'Ouses, Greenbelt and stuff

^Sums the system up nicely. You’ll get all sorts of bollox spread by pressure groups that others latch on to and regularly see hundreds of objection letters that are identical other than the details of the objector It does work the other way sometimes, I worked on one job that got refused planning several times and on a fresh application the developer was pushing their consultants to write letters of support. I refused as I lived 50 miles away so shouldn’t comment and told them I wouldn’t ask colleagues to as it was unprofessional.

You can probably understand objections to something like a waste to energy plant or heavy industrial but I’ve worked on several schools developments where there has been highly organised objection at planning, threats of a judicial review that they backed down from as they knew they had no chance of success then all sorts of hassle during construction. They are usually Rick’s boomers and just don’t want anything built in their area.

I've a good friend who's a developer, and I remember one site he had problems with... a big part of the deal was cleaning up what was toxic ex-gasworks ground which was a real threat to the locality, but yet they still were objecting on multiple grounds. One of the objectors was claiming to be a doctor and was coming up with all sorts of health reasons why the ground shouldn't be cleared... my friend didn't think things added up, hired a private detective to find out more about the 'doctor', and discovered he was nothing of the sort.

focuszing723 said:

He's like a top level dlck too, procreation and that.

FTFY

Pross said:

^Sums the system up nicely. You’ll get all sorts of bollox spread by pressure groups that others latch on to and regularly see hundreds of objection letters that are identical other than the details of the objector It does work the other way sometimes, I worked on one job that got refused planning several times and on a fresh application the developer was pushing their consultants to write letters of support. I refused as I lived 50 miles away so shouldn’t comment and told them I wouldn’t ask colleagues to as it was unprofessional.

You can probably understand objections to something like a waste to energy plant or heavy industrial but I’ve worked on several schools developments where there has been highly organised objection at planning, threats of a judicial review that they backed down from as they knew they had no chance of success then all sorts of hassle during construction. They are usually Rick’s boomers and just don’t want anything built in their area.

I don't know much about the system in England, but as far as I'm aware in Scotland only the planning applicant has the right to seek judicial review. It is an inherently lopsided system in that regard.

Moving back to some of the comments from you and rjst, respectfully you are coming at this from the perspective that your livelihoods directly or indirectly rely on planning permission being granted. And there is some whataboutery when it comes to your perspectives on silly people objecting to things in silly ways. You aren't coming up with any examples of ill conceived plans that draw widespread objections or that are refused, or worse still go through regardless of local sentiment and good reasons to the contrary. Even when I pointed one out to rsjt, the presumption was of people objecting after the fact, when this wasn't the case at all. Even where this is the case, one tends to find that "public consultation" is via creaking planning portals, with hundreds of documents and no indication whatsoever which are the salient ones. At best one might get a public consultation in a village hall for a week or so during working hours. At least around here.

You guys seem to have lost track that whilst you can do this stuff in detail during working hours, or know what to look for in planning submissions for large scale development, some other people are otherwise occupied.

I've address how upsetting it can be for people when there is a material loss of amenity in their area, and I don't know that you can empathise with this until it happens to you. But I do think you are dismissing it too easily as nimbyism because you have a vested interest in the other result.

Similarly, the supposedly spurious objections using template letters will possibly pull in a few objections that would not otherwise be raised, but are often genuine objections by people taking an active interest in the process. Communities do get together and try to speak with a common voice. There is a real incompatibility between criticising silly emotional objectors on the one hand, and then also criticising people who make an effort to object in a way that community councils and the like tell them are the salient issues from a planning perspective.

From the 'consultation' perspective:

All Topsham residents were sent letters proposing residents' parking, and giving details of the actual proposals and different ways of participating. 'Surprisingly' few responded, but enough for DCC to look at each road affected, and the balance of views. One end of town overall clearly favoured restrictions, the other didn't, so DCC brought in a scheme for half the town. Residents from the other half of town then kicked up a fuss because they weren't included in the scheme.

tl;dr - this was a simple and clear consultation, well publicised, and still not many people participated and then complained.

I can see both sides of the coin - the whole planning process is complicated and opaque to laypeople, even if it's the least worst system (managed by both experts and elected officials). I don't know what the answer is, other than localised groups that draw on the expertise of those who know how to sift out salient points and put together reasoned responses.

That said, I can tell from FB Groups for both Topsham and Exeter, that the overwhelming public response would be to want block everything - there used to be a dual carriageway right down Exeter High Street, and every time someone puts up a photo of it from the 60s, everyone piles in with "Oh it was so much nicer then!", FFS. They would literally prefer to see a derelict building from the 60s than a decent new building, because they "used to play there as kids".

I don't envy the planning committees who want to move things on, but are castigated for every development, no matter how sympathetic.

Still tl;dr - I'm blowed if I know the answer.

rick_chasey said:

Is there a sensible reform that could be passed that makes it more difficult for unreasonable objections to work?

It would also need to preclude unreasonable applications I'd have thought. So no.

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

^Sums the system up nicely. You’ll get all sorts of bollox spread by pressure groups that others latch on to and regularly see hundreds of objection letters that are identical other than the details of the objector It does work the other way sometimes, I worked on one job that got refused planning several times and on a fresh application the developer was pushing their consultants to write letters of support. I refused as I lived 50 miles away so shouldn’t comment and told them I wouldn’t ask colleagues to as it was unprofessional.

You can probably understand objections to something like a waste to energy plant or heavy industrial but I’ve worked on several schools developments where there has been highly organised objection at planning, threats of a judicial review that they backed down from as they knew they had no chance of success then all sorts of hassle during construction. They are usually Rick’s boomers and just don’t want anything built in their area.

I don't know much about the system in England, but as far as I'm aware in Scotland only the planning applicant has the right to seek judicial review. It is an inherently lopsided system in that regard.

Moving back to some of the comments from you and rjst, respectfully you are coming at this from the perspective that your livelihoods directly or indirectly rely on planning permission being granted. And there is some whataboutery when it comes to your perspectives on silly people objecting to things in silly ways. You aren't coming up with any examples of ill conceived plans that draw widespread objections or that are refused, or worse still go through regardless of local sentiment and good reasons to the contrary. Even when I pointed one out to rsjt, the presumption was of people objecting after the fact, when this wasn't the case at all. Even where this is the case, one tends to find that "public consultation" is via creaking planning portals, with hundreds of documents and no indication whatsoever which are the salient ones. At best one might get a public consultation in a village hall for a week or so during working hours. At least around here.

You guys seem to have lost track that whilst you can do this stuff in detail during working hours, or know what to look for in planning submissions for large scale development, some other people are otherwise occupied.

I've address how upsetting it can be for people when there is a material loss of amenity in their area, and I don't know that you can empathise with this until it happens to you. But I do think you are dismissing it too easily as nimbyism because you have a vested interest in the other result.

Similarly, the supposedly spurious objections using template letters will possibly pull in a few objections that would not otherwise be raised, but are often genuine objections by people taking an active interest in the process. Communities do get together and try to speak with a common voice. There is a real incompatibility between criticising silly emotional objectors on the one hand, and then also criticising people who make an effort to object in a way that community councils and the like tell them are the salient issues from a planning perspective.

I get paid whether a site gets consent or not and we make far more on sites that don’t get through at the first time of asking. Of course I can empathise, my parents had a beautiful view across open fields from their back garden to the mountains in the distance and it now has a large estate being built on it. It’s not great but ultimately it wouldn’t have been great for previous residents when their estate was built. The fact is we need more housing and it has to go somewhere.

My frustration comes from when you make applications that tick all the boxes required under various complex planning policies introduced by various elected Parliaments and Local Authorities, the planning officer agrees everything is OK and then a bunch of untrained Councillors overrule their own officers and policies purely to keep a bunch of vocal voters happy. These Councils literally take years allocating land for various types of development, agree how many houses are needed in each area and then refuse applications to build them.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

^Sums the system up nicely. You’ll get all sorts of bollox spread by pressure groups that others latch on to and regularly see hundreds of objection letters that are identical other than the details of the objector It does work the other way sometimes, I worked on one job that got refused planning several times and on a fresh application the developer was pushing their consultants to write letters of support. I refused as I lived 50 miles away so shouldn’t comment and told them I wouldn’t ask colleagues to as it was unprofessional.

You can probably understand objections to something like a waste to energy plant or heavy industrial but I’ve worked on several schools developments where there has been highly organised objection at planning, threats of a judicial review that they backed down from as they knew they had no chance of success then all sorts of hassle during construction. They are usually Rick’s boomers and just don’t want anything built in their area.

I don't know much about the system in England, but as far as I'm aware in Scotland only the planning applicant has the right to seek judicial review. It is an inherently lopsided system in that regard.

Moving back to some of the comments from you and rjst, respectfully you are coming at this from the perspective that your livelihoods directly or indirectly rely on planning permission being granted. And there is some whataboutery when it comes to your perspectives on silly people objecting to things in silly ways. You aren't coming up with any examples of ill conceived plans that draw widespread objections or that are refused, or worse still go through regardless of local sentiment and good reasons to the contrary. Even when I pointed one out to rsjt, the presumption was of people objecting after the fact, when this wasn't the case at all. Even where this is the case, one tends to find that "public consultation" is via creaking planning portals, with hundreds of documents and no indication whatsoever which are the salient ones. At best one might get a public consultation in a village hall for a week or so during working hours. At least around here.

You guys seem to have lost track that whilst you can do this stuff in detail during working hours, or know what to look for in planning submissions for large scale development, some other people are otherwise occupied.

I've address how upsetting it can be for people when there is a material loss of amenity in their area, and I don't know that you can empathise with this until it happens to you. But I do think you are dismissing it too easily as nimbyism because you have a vested interest in the other result.

Similarly, the supposedly spurious objections using template letters will possibly pull in a few objections that would not otherwise be raised, but are often genuine objections by people taking an active interest in the process. Communities do get together and try to speak with a common voice. There is a real incompatibility between criticising silly emotional objectors on the one hand, and then also criticising people who make an effort to object in a way that community councils and the like tell them are the salient issues from a planning perspective.

I get paid whether a site gets consent or not and we make far more on sites that don’t get through at the first time of asking. Of course I can empathise, my parents had a beautiful view across open fields from their back garden to the mountains in the distance and it now has a large estate being built on it. It’s not great but ultimately it wouldn’t have been great for previous residents when their estate was built. The fact is we need more housing and it has to go somewhere.

My frustration comes from when you make applications that tick all the boxes required under various complex planning policies introduced by various elected Parliaments and Local Authorities, the planning officer agrees everything is OK and then a bunch of untrained Councillors overrule their own officers and policies purely to keep a bunch of vocal voters happy. These Councils literally take years allocating land for various types of development, agree how many houses are needed in each area and then refuse applications to build them.

Do the public have a say? If they do, it seems not unreasonable for local councillors, who are elected to represent the public, to make decisions based on feedback they receive from the electorate; regardless of whether it is compliant with the local development plan or not. Imo developers should face a very high bar because you can't undevelop something if it turns out to be dreadful.

Repeat applications are an interesting one. Seems to me that the system is routinely abused as a means of making non-fundamental changes to get something through by sheer endurance. The public loses interest, the planning officers get beaten down.

There are farms near here with tenants on them, and home owners with private water supplies at material risk who have been living with the threat of one particular development for a decade now, that has been dressed up as a series of "new" applications with a different shade of lipstick.

Eventually, the developer is bound to win.

What does the Local Plan (or Scottish equivalent) say about the use of that land?

Not sure, it's across a council border and although I'd be able to see it I don't feel that justifies my time or gives me a sufficiently valid opinion.

Right now it's a mix of upland grazing and forestry.

The multiple planning applications are for wind turbines. The changes are to tweak where they are sited and make them larger with one or two fewer each time.

The issues as I understand them are that there are about a dozen dwellings each of which would potentially need to be provided with water from a bowser in perpetuity due to the increasingly large concrete foundations that are needed to support the increasingly large proposed turbines. It would basically render their houses unsellable. Probably has made it effectively the case for the last decade already.

Given the developers can't realistically know what will happen until it is too late, and given it's not a particularly good wind resource anyway, it strikes me that they are only persisting because they can, and that this will be one of many sites where repeat planning applications are submitted and that the economics of getting enough through make the misery of the local people at each site irrelevant.

I think these are slightly different issues than creeping expansion of a town along a railway, for example.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

Pross said:

^Sums the system up nicely. You’ll get all sorts of bollox spread by pressure groups that others latch on to and regularly see hundreds of objection letters that are identical other than the details of the objector It does work the other way sometimes, I worked on one job that got refused planning several times and on a fresh application the developer was pushing their consultants to write letters of support. I refused as I lived 50 miles away so shouldn’t comment and told them I wouldn’t ask colleagues to as it was unprofessional.

You can probably understand objections to something like a waste to energy plant or heavy industrial but I’ve worked on several schools developments where there has been highly organised objection at planning, threats of a judicial review that they backed down from as they knew they had no chance of success then all sorts of hassle during construction. They are usually Rick’s boomers and just don’t want anything built in their area.

I don't know much about the system in England, but as far as I'm aware in Scotland only the planning applicant has the right to seek judicial review. It is an inherently lopsided system in that regard.

Moving back to some of the comments from you and rjst, respectfully you are coming at this from the perspective that your livelihoods directly or indirectly rely on planning permission being granted. And there is some whataboutery when it comes to your perspectives on silly people objecting to things in silly ways. You aren't coming up with any examples of ill conceived plans that draw widespread objections or that are refused, or worse still go through regardless of local sentiment and good reasons to the contrary. Even when I pointed one out to rsjt, the presumption was of people objecting after the fact, when this wasn't the case at all. Even where this is the case, one tends to find that "public consultation" is via creaking planning portals, with hundreds of documents and no indication whatsoever which are the salient ones. At best one might get a public consultation in a village hall for a week or so during working hours. At least around here.

You guys seem to have lost track that whilst you can do this stuff in detail during working hours, or know what to look for in planning submissions for large scale development, some other people are otherwise occupied.

I've address how upsetting it can be for people when there is a material loss of amenity in their area, and I don't know that you can empathise with this until it happens to you. But I do think you are dismissing it too easily as nimbyism because you have a vested interest in the other result.

Similarly, the supposedly spurious objections using template letters will possibly pull in a few objections that would not otherwise be raised, but are often genuine objections by people taking an active interest in the process. Communities do get together and try to speak with a common voice. There is a real incompatibility between criticising silly emotional objectors on the one hand, and then also criticising people who make an effort to object in a way that community councils and the like tell them are the salient issues from a planning perspective.

I get paid whether a site gets consent or not and we make far more on sites that don’t get through at the first time of asking. Of course I can empathise, my parents had a beautiful view across open fields from their back garden to the mountains in the distance and it now has a large estate being built on it. It’s not great but ultimately it wouldn’t have been great for previous residents when their estate was built. The fact is we need more housing and it has to go somewhere.

My frustration comes from when you make applications that tick all the boxes required under various complex planning policies introduced by various elected Parliaments and Local Authorities, the planning officer agrees everything is OK and then a bunch of untrained Councillors overrule their own officers and policies purely to keep a bunch of vocal voters happy. These Councils literally take years allocating land for various types of development, agree how many houses are needed in each area and then refuse applications to build them.

Do the public have a say? If they do, it seems not unreasonable for local councillors, who are elected to represent the public, to make decisions based on feedback they receive from the electorate; regardless of whether it is compliant with the local development plan or not. Imo developers should face a very high bar because you can't undevelop something if it turns out to be dreadful.

Repeat applications are an interesting one. Seems to me that the system is routinely abused as a means of making non-fundamental changes to get something through by sheer endurance. The public loses interest, the planning officers get beaten down.

There are farms near here with tenants on them, and home owners with private water supplies at material risk who have been living with the threat of one particular development for a decade now, that has been dressed up as a series of "new" applications with a different shade of lipstick.

Eventually, the developer is bound to win.

What does the Local Plan (or Scottish equivalent) say about the use of that land?

Not sure, it's across a council border and although I'd be able to see it I don't feel that justifies my time or gives me a sufficiently valid opinion.

Right now it's a mix of upland grazing and forestry.

The multiple planning applications are for wind turbines. The changes are to tweak where they are sited and make them larger with one or two fewer each time.

The issues as I understand them are that there are about a dozen dwellings each of which would potentially need to be provided with water from a bowser in perpetuity due to the increasingly large concrete foundations that are needed to support the increasingly large proposed turbines. It would basically render their houses unsellable. Probably has made it effectively the case for the last decade already.

Given the developers can't realistically know what will happen until it is too late, and given it's not a particularly good wind resource anyway, it strikes me that they are only persisting because they can, and that this will be one of many sites where repeat planning applications are submitted and that the economics of getting enough through make the misery of the local people at each site irrelevant.

I think these are slightly different issues than creeping expansion of a town along a railway, for example.

If they have applied and been refused multiple times, what more do you want? You seem to have the idea that there's no or minimal cost in submitting an application. For something on this scale it is likely to be a 5 figure sum for each application.

What more do I want? I don't know, a limit to the number of times the same applicant can apply for the same thing in the same place maybe?

rjsterry said:

We seem to be getting bogged down in details in only tangentially related cases again.

Should someone's need to get their water from a spring (rather than some other source) trump the need for more renewable generation? I'm not sure it should.

I do think we need to get over the idea that we can all have what we want without compromise and without any changes to the wider environment. That ship has sailed.

If it means that the person who lived there the planning application was submitted, and the proposal makes their home uninhabitable, then yes, it should. It has to be up to the developer to find an acceptable and realistic solution to enable the individual to continue to live in THEIR HOME..