Is the planning system corrupt?

Because it costs local authorities so much to appeal decisions and most of them are broke, developers can afford to chance it and go to appeal.

It seems to be accepted practice nowadays for a developer or individual to bulldoze ahead with their plans, regardless, and then apply for retrospective planning permission. A very arrogant attitude towards the rules.

My particular beef is with developers who blithely promise to incorporate a percentage of affordable homes into their plans in order to persuade a local authority to rubber stamp planning permission, and then - lo and behold - when the development is completed there isn't a single affordable property to be seen!

My particular beef is with developers who blithely promise to incorporate a percentage of affordable homes into their plans in order to persuade a local authority to rubber stamp planning permission, and then - lo and behold - when the development is completed there isn't a single affordable property to be seen!
This happened recently when an extension of 200+ houses was added to our estate. Also promised were cycle lanes and an extension to the public transport system. Has any of this happened? No. Most of the houses were sold off plan and none of them were “affordable”. The other concern is that builders still appear to be building on lands which are flood plains. This is happening where my son and also a friend of mine live in York and there are public concerns about where all that water is going to be drained off to. Appeals to the council fall on deaf ears.

Having wasted time at a few Planning Committee meetings, I was told by my former local councillor that it is often decided how each will vote (usually along party lines) before the meeting.

windmill the developer will go to the council part way through and say it’s not a viable site if they build affordable, the LA, desperate for houses to fulfil government quotas lets them go ahead.

It isn't the planning that is corrupt- it is the sneaky developers who are to blame.

Previous to Thatcher's so called housing revolution (disaster) LA's were no longer allowed to build houses and their budgets for building other things was slashed by repeated governments.

The old Victorian hospitals etc have been left to rot so only big bucks developers can now buy them for next to nothing.

In this way, it is a corrupt and unfair system.

In our previous village home a local farmer wanted PP for a small development of four or five houses. People didn’t have any objections, it was a brownfield site so not particularly beautiful to look at. The farmer offered a plot of land for a new school in exchange for PP but was told that was akin to bribery of the council and was unacceptable.

I then asked about a much bigger development in a nearby town, where PP had been granted in exchange for land for a leisure centre and was told that that was considered planning gain and therefore was acceptable! That really opened my eyes to how councils work.

I don't think turning an existing building into 30+ apartments is unreasonable. We have a new village ov 3,000 houses being built in the lovely countryside near us and most accept it the issues are more with the services.

I would be interested to know what the council's reply was regarding the HMO though.

Councils have an obligation to build a target number of home each year so they are not too fussy if a developer doesn’t play by every rule. In this area local nymbies fight every planning application tooth and nail, they all want more houses built, but not in their part of town.

Planning Committees are well aware if the cost of opposing a developer and usually negotiate what they can in planning gain and pass the application.

There was plenty of corruption years ago, now of course anyone who doesn’t get their way screams corruption.

A couple of years ago a couple in Midlothian were forced to demolish their home because they hadn't been given planning consent.
They also thought that they would be able to apply retrospectively.
Midlothian couple lose battle to save 'dream' £650k mansion from demolition - Edinburgh Live share.google/lJ1yc9vayVENv06Ye

Grammaretto

A couple of years ago a couple in Midlothian were forced to demolish their home because they hadn't been given planning consent.
They also thought that they would be able to apply retrospectively.
Midlothian couple lose battle to save 'dream' £650k mansion from demolition - Edinburgh Live share.google/lJ1yc9vayVENv06Ye

Yes Joe Bloggs is on a hiding to nothing most cannot afford to fight the council

The shape of things to come.

Rayner set to hit English councils that block new housing with tougher sanctions.
Councils could be forced to approve new housing developments – overturning locally agreed plans – under stricter rules or risk handing over control of their planning departments to Whitehall officials.

Rayner already has considerable powers to overrule councils that block housing developments but is believed to be frustrated with continuing delays in the system.

eazybee

The shape of things to come.

Rayner set to hit English councils that block new housing with tougher sanctions.
Councils could be forced to approve new housing developments – overturning locally agreed plans – under stricter rules or risk handing over control of their planning departments to Whitehall officials.

Rayner already has considerable powers to overrule councils that block housing developments but is believed to be frustrated with continuing delays in the system.

Yes, green belt is at risk everywhere, locally we have a lot of city overspill having to be housed.

In answer to the OP's question, in my experience it often is and depends on 'who you know'.

Plans were passed next to where we used to live for storage units. We had someone from the planning department round to assure us that the view we had from our roof terrace wouldn't be affected.

When the build was near completion it became evident that 50% of our wonderful view was going to be restricted because the build was actually higher than planning permission had been granted for.

Knowing the history of this developer, his tendency to exceed what had been passed and once his builds were completed, to apply for change of use, we thought all was lost. When I spoke to his secretary she told me that his response was "do whatever you must do", so we did.

We complained and thankfully when a return visit to our property was made and with our agreement, he was ordered to lower the rear of the build but was still allowed to have the front higher than the original planning application.

Once completed, one of the storage units was turned into a dance studio which had far from adequate sound proofing and became a real noise nuisance.

Thank goodness we moved.

Yet another reason for government to look st land taxes. The country needs homes, not banked land.

You are not meant to fell trees where I live because they are protected. Most new houses being erected fell the lot and just pay the council fine which is very small. Result is that the natural beauty is rapidly disappearing - one of the reasons we bought here in the first place.

oh gosh, corruption, its the people not the systems, I agree, but ... don`t start me!

windmill1

It seems to be accepted practice nowadays for a developer or individual to bulldoze ahead with their plans, regardless, and then apply for retrospective planning permission. A very arrogant attitude towards the rules.

My particular beef is with developers who blithely promise to incorporate a percentage of affordable homes into their plans in order to persuade a local authority to rubber stamp planning permission, and then - lo and behold - when the development is completed there isn't a single affordable property to be seen!

Yes, the fiddling about with affordable homes has happened here too. Also the local authority specified that there should be no gas in the high rise blocks - and they were built with gas central heating.
There are also problems with parish councils and controls of conservation areas. In one area we know well the boundary of the conservation area is kinked to avoid the house of one of the members of the committee. Obviously UPVC windows and satellite dishes are banned, but they are regularly installed and it is ignored. A resident was allowed to use plastic flashing and unsuitable materials for his Grade 1 Listed Building because he said he couldn't afford the suitable alternatives. The original planning permission and Historic Buildings permission had specified lead and particular materials.
We got planning permission for a dormer but the parish council blocked it on conservation grounds, despite the fact that almost all the houses around do have dormers. We appealed to the DOE and permission was granted, the inspector couldn't understand why it was ever refused. This often happens to second home owners like ourselves in this area.
Our neighbours have been trying for 12 years to get permission to build a well designed new ecohome. Eventually they have got it but we have to question why it took so long when there are other homes getting permission in one sitting of the planning committee.

Grammaretto

A couple of years ago a couple in Midlothian were forced to demolish their home because they hadn't been given planning consent.
They also thought that they would be able to apply retrospectively.
Midlothian couple lose battle to save 'dream' £650k mansion from demolition - Edinburgh Live share.google/lJ1yc9vayVENv06Ye

Yes, because they are individuals without bottomless cash to repeat appeal.

The term ‘ brown envelope ‘ has existed for a long time. Anyone who thinks to the contrary is naive

Some of these developers’ underhand goings on are unbelievable! So sad for people who bought in good faith.
When I bought my seafront flat, it wasn’t entirely tongue-in-cheek that I bought it because it was assumed nothing could spoil my sea view. I am sincerely hoping that there will never be some way that some underhand toe-rag will find a way around this! I have my fingers crossed though, as anything can happen these days!

There are no such things as affordable homes. The minute they are sold the price goes up and they become part of the housing stock. The only way to reinstate affordable housing is to have council owned housing that CAN NOT be sold. We have major issues with this in rural areas

Where I live, the land owners have the same surname as most of the local councillors and as it's not a common name I suspect it's all related

they have built two schools and a dr's surgery though