Cycling UK Forum

Council Planning Committe approved a housing site for 84 houses with a list of Drawing Numbers.Total of 20 drawings.
On the same day the Planning Officer a letter of approval with 12 different drawings, with a total of 22 drawings.
The Site layout drawing has been revised and has a different drawing Number This is also dates as being received by the Council some 14 days after the consultation period.
Would I also be correct in my understanding that any amendments of a minor nature are permissable. but not at this late stage, after Committee Approval.
This new site layout has major changes to the layout on the boundary and as in all cases of deceit there are winners and losers.

I would welcome any opinions please.

In England?

"Non-material amendment to planning permission":
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wi ... permission

Jonathan

Thanks for the information.
This is in South Wales unfortunately where it seems any thing goes.
In no way can the amendments be described as Non-material.
To to remove one house from a boundary onto one street,rejig the layout and place two very large houses in different positions onto another steet to the approval is certain major I believe.
And all done on the same day as the original was approved by Committee.

What's the planning reference number at which council? Then maybe someone can interpret the online information and doublecheck your understanding before you start stomping around kicking some bottom.

Or you could ask your local councillor to help you get to the bottom of it? www.WriteToThem.com

Or you could write to the planning committee chair. As it is a decided application, they should be able to tell you what they think without prejudicing anything.

Do they record the planning committee meetings on a website? Maybe the planning committee approved the new plans, but that does raise questions about public consultation and fairness which I doubt they could answer.

I guess the next level in England would be the minister for local government. Does Wales have one with a similar oversight role?

Thanks for the information.
This is a 20 year Approval and I had long given up hope in finding the Corruption. The revised layout took years to discover and only repeated lies by Officers did I discover the Different Site layout .
I have all of the Committee minutes relating to this and the layout Approal was not the one issued to the Contractor on the same day.
My Local Councillor seems to be party to this Corruption as well as the Community Council.
I will contact the Assembly Member for Housing. Our Assembly Members and MP.
There is a lot more to it than I can reveal here, maybe a newspaper article written by a jounalist can reveal the exact person who has benefitted from this.
Thanks for your advice anyway

Something doesn't ring true here to me, or perhaps I'm not reading things as per the OP's meaning. I mean no offence only seeking clarification. However without clarification of your issues with this planning matter I for one would have preferred the word corruption wasn't used. It's a strong accusation and I do not think the OP has posted anything definitive in support of that.

My key points are that the initial posts appear to be about last minute changes not being consulted on, not been considered by the planning authority, inserted after approval but to the OP is substantial which i assume means they invalidate the approval. This might not be as described as the OP or the OP has missed some factor that permits or makes the OP's view incorrect interpretation. Nobody can find out without references to the case being provided.

Initially it was about last minute ""corruption" but this phrase

This is a 20 year Approval and I had long given up hope in finding the Corruption. The revised layout took years to discover

makes it seem it has been corrupt for longer.

There's other things that get my cynical and suspicious nature aroused from that deep place I try to hide it. I mean no offence but can the OP remove the prominent use of the word corruption until there's enough details to support that interpretation. There's a tendency to cry corruption most foul too early and too easily these days. Especially when a lot of cases are possibly more attributable to incompetence or ignorance of rules, process, procedures or laws by some official or even interpreter of events.

I wholly recommend contacting someone. If not your Councillor then another one not involved. They might not represent your ward but they're collectively representing your council area so I'd hope they'd respond favourably if you explain why your local Councillor is too close to the matter you're concerned about.

I hope my doubts aren't substantiated by further information but in some ways I hope they are because it's better to have a misunderstanding poster on here than true corruption in public office. If you follow my thinking there. I hope the OP gets resolution one way or another. Good luck.

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑18 Nov 2021, 6:17pm There's a tendency to cry corruption most foul too early and too easily these days. Especially when a lot of cases are possibly more attributable to incompetence or ignorance of rules, process, procedures or laws by some official or even interpreter of events.

I agree with this. Pretty much any planning discussion online seems to bring out accusations of brown envelopes of cash changing hands, but prosecutions are really really rare, even failed ones. Complaints being upheld for incompetence are much more common. Sadly, the outcome is often the same: stuff that is against agreed policies gets built far too often, usually to the harm of existing residents.

Bowedw wrote: ↑18 Nov 2021, 2:29pm Thanks for the information.
This is a 20 year Approval and I had long given up hope in finding the Corruption. The revised layout took years to discover and only repeated lies by Officers did I discover the Different Site layout .
I have all of the Committee minutes relating to this and the layout Approal was not the one issued to the Contractor on the same day.
My Local Councillor seems to be party to this Corruption as well as the Community Council.
I will contact the Assembly Member for Housing. Our Assembly Members and MP.
There is a lot more to it than I can reveal here, maybe a newspaper article written by a jounalist can reveal the exact person who has benefitted from this.
Thanks for your advice anyway

The Welsh Assembly no longer exists. It's the Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament and the members are know as Members of the Senedd or MSs.

I have no idea about OPs case on the particular application but you can make small changes to plans after approval with permission form planners. I had permission for a garage but before building I wanted to re-position it a bit. I visited planning offices, discussed it with the back of an envelope. They there and then said OK but write us a letter so we have something on-file. My changes were never published online but were (I assume) available for anybody looking at the actual file.

My change was small, I'd probably have managed a slightly larger change using the same method. Planners considered as it was moving my building further away from everybody else, further out of any line of sight nobody would have any (valid) objection. So it probably comes down to a question of degree. At what point do changes require another consultation?

But, given how public responses to consultations are just a formality and ignored, how Parish/Town Council submissions are regarded as a formality and ignored - would any additional consultation have made any difference.

Most decision letters from planners I've seen have always given explicit drawing reference numbers/dates "for the avoidance of doubt".

Ian

Psamathe wrote: ↑18 Nov 2021, 7:49pm So it probably comes down to a question of degree. At what point do changes require another consultation?

It probably does, but I'd suggest that the building moves described in the opening post require another consultation.

But, given how public responses to consultations are just a formality and ignored, how Parish/Town Council submissions are regarded as a formality and ignored - would any additional consultation have made any difference.

Please don't spread that myth. Any material considerations from consultation responses should be addressed in the report before decision, although I'd agree that often they are dismissed pretty summarily, sometimes with pretty twisted interpretations of written policy and occasionally with flat-out errors.

Parish/Town Council submissions trigger a referral to committee if they disagree with the officer recommendation, as does a sufficient number of public submissions, or the local councillor referring it, or the application being classified as for "major" development. I don't remember if all of those are West Norfolk policies/procedures, or if they're generally true.

Of course, that's not to say it would have made any difference in this case, but sometimes it does.

mjr wrote: ↑19 Nov 2021, 11:53am

Psamathe wrote: ↑18 Nov 2021, 7:49pm So it probably comes down to a question of degree. At what point do changes require another consultation?

It probably does, but I'd suggest that the building moves described in the opening post require another consultation.

But, given how public responses to consultations are just a formality and ignored, how Parish/Town Council submissions are regarded as a formality and ignored - would any additional consultation have made any difference.

Please don't spread that myth. Any material considerations from consultation responses should be addressed in the report before decision, although I'd agree that often they are dismissed pretty summarily, sometimes with pretty twisted interpretations of written policy and occasionally with flat-out errors.

Parish/Town Council submissions trigger a referral to committee if they disagree with the officer recommendation, as does a sufficient number of public submissions, or the local councillor referring it, or the application being classified as for "major" development. I don't remember if all of those are West Norfolk policies/procedures, or if they're generally true.

Of course, that's not to say it would have made any difference in this case, but sometimes it does.

I remember when one planning department (not a Norfolk one) put in place procedures where if a Planning Committee disagreed with the Planning Services recommendation then there would be a "time-out" delay on any decision for a month and a 2nd "consideration" at the next Planning Committee meeting.

We had an application which went to Committee recently where 2 of the 3 committee members declared an interest and part way through the objector presentation they started arguing the case for approving the application! Completely inappropriate but a clear sign of how our planning system is not fit for purpose. But I'm a cynic re: planning based on past experience.

Ian

Psamathe wrote: ↑19 Nov 2021, 12:04pm I remember when one planning department (not a Norfolk one) put in place procedures where if a Planning Committee disagreed with the Planning Services recommendation then there would be a "time-out" delay on any decision for a month and a 2nd "consideration" at the next Planning Committee meeting.

I wonder if that was so Planning Services could review and suggest solid reasons for the contrary view, or so they could beef up their arguments.

Equally, I've known one planning department propose both approve and refuse wordings and reasons in most cases, with a clear indication as to the officer recommendation, so that even the Committee going against the officer view were still usually on solid legal grounds.

We had an application which went to Committee recently where 2 of the 3 committee members declared an interest and part way through the objector presentation they started arguing the case for approving the application! Completely inappropriate but a clear sign of how our planning system is not fit for purpose. But I'm a cynic re: planning based on past experience.

Wow. A committee of 3 is dodgy (smallest I've experienced is 13), 2 of 3 with an interest probably ought to cause postponement until substitutes can be found and interrupting public presentations is usually a breach of procedure.

Completely inappropriate, as you say, but I think it's more a clear sign of how councils aren't subject to effective oversight any more.

2 or 3 declared an interest that should perhaps have meant they withdrew from the discussion. Not 3 in total making up the committee. We don't know how many were in the committee from that post. It could have had 3 or a lot more from that post.

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑19 Nov 2021, 2:30pm 2 or 3 declared an interest that should perhaps have meant they withdrew from the discussion. Not 3 in total making up the committee. We don't know how many were in the committee from that post. It could have had 3 or a lot more from that post.

Committee was 3 Councillors, 2 of them declared an interest (Chairman and one other). Only one without declared interest. ("2 of 3" not "2 or 3").

Ian

Some advice. If you start claiming corruption without any evidence you won't get far. If you name any individuals without evidence you could be sued.

If you have evidence the police may well be interested in seeing it. A few years ago the leader of our county council was imprisoned after the police investigated attempts to get a bypass route altered in a way which would have greatly increased the value of land he owned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Speechley