Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post Reply
Adnepos
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 1:47pm

Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Adnepos »

Two questions about cycling access to an out-of-town development by a council...

Planning permission included a cycleway around the edge of the site connecting a perfectly adequate cycleway to the far side of as an expensive underpass to the cycle parking near the commercial outlets and the Leisure Centre. The planners admit that there was no intention of building one of the cycleways in the foreseeable future and the other, never, -for lack of space (BS). I have searched the online published documents but not found any intimation of these intentions. See attached the main constructors current web page. Also see a 2017 planning document url from earlier this year -well after the construction was under way -http://pa.eastcambs.gov.uk/online-applications/files/21F1D959078BF781A6AD7F59048488AD/pdf/15_01134_DISF-TRAVEL_PLAN_APPENDIX_A-693214.pdf

1. If I included access across my build in a planning application but didn't intimate that I had no intention of building it, then I think the planners would tell be to get on with it and build it! What is the legal status of 'pick and choose' in the planning process?

2. The access for cycles from the underpass to the cycle parking as built is indicated (blue sign) along a footpath. This footpath is not fit for bidirectional shared use. If indeed the intention was to not build the cycleway, should there have been some published consideration of an alternative to which interested parties could comment? I have searched the online planning documents and can't find anything.

I have been in correspondence with the relevant councillor, the planning department and both of the constructors. No satisfaction from any of them.
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by ChrisButch »

Once planning consent is given, there's no obligation on the developer to build out everything on the plan, or indeed to build anything at all. The only obligation is not to build anything which is not on the consented plan.
The only exceptions to this are items specified in conditions attached to the consent, and these include 'Section 106' conditions, under which the developer undertakes to provide things of wider community benefit, such as affordable housing etc. Footpaths, cyclepaths, play areas etc often appear in these Section 106 agreements. It's easy to find out whether that's so in this case, since the wording of the consent and any attached conditions should be available on the planning dept's website. But it seems you've already done this without success. So I'm afraid there's little you can do on the planning side, since conditions can't be imposed retrospectively, and pursuing the authority for maladministration on the grounds of inadequate consultation would be a nightmare, and even if successful wouldn't get the cycleway built.
I ought to make it clear that I'm neither a planner nor a lawyer - I've just had a lot of close encounters with the planning system. So this is a layman's opinion, and I'd be happy to be corrected on these points
Adnepos
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 1:47pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Adnepos »

Maybe write to the (Conservative) MP about the money wasted when an expensive cycleway (including an underpass) is paid for, which goes nowhere.
Adnepos
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 1:47pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Adnepos »

If the intention was to not build the cycleway, should that have been in the public domain? I have searched the online planning documents and can't find anything.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Psamathe »

Adnepos wrote:If the intention was to not build the cycleway, should that have been in the public domain? I have searched the online planning documents and can't find anything.

Maybe I'm too much of a cynic but I suspect the developer would argue that they had intended to build the cycleway but for <insert reason here> it was no longer feasible/viable/etc.

It's the daft nature of our planing system where planners seem more concerned about avoiding anything going to appeal and seem totally unconcerned about the needs or wishes of communities. We've recently had planners grant permission where Highways have rules that the development was unsafe and did not provide adequate visibility onto the road (according to the "Streets Manual"?) - didn't stop the planners. We've had planners ignore developments damaging Great Crested Newt habitat (as in professional survey 2 years previously identified GCN and they are legally protected!). I could go on for pages ...

The planning system (from my personal experience) seems run with complete incompetence and certainly not serving the needs of society or the communities they are passing judgement.

I even discovered one Council where planners got angry because the Planning Committee (of elected Councillors) were overruling Planners recommendations so they (as employees) introduced a rule that if the elected Planning Committee meeting voted to overrule Planners recommendations they had to then wait and re-vote at the following Committee again (giving the employed planners a few weeks to "get to" the Councillors ...).

Our previous Ward Councillor regularly supported the Parish Council when it strongly opposed an application and all that meant was ... they were all completely ignored. Once for one application Parish Council warned planners that a proposed development would end-up being used as a residence and that in 4 years they'd get an application for "Certificate of Lawfulness" (?), planners ignored them and ... after 4 years in went the application for Certificate of Lawfulness for use as permanent residence!

Ian
Adnepos
Posts: 93
Joined: 15 Jun 2016, 1:47pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Adnepos »

Psamathe wrote:Maybe I'm too much of a cynic but I suspect the developer would argue that they had intended to build the cycleway but for <insert reason here> it was no longer feasible/viable/etc.


Spot on there...

There would have been two arms to the on-site cycleway.

Arriving at the edge of the site via the beautiful underpass, there 'isn't enough space' for the left-turn route. There is plenty of space for a 3-metre wide cycleway for all but the last few metres of this route. This issue could have been managed by putting the cycles onto the access road at the point of narrowing or by moving a few of the many car parking spaces a bit further away from the Leisure Centre.

'We'll build the right-turn route when we have the money'. -How much did they spend on the underpass? How much more for the cycleway. ...for lack of a ha'porth of tar comes to mind.

Oh, by the way, the planners decided to provide less cycle parking than the local standard -and they explained that they could always put in more at some later time (but even then, there wasn't enough space to bring up the amount to the standard). That hardly matters because they new but didn't tell there would be no cycling infrastructure to get to the parking.

Rant over. So, write to MP; write to sponsors of the developer's future projects to let them know how they regard cycling; put up the same on the internet and try to get the local press interested.
brooksby
Posts: 495
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by brooksby »

Psamathe wrote:Maybe I'm too much of a cynic but I suspect the developer would argue that they had intended to build the cycleway but for <insert reason here> it was no longer feasible/viable/etc.


Agreed. The Finzel's Reach development in Bristol city centre didn't get the bridge that was promised (pedestrian/cycle access from Castle Park and its footpaths and cycle paths) until over five years after it was supposed to have been built. The developer went to the council and said that if they were forced to build the bridge at the same time as the rest of the development then it wasn't economic and they'd walk away. The council blinked first, so the bridge has only just been built.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20309
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by mjr »

ChrisButch wrote:...and pursuing the authority for maladministration on the grounds of inadequate consultation would be a nightmare, and even if successful wouldn't get the cycleway built.

It's not really a nightmare to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman that the planners have failed to fulfil their duty to the public and while it won't get this cycleway built, it might help get future ones.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Psamathe »

mjr wrote:
ChrisButch wrote:...and pursuing the authority for maladministration on the grounds of inadequate consultation would be a nightmare, and even if successful wouldn't get the cycleway built.

It's not really a nightmare to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman that the planners have failed to fulfil their duty to the public and while it won't get this cycleway built, it might help get future ones.

I have on one occasion raised a formal complaint against process with a Planning Department; they "investigated" and responded as would be expected so I rejected their response and required them to investigate properly, which they did and then found in my favour; and when the applicant did not build as per approved plans and had to submit updated plans I had their senior planing consultant phoning me, discussing "special constraints" to be added, I'd tell him what they should include, he'd check for wording with their legal team, he'd call back for "my approval", etc. back and forth.

One trick one council planning do is to remove much of the correspondence from their web site immediate the application is approved (as now allowed by government rules apparently); and this gives them the "trick" where they delay putting up correspondence/reports they don't want to disclose until just before a decision at which point they are all taken down.

So another option you have if you have any suspicions about unpublished correspondence, meeting minutes, notes, etc. is to put in a Freedom of Information request for all documentation (internal & external correspondence, formal and informal meeting minutes and notes, etc.). Maybe ask for all documentation showing steps they took to ensure than developer met their obligations and proposals with regard to proposed infrastructure (e.g. cycle path) - it would maybe embarrass them if the answer was "none".

On one FOI request I put in re: Surface dressing I managed to get a response "You asked about what reports or documentation we hold concerning the specific needs of cyclists; as this group is not differentiated from any other road users, we do not hold any of the records you have asked for relating to the specific needs of cyclists.". I appealed their failure to disclose, Council appointed external lawyers to investigate and then from these lawyers "Given the process described above, no paperwork would have been created to consider the needs of cyclists in the scheduling of works." as well as "though I do not believe that it was an intention by officers not to answer the question directly.". Maybe not devastating but would hopefully nudge them next time.

As well as Mjr's suggestion about Government Ombudsman.

I have a belief that if the Planners believe they are under scrutiny (and that it is not all over when they give their blanket approval) then they might take a bit more care, if only to avoid the complaints, FOIs, Obmudsman, etc.

Ian
pga
Posts: 302
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 9:40pm

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by pga »

As a Chartered Town Planner I always tried to ensure that walking and cycling (and that includes mobility vehicles) access is treated the same as motor vehicles access. I was lucky in that in my time ( retired in 1992) development tended to be planner led. Planning briefs would spell out to developers exactly what was expected of them and we ensured that the briefs were strictly adhered . Today cash short local planning authorities have neither the time nor staff to prepare planning briefs and development tends to be developer led. Sadly developers do not always share the same objectives that prevailed in earlier years.

However, there is no excuse for the lack of non motorised access and cycle parking on every development and local authority planners do need to be much more proactive in using existing planning regulations to ensure that this happens. At the same time many of the cycle facilities designed by engineers are equally of a poor standard.

All this in spite of efforts by the CTC, Sustrans, FOE and other bodies over the years to try to educate planners and engineers and others involved in development.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Misled by (or incompetent) planners

Post by Vorpal »

Cycle Campaigners in Essex have had some success in getting developers to complete cycle paths that were on the planning approval, but failed to be built. In one case it took a couple of years, but it did get done (complete with chicanes to slow cyclists down :roll: ).

I would start by writing to the planning application office and seeing if they intend to hold the developer to the approved application. There is a process for inspections, and if they have not passed the last inspection, this can be raised with the inspector. Also, look for an ally who can help, such as a Cycling Officer, local councillor, etc. If the local authority does not intend to hold the developer to their approved application, then the other routes recommended above, such as the ombud become necessary.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Post Reply