| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Residents launch LBH Watch | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 08/08/10 11:07:00 |
| Nick, You talk about changing planning departments from a cost centre to a profit centre and then talk about removing immunity periods and charging for every 'certificate of compliance'. Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'Certificate of Compliance' in respect of planning control, such a thing doesn't exist - a developer/owner can apply for a Certificate of Proposed/Existing Lawfulness in relation to a development or use, and has to pay an application fee to do so set by national government. As for removing immunity, how is that going to make a Council profit ? - bearing in mind that it isn't a criminal offence to breach planning control and anyone that does so is not required to submit a retrospective planning application (which if they did would generate an application fee to the Council). You appear to be taking a very slanted, complainant perspective rather than looking at the planning system as a whole, which certainly has its faults. It has to work both ways. How about the Council make a statutory charge for every time a complainant lodges an enforcement complaint that turns out to be unsubstantiated ? - on the same basis I would always say a developer/owner should check for themselves whether their proposal requires permission before commencing work then you could argue complainants should also have to research the same regulations before the Council agree to utilise resources by visiting a site. It's an interesting suggestion you make about minutes of delegated meetings. Some Councils take things to the other extreme and all of their enforcement decisions are made behind closed doors (even committee discussions relating to enforcement are done under Part II not for the public/press procedures). |