Non-Determination vs LPA App

[harry_angel]

I saw an interesting note on social media, from a green belt campaigning group which reflected on the huge backlog of apps being handled by my LPA (each officer is handling over 100 cases, reportedly, and they are leaving/dropping like flies).

 

The green belt campaigner (who's worried about a local development) commented:

 

"If the LPA has failed to rule on the application within set time limits applicants can go straight to appeal and, in order not to prejudice developers, this leads to a presumption favour of development".

 

2 questions/discussion points:

 

1. How does skipping the LPA's ruling body and going straight to the inspectorate "prejudice developers"?
2. Is the consensus that exercising one's right to non-determination has a higher shot of being approved? (I assume because all the objectors and the parish council and the planning officer and all the other local numpties sticking their oar in are simply ignored as the application is assessed purely against the NPPF)

 

My LPA is literally miles behind on my applications, having missed the deadlines wildly, so I am considering options.*

 

*of course, the bummer with skipping the LPA is that you then enter the inspectorate's queue, which I assume is even worse/longer than the LPA's!

 

 

[Ferdinand]

It takes the local politics out of it, since the Planning Committee cannot be engaged.

 

Not convinces on the Green claim on the presumption in favour; there are more conditions attached than that.  

[harry_angel]

@Ferdinand thanks. Yes, had my first exposure to the planning committee a while ago and was frankly astonished at the level of local influence and corruption on show.

 

An app we had objected to, and which the planning officer had upheld (refused permission), and which clearly contravened the NPPF in about 4 areas somehow got over the line because the applicants leveraged the local church and a committee member who's part of said church, as well as some unfortunate personal circumstances which nonetheless had absolutely nothing to do with planning or the realities of the case.

 

Remarkable. I thought this type of backhander stuff went out in the 70s and 80s...

[Ferdinand]

Just now, harry_angel said:

@Ferdinand thanks. Yes, had my first exposure to the planning committee a while ago and was frankly astonished at the level of local influence and corruption on show.

 

An app we had objected to, and which the planning officer had upheld (refused permission), and which clearly contravened the NPPF in about 4 areas somehow got over the line because the applicants leveraged the local church and a committee member who's part of said church, as well as some unfortunate personal circumstances which nonetheless had absolutely nothing to do with planning or the realities of the case.

 

Remarkable. I thought this type of backhander stuff went out in the 70s and 80s...

 

There's always low level influencing and sometimes corruption (eg developer does block driveway for a Councillor) going on. If you talk in a non-public setting to a big group of Councillors or Officers off the record, some will usually admit to knowledge of such. 

 

The type of corruption we have allegedly (still subjudice I think) seen in Liverpool recently, which is perhaps more like what happens in US cities more, does not imo happen very often here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/liverpool-city-council-corruption-caller-report-joe-anderson-b1823446.html

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/976197/Liverpool_Best_Value_inspection_report.pdf

 

Separate to that, there is influencing at the devolved level (Scotland, Wales etc) or National level. I'm not sure how much of that is true, and how much is mudslinging.

 

I think some level of such is inevitable and as a country I think we do reasonably well by international standards. Others may differ.