A question for the LA TOs (and anyone else!)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Householder planning application submitted by planning agent.

 

Part 6 of the application form stated no trees / hedges (as below)

 

LA and PC don't realise that there actually ARE significant number of TPO trees within application site.

 

PC support.

 

LA approve (no requirement for topo or AIA because the form said no and nobody bothered to check)

 

Conditional approval issued....

 

Where does this leave the householder?

 

The original submission (by the planning agent was (I'll be kind and say) erroneous) but you'd have to be BLIND not to see the trees as you walk up the drive to the house.

 

PC was irrelevant as is so usually the case, LA was negligent in conducting any form checks....

 

The application has been approved on the basis of submitted information...

 

What would YOU do as a TO? 

[maybelateron]

I would inform my colleagues, with a record of doing so, in the planning department asap, and the planning agent along with the applicant.

I don't think there would be anything else within my power. Then sit back and watch the comedy/tragedy unfold.

[Khriss]

Astonishing. Am amazed ( including in my Sector)  who never bother with a site visit   ?  K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

4 hours ago, maybelateron said:

I would inform my colleagues, with a record of doing so, in the planning department asap, and the planning agent along with the applicant.

I don't think there would be anything else within my power. Then sit back and watch the comedy/tragedy unfold.

I've watched that comedy previously....

 

More of a farce than a comedy - listed building application with a No/No for trees which should have been a Yes/Yes in relation to the TPO'd LA maintained trees less than 10m away from development site.  

 

Application approved, so no breach of condition nor enforcement power, no ability to reverse approval.

 

Oh how I f^^^ing laughed when the LA TPO'd mature Beech 10m away exploded in 2 cast a stem on the roof of a community building a year or so later...  Whilst it wasn't likely to be attributable to the recent adjacent development application, it still drove the point home..... 

[Khriss]

It's not rocket science or new legislation.  Presuming the land is not ' under management ' neither ?  ?  K

[Gnarlyoak]

No offence intended to OP, but don't see what the moral dilemma is here. 

If you don't strongly disagree with the way the application has been made, then do nothing!

If you do disagree with the application then either openly or anonymously report the issue to to relevant LA and let them sort it out.

Not sure why AT should be the arbiter of your moral compass. No one else here have either seen the trees or know the circumstances of the application and would thus be unable to salve your conscience. Sorry mate, it's your call. Go with your Spidey senses and listen to your gut. Remember "shit happens" because most people prefer to turn a blind eye than stand up & be counted! ?

Edited August 21, 2020 by Gnarlyoak

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Gnarlyoak said:

No offence intended to OP, but don't see what the moral dilemma is here. 

If you don't strongly disagree with the way the application has been made, then do nothing!

If you do disagree with the application then either openly or anonymously report the issue to to relevant LA and let them sort it out.

Not sure why AT should be the arbiter of your moral compass. No one else here have either seen the trees or know the circumstances of the application and would thus be unable to salve your conscience. Sorry mate, it's your call. Go with your Spidey senses and listen to your gut. Remember "shit happens" because most people prefer to turn a blind eye than stand up & be counted! ?

No offence taken - hide like a rhino!

 

I didn't intend for it to be a question of morals, but rather one of procedure.

 

What would a TO (or a PO or anyone else for that matter) do (procedurally) if it came to light that an approved planning application was deficient on the basis of the original information supplied - specifically in relation to the presence of TPOd trees on an application site where it had been declared that there were no trees.

 

Maybe I didn't put the question quite as comprehensively as I might have done which has resulted in your interpretation of it, but I was in a bit of a rush this morning.

 

Please be assured that my moral compass is regularly calibrated and requires no external validation similarly, there is no crisis of conscience.

 

There is absolutely no requirement to have 'seen' any trees in order to provide a comment on the situation as previously described and there is certainly no compulsion to do so other than of one's own free will and desire.  I guess we all 'take' (and to a greater or lesser degree 'give') different things through the medium of AT.  Personally, I find it an exceptionally useful 'sounding board', a place to chat, take the piss and get to know folk that you would otherwise never know existed.  That some of the most useful feedback has already been received from some of my most respected AT 'friends' has already provided the responses I kind of expected.  That they have been via PM simply highlights that they, as I do, recognise the appropriate level of client confidentiality that defines a professional client / service provider relationship.

 

Just to clarify a little bit, I'm not in any way involved in the application which failed to show the existence of TPO'd trees on a development site.  I may have some other involvement elsewhere on the site and have happened across this anomaly in the course of researching the task.

 

I have previously (during my short and incredibly frustrating stint as a parish councillor) come across a similar example where a planning application stated No/No where it should have been Yes/Yes and there was absolutely no moral dilemma in that circumstance.  Duty is duty, some seem to have varying interpretations of that concept, personally, I don't.  The follow-up from that example continued as far as the regional head of planning and I found that - or at least the only response the LA would give was - that once an application has been approved, there is no mechanism through investigation / enforcement to remedy an earlier anomaly - even on the basis of incorrect information in the original submission.

 

You see, the trouble was (as I interpreted it) the LA had balls up in relation to their duty under s197 and they really didn't want to open that can of worms. 

 

I did.  So I researched all of the applications in the preceding 2 years that had stated No/No and uncovered a startling number that should have been Yes/Yes.  So much for canopy action plan and s197!

 

On the basis of that, and the apathetic reaction to the subsequent findings, my local LA earned my well deserved disdain.

 

It is for that reason that I posed the question more broadly - nationally and internationally via AT - in an attempt to encourage some input from other regions which might provide an indication if this is a 'local' shortfall or, more widely evident poor practice.

 

In this instance, my duty is to the client in respect of the work I may undertake for them.  I have already highlighted the anomaly to them and suggested that they might wish to invite their RIBA chartered architect to advise how this has occurred and what they intend to do by way of a remedy.  That was a freebie and outside of my remit.

 

I'm still interested to hear what a TO / PO might do if similar circumstances were to come to light though.

 

Maybe a simpler form of question: planning application provides empirically incorrect / incomplete information but manages to travel through the system to grant of a DN with conditional approval.  If the footprint was stated as X and the building was X+10, that could be an enforcement issue - simple.  But what about when an approval is granted on the basis of incorrect / incomplete information, PC and LA don't conduct due diligence checks and approval is issued.  

 

Is there even a mechanism for remedying that?  I know I've tried to raise it via LA previously and got nowhere.  What would happen elsewhere - the same or different?  

 

No moral dilemma, just healthy interest....

   

 

PS - the spidey senses and gut feeling certainly have their place. I seem to recall a climbing thread were those exact attributes were extolled with notable enthusiasm. 
 

Not so sure they transfer quite as well to procedural matters though. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[monkeybusiness]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

No offence taken - hide like a rhino!

 

I didn't intend for it to be a question of morals, but rather one of procedure.

 

What would a TO (or a PO or anyone else for that matter) do (procedurally) if it came to light that an approved planning application was deficient on the basis of the original information supplied - specifically in relation to the presence of TPOd trees on an application site where it had been declared that there were no trees.

 

Maybe I didn't put the question quite as comprehensively as I might have done which has resulted in your interpretation of it, but I was in a bit of a rush this morning.

 

Please be assured that my moral compass is regularly calibrated and requires no external validation similarly, there is no crisis of conscience.

 

There is absolutely no requirement to have 'seen' any trees in order to provide a comment on the situation as previously described and there is certainly no compulsion to do so other than of one's own free will and desire.  I guess we all 'take' (and to a greater or lesser degree 'give') different things through the medium of AT.  Personally, I find it an exceptionally useful 'sounding board', a place to chat, take the piss and get to know folk that you would otherwise never know existed.  That some of the most useful feedback has already been received from some of my most respected AT 'friends' has already provided the responses I kind of expected.  That they have been via PM simply highlights that they, as I do, recognise the appropriate level of client confidentiality that defines a professional client / service provider relationship.

 

Just to clarify a little bit, I'm not in any way involved in the application which failed to show the existence of TPO'd trees on a development site.  I may have some other involvement elsewhere on the site and have happened across this anomaly in the course of researching the task.

 

I have previously (during my short and incredibly frustrating stint as a parish councillor) come across a similar example where a planning application stated No/No where it should have been Yes/Yes and there was absolutely no moral dilemma in that circumstance.  Duty is duty, some seem to have varying interpretations of that concept, personally, I don't.  The follow-up from that example continued as far as the regional head of planning and I found that - or at least the only response the LA would give was - that once an application has been approved, there is no mechanism through investigation / enforcement to remedy an earlier anomaly - even on the basis of incorrect information in the original submission.

 

You see, the trouble was (as I interpreted it) the LA had balls up in relation to their duty under s197 and they really didn't want to open that can of worms. 

 

I did.  So I researched all of the applications in the preceding 2 years that had stated No/No and uncovered a startling number that should have been Yes/Yes.  So much for canopy action plan and s197!

 

On the basis of that, and the apathetic reaction to the subsequent findings, my local LA earned my well deserved disdain.

 

It is for that reason that I posed the question more broadly - nationally and internationally via AT - in an attempt to encourage some input from other regions which might provide an indication if this is a 'local' shortfall or, more widely evident poor practice.

 

In this instance, my duty is to the client in respect of the work I may undertake for them.  I have already highlighted the anomaly to them and suggested that they might wish to invite their RIBA chartered architect to advise how this has occurred and what they intend to do by way of a remedy.  That was a freebie and outside of my remit.

 

I'm still interested to hear what a TO / PO might do if similar circumstances were to come to light though.

 

Maybe a simpler form of question: planning application provides empirically incorrect / incomplete information but manages to travel through the system to grant of a DN with conditional approval.  If the footprint was stated as X and the building was X+10, that could be an enforcement issue - simple.  But what about when an approval is granted on the basis of incorrect / incomplete information, PC and LA don't conduct due diligence checks and approval is issued.  

 

Is there even a mechanism for remedying that?  I know I've tried to raise it via LA previously and got nowhere.  What would happen elsewhere - the same or different?  

 

No moral dilemma, just healthy interest....

   

 

PS - the spidey senses and gut feeling certainly have their place. I seem to recall a climbing thread were those exact attributes were extolled with notable enthusiasm. 
 

Not so sure they transfer quite as well to procedural matters though. 

 

 

Gnarlyoak’s post made me smile - I’m guessing he wasn’t aware of your ‘prickly inquisitive forthright bugger’ persona! 
Keep up the good work - interesting post, I’m looking forward to seeing how it develops. 

[daltontrees]

Assuming you are in England. LAs have statutory power to revoke a planning consent. Usually results in compensation, but not necessarily. I expect it could only be done if the LA decided that with fresh knowledge of the trees the decision on the original application would have been a refusal. There would then be a blame game, and personally I am inclined to think that the onus would be on the Council to explain how it had not properly assessed the application including a site visit.

In short, the tick box is pretty meaningless, and I've never come across any law that says that recklessly or carelessly or deliberately providing false information in an application invalidates an approval. I remember decades ago when I was a fresh faced trainee surveyor checking an application for a house plot and finding that the applicant had modified the ordnance survey plan to change the geometry of the main road so that unacceptable visibility splays appeared acceptable. I notified Planning and the application was refused. If I hadn't noticed, the visibility splays would have been checked using only the plan and it might have been approved. There's no real moral dilemma, the inadequate splays would I think have resulted one day in a RTA on a really bad bend.

[daltontrees]

This question was asked in parliament a few years ago. And here's the answer too. Apart form lies about ownership, there is no sanction. It;s a mini charter for interested parties to throw a spanner in the works, which is probably a good check on chancers. It doesn't deal with false information uncovered after approval though.

QUESTION

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what sanctions may be imposed on persons who have made false statements or provided false evidence in a planning application.

ANSWER

The planning application process relies on people acting in good faith. There is an expectation that applicants and those representing them provide decision makers with true and accurate information upon which to base their decisions. However, under section 65(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it is an offence to issue a false ownership certificate knowingly or recklessly.

If a local planning authority feels that an application does not accurately or fully describe the proposed development, or that it is in any way misleading, it is entitled to ask the applicant to amend it or rectify any omissions before it agrees to process the application.

Planning applications are publicised during the determination period so that any interested parties have the opportunity to comment. If any party considers that the application includes deliberately misleading information, or lacks important information that would be material to the decision, they should report this to the relevant local authority who will decide what, action is appropriate. Planning permission can be refused on the grounds that information provided was insufficient to accurately describe the nature and anticipated impacts of the proposed development.