It stands to reason

Andrew Lainton' s blog makes for insightful reading on occasions, none more so than today when he is one of the first to pick up on the soon to be required statement of proactivity.

Compliments to Andrew on his efforts but...  one fears the following might be a much more accurate representation of the truth.  If a standard statement (which rather goes against the whole principle surely?) is to be used, can i suggest:

 "[insert] council development management services has  positively and proactively sought solutions (even where they weren't necessary) to  manage your planning application.

If you wish to discuss why you were requested to withdraw your application via email from the case officer at 4.55pm on day 55, please call our corporate customer call handling centre on 0845 000 000 and follow the options on your telephone keypad"

Lets begin by stripping out the tiscali customer service approach to planning, remove answer-phones, provide access to personal email etc.  Actions speak much louder than statements.

Food for Thought

Double Bluff.

The government has announced a major boost to the paper and printer peripherals industry this morning describing it as one of the key planks of its economic stimulus package. 

The move will double the number of pages required to complete an LDC application for a single-storey extension to 8 in the case of a detached house and 6 in all other cases.  It has been widely speculated that shops and offices will also be required to use more paper in their applications.  

PlanningPortal intern and Chinese postgraduate No Pai Pa, worked feverishly for nearly an hour yesterday to increase the number of boxes and default font sizes on forms. 

Deputy minister for clueless tinkering about the fucking edges Rick Egg told Radio 4 that statistics demonstrate that if you double the number of pages you need to print you have to buy more paper and the ink to fill those pages.  “I spoke to the MD of Xerox yesterday and he was cock-a-hoop at the prospect of filling files with even more paper” "So, it's a no brainer quite frankly John" he opined "and confirms this radical government will look to every last measure in its efforts to kick start the economy”.  The “clever part to all of this” he told an aghast Edward Sturton “is that we will set out in law that as a condition of your application you have to print the forms”.

Paper use planning consultant Lou Pole told our reporter that the move would make not a jot of difference and that he had already issued an advice note to all his clients first thing recommending they change the printer settings to duplex and draft ink use levels.

Goodbye and Good Luck...

The performance of England at Euro 2012 sums up planning for me at the moment.  Improvement since South Africa 2010, but starting with low expectation, win the group without really playing well,  terrible ball retention but look like one of the best teams without it, resolute defence of the way we play and despite a couple of potential new stars , the old guard likely to hang around just a bit longer. 

I awoke to 2012, as at the start of most years, with a sense of anticipation and optimism that the year brings forth new riches, not necessarily financial (although they help), but also personal and professional.  That the worst financially might be over (oh how wrong was I), publication of the  NPPF would settle a few things, Localism and Neighbourhood planning would bed in, enterprise zones,  discussion round a new Planning Bill in Wales...    

I move into the second half of 2012 with a sense of foreboding.  Reports of massive potential cuts to local government services (and ergo planning) to 2020 must make people shudder; Im no believer in coincidence and ponder if the announcement of the announcement of locally set fees in a little ante room outside the real gravitational pull of PLANKON12  is linked;  PINS taking the (legally advised) stance that Inspectors cant fix the duty to co-operate once a plan is submitted for examination:  PINS   always good at drawing attention to the elephant in the room.  The list goes on... 

But the real purpose of the blog is to tell you about the greater threat. 

Simon is, I guess, just in his 40s; experienced in local government, as a Planning Inspector and in consultancy - took the plunge and set up his own Practice. He has a family and mortgage to support.  Could handle the recession at first, jobs still on the board, the very slowness of the system churning work in. Simon knows DC and Policy, understands their pressures and is, so far as he can be empathetic to it.  As time creeps and money supply (and cash flow) in the real world evaporates,  Simon finds keeping a small company going demanding, stressful, combined with apparent oblivious attitudes to the real world difficulties within the Planning Authorities he deals with.  

Simons response has this week been to call it a day. Not only consultancy, Simon is giving up planning altogether and opting for a new path, having been accepted onto a post grad-course into a new career.  Driven no doubt by personal factors too but to paraphrase Simon, "business isn't good and the uncertainty.."

His sister, Michaela: A young, personable, imaginative, approachable local government, planner, whom I was delighted to mentor to RPTI membership.  Seduced by the charms of a handsome young man and the prospect of a few months panning for gold in the warm sun of Australian optimism, her LocGov employers were only too delighted to off-load her salary and on-costs for a while.  Next month, she returns to the UK, will pack her belongings into a container and return to OZ for good.

Simon and Michaela, you will be missed, and the very best of luck to you both. Keep in touch.

My Council is currently seeking authority wide voluntary redundancies:, planners and building controllers included. The panic in the eyes says 'What the hell are we going to do?".  The realisation, NO, the real world - hits home.  Elsewhere, training budgets are cut and student numbers dwindle.  Planning graduates twiddle thumbs in anticipation of fighting over the very few new opportunities out there. 

All the while we tinker round the edge of process, Simons and Michaela's drift out of the profession; all the while new blood cant get in.  Thus, nothing puts my sense of foreboding into better perspective than the loss to the profession of good people, great planners. 

I fear, dear reader, that is the real Elephant in the room.  RTPI... where are you?

Terrible Error of Judgement

Owen Moore has today issued a public apology following revelations that his planning consultant had identified and recommended perfectly legal ways of avoiding unnecessary use of the  planning system.  The matter reached a frenzy yesterday when the multimillionaire leader of the largest party in the Lower Peover District Council governing coalition told the Gazette that he though it morally wrong that Mr Moore had maximised his use of permitted development rights for what has been termed an 'ancillary annexe'.  

It is believed that the faceless consultant had done a little homework on planning files and identified a discrepancy between the concepts of planning unit and curtilage at Mr Moore's  £8.5m 5-bedroom mansion.  The house was once the family pile of the Council Leader.  As a result Mr Moore has secured not only a snooker room but also a gymnasium in his garden. Although often used only for those purposes, planning advisors are suggesting they could also also be legitimately used as storage for DIY paraphernalia or even for Jemima's pony kit, leading to increasing speculation that they may become a form of tack shelter.

The Chief Planning Officer told us that the planning consultant had used a little known loophole called a CLOPUD (also known as S192 schemes)  which, it is believed,  benefit from a particularly lucrative  50% reduction in planning fee liability.   The planning consultant then "presented a proper planning case, using legal precedent and reasoned logic, all set out on 100gsm paper for his report.  Once the heavy paper comes out we know we are in for a humdinger of a fight and we just dont have the resources. It really was quite a clever application to be honest and we only wish we could have thought of it before. We worry we might not even be able to find enforcement officer resource to check its not being used as a cinema room or a home office" opined the underfunded bureaucrat.      

The shameless professional advisor has this morning been subject of a twitter rant from his former client.  Mr Moore tweeted: 

"I met with a planning consultant and he said to me “Do you want to pay reduced planning fees ? It’s totally legal.” I said “Yes.” 

and then 

"I now realise I’ve made a terrible error of judgement"

then

Although I’ve been advised the S192 scheme is entirely legal, and has been fully disclosed to LPA (the local planning authority)

and  finished the barrage with:

’Im no longer involved in it and will in future conduct my planning affairs much more responsibly through the payment of full planning fees and accepting unreasonable conditions. Apologies to everyone"

The Condition of our profession.

Almost daily the writer is moved to despair about the quality of decisions and practice emerging from Town Halls. A reader has invited me to set out a recent experience.

His client had begun works to regrade agricultural land at the rear of her property and had, in part, 'extended the curtilage' of the house into that land. I know Martin Goodall in his excellent planning law blog would take issue with that description. No planning permission had previously been sought so an invitation to do so was issued by Toy Town Council. The application was accompanied by a comprehensive set of drawings including existing and proposed plans, surveys with original and current contours, and a dozen or so cross and long sections showing eventual re-grading.

The development applied for and granted (on 17 Feb) was 'Extension to Garden Curtilage and re-grading of land' . As some works had already been undertaken it was partly retention of and partly proposed works. So far so normal.

I was sent a copy of the planning permission yesterday and have decided to let readers to have a read, think and then laugh at this one.:

Four conditions were imposed.

1 Subject to the requirements of the following conditions, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved proposed sections drawings bearing the date stamp "XXX COUNCIL REC'D 23 DEC 2011 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL" and the proposed site plan bearing the date stamp "AMENDMENT RECEIVED 17 FEB 2012 XXX COUNCIL", unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2 This permission only grants planning permission for the proposed extension of the residential curtilage of the dwellinghouse (House Name) comprised in the area shown ‘hatched’ and labelled ‘extended garden curtilage to dwelling’ on the approved site plan (scale 1:100) and that area shall not be used as residential curtilage until the proposed fence has been constructed (and thereafter retained) along the western side of the ‘hatched’ area, in accordance with the approved plans, and the part of the application site to the west of the ‘’hatched’ area shall not at any time be used as part of the residential curtilage of the dwelling and shall only be used as grazing land for agricultural purposes

3 Notwithstanding the details submitted in the application, the development hereby permitted shall not be carried out and shall cease until a revised site plan (scale 1:200) showing the proposed contour lines of the re-graded land has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall only be carried out in accordance with those approved details.

4 Within 12 months of the date of this permission, a scheme of landscaping shall be carried out on the land, in accordance with a detailed scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include hard surfacing, proposed planting (species, densities/numbers, distribution, height, planting methods and implementation and maintenance programme), and boundary treatment (fences, walls and gates). All approved hard and soft landscape works shall thereafter be retained and any planting, which dies or is removed or materially damaged, or which becomes seriously diseased within 5 years, shall be replaced during the next usual planting season thereafter with similar species/numbers, unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Planning Authority. No lopping, topping or felling shall take place other than the routine maintenance, re-planting and pruning which is essential for plant welfare.

The Case officer asked for more information on 15 Feb (ie 2 or so days before the statutory period ended). The agent politely declined on client instruction that the information submitted was comprehensive. I have seen it - it was.

I have no doubt that the Council set out with the best of intentions to produce conditions that gave it some control over additional information and in theory implementation. Quite why planning officers cant read Circular 11/95 is beyond me. But even more so this quality of decision raises so many questions about this profession::

• Why take so long to ask for it?
• What do DC officers do for the 53 or so days before they open a file?
• In the rush for a decision mistakes (in this case very significant ones) take place.
• An applicant is left in a 'vacuum' of uncertainty because of the sheer unprofessionalism of the decision. (Although she might as well do the works as Toy town would never dare enforce them - so whats the point of them?)
• Why are the managers of these people signing this sort of rubbish off? (the person in question was a DC officer of 25 years standing)

Ok Rant Over.

Hours in the day.

According to reports in todays @planningmag Cornwall is the next council to introduce pre-application charges.

According to statements the Council spends 27000 hours per year dealing with 4000 or so pre-application advice requests per year. 6.75 hours per average enquiry (or 2 working days in typical planning office speak) seems staggeringly inefficient in itself but that 27k man hours = 14 FTE of staff is shome mishtake shurely (c) private eye