According to reports today, the Conservatives, if elected to power this year, would stop local councils having the right to make planning decisions about new schools, with this power being taken by central government and a minister in London making decisions instead of locally elected councillors.
This harks back to the days of Thatcher when powers were routinely taken from councils and centralised in Westminster.
Whilst local councils might not always make the decisions that the government wants, local councillors are much more accountable than a Tory minister in London who may have a safe seat in a different part of the country and is therefore wholly unaccountable for the decisions he might be making about schools. Why should an MP for Surrey East be allowed to make planning decisions about things in Norwich ? This should be left to Norwich Councillors because at least the electorate have the ability to get rid of those councilors if they don't like the decisions they make.
Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning. Show all posts
12/09/2007
How do you get planning permission for something the council normally opposes if you live in a Tory controlled District ? Be a Tory Councillor ?
I was told some very interesting information by someone the other day. A councillor in a Tory run council told me that in a ward, a number of applications to build houses on land the council refers to as "backfill", have been rejected because the council has a policy of normally turning down "backfill" applications. However, in this councillors ward a backfill application has been allowed, completely contrary to the council's stated policy.
I personally gained a better understanding of why this application, which is against the council's policy, might have been allowed when I leanrt that the application was made by a senior Tory councillor from another ward (not the councillor whose ward it was).
Ah, you might say, this means a precedent has been set and that future applications will now be judged fairly against this councillor's own application. But no, that is not the case. Subsequent applications for "backfill" have since been rejected.
This is odd in itself because the latest Policy Planning Guidance states that Councils should not block backfill apllications. So in this case it appears that the council are only applying the letter of the law correctly to "certain" applicants.
So does this council have one rule for Tory Councillor's applications and one rule for everyone else.
You cannot blame the Tory Councilllor concerned. It appears he, like everyone else has tried to get planning permission for something that is normally rejected (although should be accepted). It is just, rather strangely to my mind, that in his case the council has done the right thing whilst in virtually everyone elses case they do not.
Don't be fooled by the Mr Cameron. At a local level, the Tories never change their spots.
Update : For Iain Dale's benefit (see comments) the Council is Broadland District Council, the application and decision by the council is HERE and the Councillor, who himself has done absolutely nothing wrong (I am suggesting the Tory run council are using double standards and are in the wrong), is Cllr S Clancy (the applicant).
Update 2 : Iain claims I am accusing the planning officer. Clearly Iain I am not because the decision made by the planning officer is only a recomendation, the Council makes the decision. And if it was recommended for acceptance, then the officer was correct because under the latest Planning Guidance from government, the application should have been accepted. I
Hopefully Iain Dale will now apologise.
I personally gained a better understanding of why this application, which is against the council's policy, might have been allowed when I leanrt that the application was made by a senior Tory councillor from another ward (not the councillor whose ward it was).
Ah, you might say, this means a precedent has been set and that future applications will now be judged fairly against this councillor's own application. But no, that is not the case. Subsequent applications for "backfill" have since been rejected.
This is odd in itself because the latest Policy Planning Guidance states that Councils should not block backfill apllications. So in this case it appears that the council are only applying the letter of the law correctly to "certain" applicants.
So does this council have one rule for Tory Councillor's applications and one rule for everyone else.
You cannot blame the Tory Councilllor concerned. It appears he, like everyone else has tried to get planning permission for something that is normally rejected (although should be accepted). It is just, rather strangely to my mind, that in his case the council has done the right thing whilst in virtually everyone elses case they do not.
Don't be fooled by the Mr Cameron. At a local level, the Tories never change their spots.
Update : For Iain Dale's benefit (see comments) the Council is Broadland District Council, the application and decision by the council is HERE and the Councillor, who himself has done absolutely nothing wrong (I am suggesting the Tory run council are using double standards and are in the wrong), is Cllr S Clancy (the applicant).
Update 2 : Iain claims I am accusing the planning officer. Clearly Iain I am not because the decision made by the planning officer is only a recomendation, the Council makes the decision. And if it was recommended for acceptance, then the officer was correct because under the latest Planning Guidance from government, the application should have been accepted. I
Hopefully Iain Dale will now apologise.
6/22/2007
Tonight - Supersize my house - Ill informed guff from ITV
What a dreadfully biased and ill researched load of old twaddle ITV served up tonight in their so called news feature "Tonight - Supersize my house".
The reporter, Fiona Foster, seemed to lack even a basic knowledge of planning laws. She accepted without question the story from the couple in Calderdale when they said
"We knew you could build 20-30% bigger than you have planning permission for"
What ! My wife, who is a planning officer was absolutely amazed that this wasn't questioned at all. Just looking at their house you can see it was out of proportion and had not followed a plan, yet Fiona Foster accepted their story and we were supposed to feel sorry for them. Since when has a planning application, particularly one for a barn conversion in a green belt ever been alllowed to go 20-30% over size ?
Still, I guess it is only ITV and you cannot expect them to have the highest journalistic standards. After all, they are not there to educate, only to make money.
The next story then featured a man who had tried to flout planning laws and used a loophole in the law (the Four year rule) which means if you live in a property for more than four years, you can apply for retrospective planning permission and it must be granted. As Fiona Foster explained that this man had basically decided to "cheat" his way in to building a new house bu building it inside a bard so that it was hidden, she allowed the owner of the house to make out he was the victim when the council successfully argue that he had cheated and that the bungalow must be pulled down.
Throughout the program the argument was used that "the neighbour does not mind" or "it couldn't be seen" or "it was miles from anywhere". These arguments were given by Tonight as if they are material considerations when building on green belt land, which of course, they are not.
I am sure any councillor watching who has received planning training would have been incensed by the shoddy level of reporting. but when we had to put up with a property reporter from a broadsheet newspaper blaming councils for building small houses without making the point that governments set planning policy and give out regular guidance for councils to follow, then you could tell that the who show was an ill informed rant against councils.
Personally, I think the real answer is to make planning law a criminal law, not civil. You'd soon see people start to take notice and do the right thing if that were the case.
The reporter, Fiona Foster, seemed to lack even a basic knowledge of planning laws. She accepted without question the story from the couple in Calderdale when they said
"We knew you could build 20-30% bigger than you have planning permission for"
What ! My wife, who is a planning officer was absolutely amazed that this wasn't questioned at all. Just looking at their house you can see it was out of proportion and had not followed a plan, yet Fiona Foster accepted their story and we were supposed to feel sorry for them. Since when has a planning application, particularly one for a barn conversion in a green belt ever been alllowed to go 20-30% over size ?
Still, I guess it is only ITV and you cannot expect them to have the highest journalistic standards. After all, they are not there to educate, only to make money.
The next story then featured a man who had tried to flout planning laws and used a loophole in the law (the Four year rule) which means if you live in a property for more than four years, you can apply for retrospective planning permission and it must be granted. As Fiona Foster explained that this man had basically decided to "cheat" his way in to building a new house bu building it inside a bard so that it was hidden, she allowed the owner of the house to make out he was the victim when the council successfully argue that he had cheated and that the bungalow must be pulled down.
Throughout the program the argument was used that "the neighbour does not mind" or "it couldn't be seen" or "it was miles from anywhere". These arguments were given by Tonight as if they are material considerations when building on green belt land, which of course, they are not.
I am sure any councillor watching who has received planning training would have been incensed by the shoddy level of reporting. but when we had to put up with a property reporter from a broadsheet newspaper blaming councils for building small houses without making the point that governments set planning policy and give out regular guidance for councils to follow, then you could tell that the who show was an ill informed rant against councils.
Personally, I think the real answer is to make planning law a criminal law, not civil. You'd soon see people start to take notice and do the right thing if that were the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)