a gas supply to the property?

Yes, although disconnected a couple of years ago, it's just 4 feet away in the road.

 

It's 3 feet when you take into account the cellar....I could tunnel it

[Fenman]

And until local authorities are made to pay compensation to developers for these entirely unnecessary delays, the situation will continue. No minor planning application should need more than three months to resolve.

 

Local authorities don't have any money except that which we taxpayers give to them. Are you seriously suggesting that all us taxpayers should be paying vast sums to property developers if the planning system isn't instantly able to give them an answer?

 

Over the last few years most local authorities have had massive spending cuts. While over the last few decades planners have been near-universally reviled: who would choose a career as a planner, if constant public humiliation will be their lot (see numerous comments above implying that planners are corrupt)?

 

We are now simply reaping what we have sowed.

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

Local authorities don't have any money except that which we taxpayers give to them. Are you seriously suggesting that all us taxpayers should be paying vast sums to property developers if the planning system isn't instantly able to give them an answer?

 

Over the last few years most local authorities have had massive spending cuts. While over the last few decades planners have been near-universally reviled: who would choose a career as a planner, if constant public humiliation will be their lot (see numerous comments above implying that planners are corrupt)?

 

We are now simply reaping what we have sowed.

 

Paul

 

That's not quite true. Local authorities have various sources of income - sometimes controversial as per Spelthorne.

 

But we can agree that they are usually short of money. So it makes no sense to spend money on planning appeals that they are certain to lose. But they do!

 

And no. I am not saying that they should compensate developers for unreasonable and unnecessary delays. I am suggesting that if the law obliged them to pay compensation they would make more effort to deal with planning applications in a timely fashion. I totally get (having been involved in one myself) that major planning applications need a lot of time. The sort of application that Dave is making (single houses and conversions) does not.

[chris p bacon]

Local authorities don't have any money except that which we taxpayers give to them. Are you seriously suggesting that all us taxpayers should be paying vast sums to property developers if the planning system isn't instantly able to give them an answer?

 

Over the last few years most local authorities have had massive spending cuts. While over the last few decades planners have been near-universally reviled: who would choose a career as a planner, if constant public humiliation will be their lot (see numerous comments above implying that planners are corrupt)?

 

We are now simply reaping what we have sowed.

 

Paul

I'm guessing that what you don't realise is that as part of the application process we have to pay for the pre-application advice that we have to have as part of the process, also here in Central Beds you have to pay for all costs to the council of a legally binding agreement should you be liable for Section 106 before the application is accepted, not after but before.

 

I would love to say about an application I had a few years ago but probably best not to name.   The basics of it are that I purchased a site with existing permission and a few conditions of which none were onerous and should have been dealt with in 28 days. It took over 12 months and ended with a meeting between myself, Enviroment agency, Footpaths and Planning,  the result of this meeting was one officer had an official warning, another was demoted and subsequently sacked and there was an inquiry into other applications the agency's had been involved in.  The most senior planning officer had attended the meeting and apart from asking the initial question I said very little, give someone a shovel and they dig a hole it seems. He was horrified at officer behaviour and I had a most profuse apology. Procedure was subsequently tightened. That episode of incompetancy cost me between £8-10,000.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Yes, although disconnected a couple of years ago, it's just 4 feet away in the road.

 

It's 3 feet when you take into account the cellar....I could tunnel it

Disconnected gas supplies are often the most dangerous when it comes to unexpected demolitions.

[Fenman]

I'm guessing that what you don't realise is that as part of the application process we have to pay for the pre-application advice that we have to have as part of the process, also here in Central Beds you have to pay for all costs to the council of a legally binding agreement should you be liable for Section 106 before the application is accepted, not after but before.

 

I would love to say about an application I had a few years ago but probably best not to name. The basics of it are that I purchased a site with existing permission and a few conditions of which none were onerous and should have been dealt with in 28 days. It took over 12 months and ended with a meeting between myself, Enviroment agency, Footpaths and Planning, the result of this meeting was one officer had an official warning, another was demoted and subsequently sacked and there was an inquiry into other applications the agency's had been involved in. The most senior planning officer had attended the meeting and apart from asking the initial question I said very little, give someone a shovel and they dig a hole it seems. He was horrified at officer behaviour and I had a most profuse apology. Procedure was subsequently tightened. That episode of incompetancy cost me between £8-10,000.

I'm sympathetic to your plight (and my own, actually, having very recently had a run-in with Barnet planners over commercial property).

 

But I'm also sympathetic to local government. Planning is a tiny bit of what they do. There are other things they do - child protective services, to take an extreme example - which are even more law-bound, where minimum service standards are absolutely compulsory, and where a mistake may lead to loss of life (and, secondarily, the public pillorying of the relevant social workers). If I were a councillor (thank God I am not) I would be desperately trying to protect services where a failure would be catastrophic, even if other essential services (highways? Libraries? Planning?) then got cut.

 

You certainly do pay fees - as you should. And s.106, much-hated by most developers, is, in my view, generally of significant benefit to the wider community into which you want to put a development, and from which, hopefully, you will make a profit. Poor service of the type you have described is never acceptable - as the local authority itself appears to agree, given the outcomes for its staff.

 

But it's a (small "p") political decision for all of us. What level of service do we want, and what are we prepared to pay for it?

 

The international alternatives don't look very palatable. Spain has already been referred to. In much of France planning permission is pretty much in the personal gift of the (very) local mayor. The US is mostly a complete mess (and operating in very different cultures).

 

It's difficult to see what would be better.

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

I'm guessing that what you don't realise is that as part of the application process we have to pay for the pre-application advice that we have to have as part of the process, also here in Central Beds you have to pay for all costs to the council of a legally binding agreement should you be liable for Section 106 before the application is accepted, not after but before.

 

I would love to say about an application I had a few years ago but probably best not to name.   The basics of it are that I purchased a site with existing permission and a few conditions of which none were onerous and should have been dealt with in 28 days. It took over 12 months and ended with a meeting between myself, Enviroment agency, Footpaths and Planning,  the result of this meeting was one officer had an official warning, another was demoted and subsequently sacked and there was an inquiry into other applications the agency's had been involved in.  The most senior planning officer had attended the meeting and apart from asking the initial question I said very little, give someone a shovel and they dig a hole it seems. He was horrified at officer behaviour and I had a most profuse apology. Procedure was subsequently tightened. That episode of incompetancy cost me between £8-10,000.

 

Charging for pre-application advice is, in my view, counter-productive. It results in people putting in applications which would be better avoided.

 

I don't think that what they are doing is legal if they oblige you to have pre-app advice and still more illegal to charge you for an agreement which may not even be applicable.

[Jol Wilkinson]

East Finchley is basically next door to Hampstead Garden Suburb / Winnington Road / The Bishop's Avenue, which is where some seriously wealthy people live (as well as quite a lot of foreign-owned empty properties).

I have heard that the Avenue is going downhill a bit, possibly through absentee owners who have bought properties as investments.

[chris p bacon]

But I'm also sympathetic to local government. Planning is a tiny bit of what they do. There are other things they do - child protective services, to take an extreme example - which are even more law-bound, where minimum service standards are absolutely compulsory, and where a mistake may lead to loss of life (and, secondarily, the public pillorying of the relevant social workers). If I were a councillor (thank God I am not) I would be desperately trying to protect services where a failure would be catastrophic, even if other essential services (highways? Libraries? Planning?) then got cut.

 

You certainly do pay fees - as you should. And s.106, much-hated by most developers, is, in my view, generally of significant benefit to the wider community into which you want to put a development, and from which, hopefully, you will make a profit. Poor service of the type you have described is never acceptable - as the local authority itself appears to agree, given the outcomes for its staff.

 

But it's a (small "p") political decision for all of us. What level of service do we want, and what are we prepared to pay for it?

 

The international alternatives don't look very palatable. Spain has already been referred to. In much of France planning permission is pretty much in the personal gift of the (very) local mayor. The US is mostly a complete mess (and operating in very different cultures).

 

It's difficult to see what would be better.

 

Paul

I agree with you and don't think that Planning should be a service that should take money from local services, but recently it has moved from a "Service" to (in the words of Central Beds) "A Revenue Stream" They now see Planning as a means to increase income and cover a shortfall in the budget. I realise authorites have to raise monies but I don't think the built environment is one of them as the reality is they start to favour large high density housing than smaller developments as the return is greater.

 

Regarding Section 106, I don't have an issue with it, if the site is big enough and well planned it can cover the cost. It is when Community Infrastructure Levy is applied as well and that is a per bedroom charge paid in advance of building works starting. (3 bed is £12,000 here for example) So if I were to build 4 x 3 bed houses I would have to hand one over to social housing (33% minimum social) as well as pay £80,000+ in advance and any possible section 106 monies (£20,000 is not unreasonable) All this after purchasing the site (£400,000+) and going through planning.

After Central Beds had done this for 3 years and entered into many agreements they were declared illegal and stopped by Central Government. 

 

There is never going to be planning that suits everyone, one persons design choice is not anothers, but in this area it has been rather chaotic with too many ill thought out decisions.

 

There is a theory among many of the local architects that the reason CBC have such a high refusal rate and so many Appeals against them, is that it is cheaper to refuse and go to appeal and lose than it is to train and keep competant staff. The planning inspectorate is the one that makes the final decision based on policy.

[Horsetan]

I have heard that the Avenue is going downhill a bit, possibly through absentee owners who have bought properties as investments.

It certainly has.

[Joseph_Pestell]

 

There is a theory among many of the local architects that the reason CBC have such a high refusal rate and so many Appeals against them, is that it is cheaper to refuse and go to appeal and lose than it is to train and keep competant staff. The planning inspectorate is the one that makes the final decision based on policy.

 

Have you considered building elsewhere? It does seem that you have a particularly "difficult" LPA.

 

It seems rather unlikely that it costs less to lose appeals than to have competent staff. I think it's more a matter of "politics" which means that the LPA say it's not their fault that x got built.

 

But they always have that get-out. Our Town Council frequently voted "no objection" to plans that we did not like at all but which had no grounds for refusal in planning law. The District would then turn them down and lose at appeal. Our Town Council of inexperienced "amateurs" seemed to have a better understanding of planning law than the "professionals" at District.

[melmerby]

One of the problems with planning laws is when there is a change of use application and for whatever reason the District Council "take their eyes off the ball" so to speak.

 

An example I can quote is where a Petrol Station which opened 7 days a week 6AM - 11PM, closed up and it's place was taken by a Tile/Bathroom Shop.

This shop only ever opened 5 ½ days a week keeping to "office" hours. Neither of these two businesses ever had more than 2 or 3 cars on the forecourt at anyone time.

 

A few years ago the tile shop decided to downsize and let the ground floor to someone else.

They duly applied for planning permission of change of use to Food/Convenience store use.

Everyone assume it was going to a proper "local" type shop, only when the application went through was it found out that the application had been made on behalf of Tesco.

OK one thought, it will have restricted hours so it wont be much of a nuisance, but the District Council had never varied the original 6AM - 11PM 7 days a week hours of the original Petrol Station and that's how long it is open for.

Also the parking is totally inadequate with numerous occasions of parking on the pavement (totally so you can't get past), as well as parking on the grass verges churning them up.

The DC eventually put up some wooden barriers to curb some of it but guess what? One lot were pulled up so someone could park there!

The place is a nightmare, it is also on a busy, dangerous junction with frequent minor prangs caused by people entering or leaving the site as well as the occasional major crash.

(The major road has a solid white line due to the blind bend which you cross to enter/leave the site)

 

Wrong Shop, wrong place and open too long with inadequate parking. Even the obligatory cycle places which were required for planning consent were removed shortly afterwards to make space for delivery trollies.

 

Keith

[chris p bacon]

One of the problems with planning laws is when there is a change of use application and for whatever reason the District Council "take their eyes off the ball" so to speak.

 

An example I can quote is where a Petrol Station which opened 7 days a week 6AM - 11PM, closed up and it's place was taken by a Tile/Bathroom Shop.

This shop only ever opened 5 ½ days a week keeping to "office" hours. Neither of these two businesses ever had more than 2 or 3 cars on the forecourt at anyone time.

 

A few years ago the tile shop decided to downsize and let the ground floor to someone else.

They duly applied for planning permission of change of use to Food/Convenience store use.

Everyone assume it was going to a proper "local" type shop, only when the application went through was it found out that the application had been made on behalf of Tesco.

OK one thought, it will have restricted hours so it wont be much of a nuisance, but the District Council had never varied the original 6AM - 11PM 7 days a week hours of the original Petrol Station and that's how long it is open for.

Also the parking is totally inadequate with numerous occasions of parking on the pavement (totally so you can't get past), as well as parking on the grass verges churning them up.

The DC eventually put up some wooden barriers to curb some of it but guess what? One lot were pulled up so someone could park there!

The place is a nightmare, it is also on a busy, dangerous junction with frequent minor prangs caused by people entering or leaving the site as well as the occasional major crash.

(The major road has a solid white line due to the blind bend which you cross to enter/leave the site)

 

Wrong Shop, wrong place and open too long with inadequate parking. Even the obligatory cycle places which were required for planning consent were removed shortly afterwards to make space for delivery trollies.

 

Keith

I understand what you're saying but you can read that another way.

 

A convenience store was needed and the popularity of it is shown by the volume of people using it.  I have to ask would it be different if it was a Waitrose?

 

We must be one of the few towns in the Country who actively sought out and petitioned the major supermarkets to come and build something. We were 12,000 population with no food outlet (apart from a very overpriced Budgens convenience at the time) and Tesco were the only one to come. Since opening their sales have exceeded expectation. They work on the basis that only 25% will be new custom with the rest made up of existing customers, The store we have had 94% new customers which meant it was needed. The only issue is that it is the edge of town (near the station) as this was the only site left that was suitable, when Tesco made initial enquiries there was a town centre site which had been a coal yard,  but Tesco were told that Central Beds were zoning it for Residential so that precluded its use for retail.

When the application was going through it was a bit touch and go as to whether it would succeed as the officer recomendation was refusal as they saw nearby Biggleswade (3+ miles) as the retail centre for the area. Some 100+ residents went to the planning meeting in support of the proposal and it was passed.

[Horsetan]

.... would it be different if it was a Waitrose?...

You might get a snootier class of customer....

[chris p bacon]

You might get a snootier class of customer....

There is a Waitrose in Bedford and the access to Wickes goes past the car park, it's so funny just looking at the car park as it defines the customer base, no car over 2 years old and if anyone should turn up in a Japanese car I think they're ushered into the corner out of the way.

[Horsetan]

There is a Waitrose in Bedford ....

That in itself sounds like a contradiction. Still, more believable than a Waitrose in Luton.....

[jjb1970]

There is a Waitrose in Bedford and the access to Wickes goes past the car park, it's so funny just looking at the car park as it defines the customer base, no car over 2 years old and if anyone should turn up in a Japanese car I think they're ushered into the corner out of the way.

 

The irony being that Japanese cars are probably more exclusive than German prestige rep mobiles these days. I find it amusing that certain car producers still base their appeal on badge snobbery when they're as common as anything, who's have thought that the Ford Mondeo and Vauxhall Insignia, Mazda 6, Hyundai I40 and such mass market cars would become the alternative choice?!

[Loconuts]

Thanks guys, this has all been very interesting stuff. I must add that I served 4 years as a Town Councilor and during my 4 years I was on the planning committee. Plans were passed to us by the District Council with their recommendations on the plans and why, we on the Town Council made up our own minds on the applications and sent our recommendations back to District.

 

There were no bungs made to any Councilor in that 4 years I served. However all the Councilors were local Towns people who had pride in their town so every application was scrutinised in detail. Of course we had to watch out for any councilors who were members of the funny handshake lot.

 

One of the biggest problem we had to deal with was the purpose of the building mods, a lot were going to be used as business space although the plan would say domestic accommodation. Being locals we had a good idea as to what was going on and caught many of them out. The other ones that were worst were small builders say developing a small piece of land with housing, always trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, a lot of these plans were unworkable, the other one was to put in for a number of 2 or 3 bed small houses and then coming back for retrospective planning changing the build to 4 bed detached houses.

 

I can say that all the plans we passed were sympathetic to the surrounding area, however I believe that things have all changed in the last two decades. All I can say to people like Horse who are not happy with their councilors you can change them every 4 years.  

[Horsetan]

..... All I can say to people like Horse who are not happy with their councilors you can change them every 4 years.  

 

Believe me, we've tried.

[chris p bacon]

Thanks guys, this has all been very interesting stuff. I must add that I served 4 years as a Town Councilor and during my 4 years I was on the planning committee. Plans were passed to us by the District Council with their recommendations on the plans and why, we on the Town Council made up our own minds on the applications and sent our recommendations back to District.

 

There were no bungs made to any Councilor in that 4 years I served. However all the Councilors were local Towns people who had pride in their town so every application was scrutinised in detail. Of course we had to watch out for any councilors who were members of the funny handshake lot.

 

One of the biggest problem we had to deal with was the purpose of the building mods, a lot were going to be used as business space although the plan would say domestic accommodation. Being locals we had a good idea as to what was going on and caught many of them out. The other ones that were worst were small builders say developing a small piece of land with housing, always trying to cram a quart into a pint pot, a lot of these plans were unworkable, the other one was to put in for a number of 2 or 3 bed small houses and then coming back for retrospective planning changing the build to 4 bed detached houses.

 

I can say that all the plans we passed were sympathetic to the surrounding area, however I believe that things have all changed in the last two decades. All I can say to people like Horse who are not happy with their councilors you can change them every 4 years.  

Lady Bacon has been a Town Councillor for 10+ years (3 years as Mayor) and sits on Development Scrutiny* (the old planning committee) The District council (Unitary Authority in our case) treat local Town and Parish councils with such disdain nowadays it becomes insulting. 

 

It's actually every 5 years for local elections......

 

*before anyone asks she does excuse herself if any of mine are before the committee, The rules are very tight on what you can do and they are monitored very closely to adhere to them.

[Jol Wilkinson]

You might get a snootier class of customer....

It would be interesting to see a Waitrose and a M&S Food Store open opposite each other. The indecision in the car park would be fun to see.

[melmerby]

 

 

A convenience store was needed and the popularity of it is shown by the volume of people using it.  I have to ask would it be different if it was a Waitrose?

 

No it wasn't. It was pointed out amongst the objections that there were three other Tesco outlets within 1 mile or so and several other convenience stores even closer, some within easy walking distance and the provision of convenience stores was higher than average.

Using that argument you should provide one on every street corner and they would still get customers.

 

The problem these days is providing "easy" parking at these stores, thus encouraging the idle b*ggers to drive 100 yards to get a packet of fags.

Hardly anybody walks there even though it is a mainly fairly built up area, jumping in the Chelsea Tractor is just so easy.

 

All that happens is the customer base is spread ever thinner amongst the remaining stores.

It would be interesting to find out how many customers previously used one of the other, slightly further away, Tescos as well as the other local shops.

It's quite a small Tesco so doesn't really have a great deal more than the other shops have.

 

Keith

 

EDIT there is a full size Sainsbury's well within the mile and it has a huge car park which is never full.

[melmerby]

It would be interesting to see a Waitrose and a M&S Food Store open opposite each other. The indecision in the car park would be fun to see.

Oh the indecision on which branded bag to carry to put the shopping in.

You see them in car parks opening the boot of the 4x4 and putting their Tesco/Asda/Lidl plastic bags into a Waitrose bag to carry out when they get home!

 

Keith

[Joseph_Pestell]

No it wasn't. It was pointed out amongst the objections that there were three other Tesco outlets within 1 mile or so and several other convenience stores even closer, some within easy walking distance and the provision of convenience stores was higher than average.

Using that argument you should provide one on every street corner and they would still get customers.

 

The problem these days is providing "easy" parking at these stores, thus encouraging the idle b*ggers to drive 100 yards to get a packet of fags.

Hardly anybody walks there even though it is a mainly fairly built up area, jumping in the Chelsea Tractor is just so easy.

 

All that happens is the customer base is spread ever thinner amongst the remaining stores.

It would be interesting to find out how many customers previously used one of the other, slightly further away, Tescos as well as the other local shops.

It's quite a small Tesco so doesn't really have a great deal more than the other shops have.

 

Keith

 

EDIT there is a full size Sainsbury's well within the mile and it has a huge car park which is never full.

Dave said that the Tesco was needed where he lived. He did not comment on yours.