There's been a big increase in refusals which are then not defended at appeal by councils recently. Sometimes a rule 6 party is there to pick up the fight. The Planning Inspectorate still holds a full appeal with residents making their last speeches and various experts summoned before the inevitable result is reached. But councillors have done their job of delaying the permission as much as they can, with the costs pushed onto everyone else and no need to answer tricky questions from barristers. Hard not to feel that they have worked out this is the most politically safe position.
Inspectors have discretion over rule 6 status and if they are granting it to residents groups because the council is not defending the appeal, that is only wasting more time and money.
Local Authority actually showed some sense there and managed to get the developer to agree to some advancements for locals that the developer would certainly have known were not really justified on Planning terms (who could want to be a developer when most of the system is stacked against you?).
Suspect you are right. Developers probably knew that what the planning officers were asking for in terms of the healthcare and active travel funding was above what was required, but worth it if it got it through the council quicker. However, once they went to appeal the procedurally correct decision was always going to be made. All speculation on my part though!
''Quicker'' is perhaps a side- issue these days, most sizeable proposals (those providing the biggest % of affordables) now take years, even if there are no problems. Land sitting empty still costs lots to maintain, lots to assess, lots to plan for etc. Bring back the days of a 4 page application form & basic non-nuanced regulations with no pie in the sky eco lunacy that Planners have to consult ''experts'' on. All of that technical side can - and should - be sorted POST PLANNING where there already established experts to design it, arrange it and provide it once the basic Planning approval is granted and it is then worth the developer spending a small fortune to then achieve those thermal & ecological aims which are now essential for sales - which maintain the ongoing business of developers. UK doesn't need LA house provision, just the opportunity for developers to provide ranges of housing quickly & affordably.
It is quite amazing how much cheaper experts quotes are for thermal & ecological technical detail once a planning approval is in place. Then there is some certainty on plot sizes, orientations etc, ground type analysis, drainage assessment & such can be carried out as the site is ''certain'' and it also enables more positive - therefore less expensive - finance to be arranged.
Genius! I guess the interesting question is whether the residents favour that outcome and are happy to pay for it within their local taxes or whether they will vote out the councillors concerned.
I'm not sure local residents will even realise this has happened sadly. The council were not advertising the benefits of the scheme before and the fact they have been taken away is not in their or the developer's interests to report.
My impression, being from that council area, is that no one talks about planning applications unless they're vehemently opposed to it (sadly common - I have seen a lot of anti-development campaigns, when only one or two had any real merit). There are plenty of people unhappy with the state of council services, but I've never heard anyone link it to bad planning policy.
Yes sadly this is the case in many places. I have written about one council, Preston, who have managed to link these issues somewhat but it needed good councillors, a great planning team, a lot of luck and central government help. https://www.samdumitriu.com/cp/190601322 It is clearly very hard to do under the present system. Councils have enough power to block, but not enough power to deliver benefits from development locals notice.
In such cases could residents not pursue the councillors in their personal capacities to recover the losses attributable directly to the actions of the 7 councillors? Just one such court case might be enough to make councillors realize there are consequences to grandstanding. Right now the incentives are all one way.
I don't think so. Technically what the councillors and the developers had agreed before was beyond the rules and now they've been brough in line with it. Perhaps making councillors responsible for legal costs (rather than council tax payers) may provoke a bit more common sense.
You must remember that the councillors only pay that part of the cost that their council tax requires. There is no penalty for stupidity. There should be but no Tory or Reform councillors would be able to stand for election if they were required to pay a penalty for their stupidity. NIMBY’s have prevented any reservoirs being built for fifty years. Margaret Thatcher’s government sold off 2 million council houses in 10 years and prevented the councils using the proceeds to replace the council houses sold. There are countless instances of stupidity during the Tory years of 2010-24. No prison places, student loans charged at 8% interest, an increasing need for social housing which was ignored, Brexit, countless people in care homes who died a year earlier than expected because of the reckless lack of care during COVID.
With Reform councillors the stupidity probably would not arise in the first place. Note that Cheshire East has no Reform councillors, which may be of interest.
There's been a big increase in refusals which are then not defended at appeal by councils recently. Sometimes a rule 6 party is there to pick up the fight. The Planning Inspectorate still holds a full appeal with residents making their last speeches and various experts summoned before the inevitable result is reached. But councillors have done their job of delaying the permission as much as they can, with the costs pushed onto everyone else and no need to answer tricky questions from barristers. Hard not to feel that they have worked out this is the most politically safe position.
Inspectors have discretion over rule 6 status and if they are granting it to residents groups because the council is not defending the appeal, that is only wasting more time and money.
I wonder if anyone from the council would like to comment on this post. What is their justification for this farrago of nonsense?
Local Authority actually showed some sense there and managed to get the developer to agree to some advancements for locals that the developer would certainly have known were not really justified on Planning terms (who could want to be a developer when most of the system is stacked against you?).
Suspect you are right. Developers probably knew that what the planning officers were asking for in terms of the healthcare and active travel funding was above what was required, but worth it if it got it through the council quicker. However, once they went to appeal the procedurally correct decision was always going to be made. All speculation on my part though!
''Quicker'' is perhaps a side- issue these days, most sizeable proposals (those providing the biggest % of affordables) now take years, even if there are no problems. Land sitting empty still costs lots to maintain, lots to assess, lots to plan for etc. Bring back the days of a 4 page application form & basic non-nuanced regulations with no pie in the sky eco lunacy that Planners have to consult ''experts'' on. All of that technical side can - and should - be sorted POST PLANNING where there already established experts to design it, arrange it and provide it once the basic Planning approval is granted and it is then worth the developer spending a small fortune to then achieve those thermal & ecological aims which are now essential for sales - which maintain the ongoing business of developers. UK doesn't need LA house provision, just the opportunity for developers to provide ranges of housing quickly & affordably.
It is quite amazing how much cheaper experts quotes are for thermal & ecological technical detail once a planning approval is in place. Then there is some certainty on plot sizes, orientations etc, ground type analysis, drainage assessment & such can be carried out as the site is ''certain'' and it also enables more positive - therefore less expensive - finance to be arranged.
Nothing to add but beyond just a like worth saying this was all very interesting and helpful!
Genius! I guess the interesting question is whether the residents favour that outcome and are happy to pay for it within their local taxes or whether they will vote out the councillors concerned.
I'm not sure local residents will even realise this has happened sadly. The council were not advertising the benefits of the scheme before and the fact they have been taken away is not in their or the developer's interests to report.
My impression, being from that council area, is that no one talks about planning applications unless they're vehemently opposed to it (sadly common - I have seen a lot of anti-development campaigns, when only one or two had any real merit). There are plenty of people unhappy with the state of council services, but I've never heard anyone link it to bad planning policy.
Yes sadly this is the case in many places. I have written about one council, Preston, who have managed to link these issues somewhat but it needed good councillors, a great planning team, a lot of luck and central government help. https://www.samdumitriu.com/cp/190601322 It is clearly very hard to do under the present system. Councils have enough power to block, but not enough power to deliver benefits from development locals notice.
Is it possible that other councillors might take heed?
In such cases could residents not pursue the councillors in their personal capacities to recover the losses attributable directly to the actions of the 7 councillors? Just one such court case might be enough to make councillors realize there are consequences to grandstanding. Right now the incentives are all one way.
I don't think so. Technically what the councillors and the developers had agreed before was beyond the rules and now they've been brough in line with it. Perhaps making councillors responsible for legal costs (rather than council tax payers) may provoke a bit more common sense.
You must remember that the councillors only pay that part of the cost that their council tax requires. There is no penalty for stupidity. There should be but no Tory or Reform councillors would be able to stand for election if they were required to pay a penalty for their stupidity. NIMBY’s have prevented any reservoirs being built for fifty years. Margaret Thatcher’s government sold off 2 million council houses in 10 years and prevented the councils using the proceeds to replace the council houses sold. There are countless instances of stupidity during the Tory years of 2010-24. No prison places, student loans charged at 8% interest, an increasing need for social housing which was ignored, Brexit, countless people in care homes who died a year earlier than expected because of the reckless lack of care during COVID.
With Reform councillors the stupidity probably would not arise in the first place. Note that Cheshire East has no Reform councillors, which may be of interest.