| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Residents launch LBH Watch | |
| Posted by: | Nick Marbrow | |
| Date/Time: | 10/08/10 20:16:00 |
| Adam, In my previous posting I was inviting you to think outside of the box. The current system simply cannot provide effective planning control because the number of breaches of planning control guidelines far exceeds the capacity of Planning Department to look at them, let alone deal with them. LBH Planning now relies almost exclusively on the public to report breaches of the guidelines, and most of the public find the process too daunting. Even if there is a breach of the guidelines they finish up with the Officer’s subjective view that “no material harm is being caused” or “enforcement action is not considered expedient”. Full planning control means checking every new development is in conformance with planning rules, and I do mean rules and not guidelines. The use of guidelines might have been acceptable a few decades ago when very few houses added extensions and outbuildings. Now there are very few properties that do not have some form of extension or significant modification such as an outbuilding or conversion of the front garden to hard-standing. We now have a concrete jungle and it is getting worse at an exponential rate. We need changes to the building control regime to preserve the urban English environment. In my view building regulations should be similar to traffic regulations. You can still treat a speed limit as a guideline, but the police will see it as a rule when considering whether to take action. You won’t have heard of a Compliance Certificate because I invented it. All developments should be compliant with the planning regulations in force at the time the building is inspected (not those in force at the time of development). If the building is not in compliance, then it needs to be brought into compliance, and each inspection and each Compliance Certificate is a potential revenue item. Developments could still be done with or without planning approval, but if done without approval the developer may find problems getting a Compliance Certificate particularly if regulations change making previously acceptable changes unacceptable. So it would be in the interest of the developer to get the Compliance Certificate as soon as possible, and to get prior planning approval to improve the prospects of getting the Certificate. Of course, when selling the property the conveyance procedure would include verification that any property has the appropriate Conformance Certificate(s). There should be no four-year immunity clause to hide behind. Reports from the public of potential breaches of the development “rules”, should be seen by Planning Department as potential revenue generators. To further increase departmental revenue Planning Officers should be sent out to audit developments throughout the borough on a street-by-street basis. The potential revenue should enable significant reductions in council tax: perhaps its elimination!! I’m not sure that the Council could make a statutory charge every time a complainant lodges an enforcement complaint that correctly points out that a development is in breach of the guidelines, but is then classed as “unsubstantiated” on the basis of the subjective view of the Planning Officer that “no material harm is being caused” or “enforcement action is not considered expedient”. Joe Public is not that simple minded. The guidelines should become rules that cannot be overridden by any subjective opinion of a Planning Officer or for the administrative convenience of the Planning Department If you look at the issue from the other side of the table you should also be suggesting that, when a complainant lodges an enforcement complaint that turns out to be correct, there should be a statutory charge on the local council for failing to provide effective planning control. It would be the same logic. Of course the charge would have to be paid out of the salaries of the planning department staff not by the council tax payer! It should also be accepted by the Planning Department that every breach of the planning guidelines causes material harm because it undermines the validity of the planning guidelines. You also suggest that complainants should have to check for themselves whether the development requires planning permission before the Council agree to utilise resources by visiting a site. Joe Public now has sole responsibility for identifying breaches of planning control guidelines because the Council has decided that it will not monitor developments themselves. The Council has delegated this task to Joe Public but without telling Joe Public that it is now its job, and without providing Joe Public with any training. Did the Council realise the consequences of their actions when they “outsourced” this job? Perhaps they thought that, since Joe Public has not been trained in planning control procedures, the problem of rogue developments had been kicked into the long grass – or at least the cost of dealing with rogue developments would not hit the Council’s budget. As for finding the suggestion that minutes of the team leaders meetings should be published is “interesting”, I am amazed that there can be any doubt that the minutes should be a matter of public record. It cannot be in the public interest to keep the discussions secret. Therein lies the basis of deep suspicion about the probity of some planning decisions. It is in the interest of everyone, especially Planning Officers, that the minutes be published. It would be a step in the right direction to at least keep a record of the team leader meetings! Adam, while I am sure that you can draw on your long career in local government to defend the current system, could I ask you to also apply that same experience to help to find a way of delivering a more effective system of planning control. What we have at the moment can be seen to be less than adequate. |