Committee meeting mid May

[Mr Punter]

2 hours ago, flanagaj said:

Frustratingly, we are the last one on the list for the night. 

 

I have seen it where the Chairman suggests that the last 6 applications are not controversial and recommended approval by the officer so proposes that they are all voted through at once without discussion.

[flanagaj]

33 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

 

I have seen it where the Chairman suggests that the last 6 applications are not controversial and recommended approval by the officer so proposes that they are all voted through at once without discussion.

That would be music to my ears if that happens.

[kandgmitchell]

21 hours ago, flanagaj said:

Much of the opposition to our application centres on the fact that it is a two-storey dwelling,

Just being fussy, you don't need to highlight "the opposition to our application" - it alerts councillors to that opposition and makes it sound controversial . May I suggest " some concerns have been raised about this being a two storey dwelling.....

[flanagaj]

39 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

Just being fussy, you don't need to highlight "the opposition to our application" - it alerts councillors to that opposition and makes it sound controversial . May I suggest " some concerns have been raised about this being a two storey dwelling.....

Thanks.  I have removed that a reworded "some concerns" sounds more subtle and less alarmist.

[shuff27]

15 hours ago, Temp said:

If you want to speak I would add a line something like this..

 

I'm not a property developer, I'm looking to build a home for my family and be part of the community. 

 

 

 

This is a moot point.  If the committee is considering your application purely in planning terms then whether you're a self builder or developer should be irrelevent.

 

Otherwise, if your council is one that applies the CIL it would actually benefit them financially if a developer is going to build rather than a self builder (i.e. no CIL exemption).  In the end, a developer would most likely sell to a family who want to be part of the community too!

[Big Jimbo]

My advice. DO NOT bring up anything negative. EVER. To a bunch of untrained councillors. You have the support of the (pro) planning officer.

12 hours ago, flanagaj said:

Thanks.  I have removed that a reworded "some concerns" sounds more subtle and less alarmist.

 

[Big Jimbo]

Good evening ladies and gentleman. Thank you for taking the time to consider my application, that has the support of the council planning officer.

Should any of you have any questions i will do my best to answer them for you. (They wont ask any questions)

Hopefully, with your support this evening. I together with my family look forward to becoming part of, and immersing ourselves ,within this vibrant community.

Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

 

Thats it. Simple.

[Big Jimbo]

I'm sorry but i find your own written speach, dreadful. Full of negatives. Everything, including any negatives have been considered by the professional planning office, (AND ALL FOUND TO BE OK) stop drawing attention to things that might give any councillor reason to question your application.  I'm not saying i'm some sort of professional writer, but i would stick to what i have written in the post above.

By the way, you are 94% there. Don't fudge it now. Get ready to pop that cork.

 

[Temp]

4 hours ago, shuff27 said:

This is a moot point.  If the committee is considering your application purely in planning terms then whether you're a self builder or developer should be irrelevent.

 

Otherwise, if your council is one that applies the CIL it would actually benefit them financially if a developer is going to build rather than a self builder (i.e. no CIL exemption).  In the end, a developer would most likely sell to a family who want to be part of the community too!

 

Interesting. "Are you a developer just trying to make money" was one of the first questions the neighbours and Parish asked me. Hadn't thought about the CIL.

 

[flanagaj]

4 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

I'm sorry but i find your own written speach, dreadful. Full of negatives. Everything, including any negatives have been considered by the professional planning office, (AND ALL FOUND TO BE OK) stop drawing attention to things that might give any councillor reason to question your application.  I'm not saying i'm some sort of professional writer, but i would stick to what i have written in the post above.

By the way, you are 94% there. Don't fudge it now. Get ready to pop that cork.

 

So you think that we should simply state that given the planning officer has approved the application without objection then I trust the committee will too?

[Big Jimbo]

41 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

So you think that we should simply state that given the planning officer has approved the application without objection then I trust the committee will too?

Exactly. Your speech is full of negatives. Why ? Are you trying to bring them to everybodies attention ?

[flanagaj]

 

21 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

Exactly. Your speech is full of negatives. Why ? Are you trying to bring them to everybodies attention ?

You have made an excellent point.  I was just discussing this with my wife.  The planning officer is recommending our application for approval and none of the consultees made any objections either.  Yes, the NIMBY neighbours raised objections to the two storey aspect and for some strange reason, the AONB woodland that sits a field away behind the house.  The planning officer listed these in her report, but given she has done that, we still felt we had to try and justify our application to the committee.   It's bonkers that we are even having to attend, but we are simply going to use your statement.  Will the committee ask questions to my wife and I why we have gone a bungalow to a two-storey ...

I am hoping that they too will be thinking "why have we got an application in front of us, that has been approved by the planning officer" and it will be a very quick "approved" decision.

[Redbeard]

33 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

Will the committee ask questions to my wife and I why we have gone a bungalow to a two-storey ...

And if they do, you can calmly explain that the house as proposed is within the footprint (I think) and the height (I think you said) of the previously-approved application, but adding the 2nd storey made it work better as your lifetime home (without any detriment to the visual aspect), as you expect to be living in and contributing to the community for many years to come...

[Big Jimbo]

they wont ask you any questions, but if they do, just answer them honestly,as @Redbeard above.

Best of luck, but remember you are 94% there.

[flanagaj]

2 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

they wont ask you any questions, but if they do, just answer them honestly,as @Redbeard above.

Best of luck, but remember you are 94% there.

Given the NIMBY neighbours seem quite determined, I suspect they will turn up on the night to voice their objections.  As we are the applicant, I assume we don't have to register to speak beforehand and just turn up?

[Big Jimbo]

Check with your council. I expect you will have to register in order to speak.

[Mattg4321]

20 hours ago, flanagaj said:

Given the NIMBY neighbours seem quite determined, I suspect they will turn up on the night to voice their objections.  As we are the applicant, I assume we don't have to register to speak beforehand and just turn up?

I’ll bet they probably won’t. Hopefully you’ll have nothing to worry about, but if you do, then nothing you do or say will make any difference anyway. If the PO has recommended for approval then it should be approved. If it isn’t then it will be at appeal by the planning inspectorate. 
 

We had a very similar case about 10 years ago. Refused by a committee made up of only one political party. One of the objectors knew one of them. They refused on the night without giving a reason why. Said it would be in the report or something. Made the PO come up with a reason (out of character). Yes the same officer who recommended it for approval. 
 

This same officer had to justify to the planning inspectorate why it should be refused (after earlier supporting it). Of course they lost and nearly had to pay us compensation. Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about it, but I got some pleasure out of smiling at the objector who caused all the problems every time I saw him afterwards - which was very few!

[flanagaj]

4 hours ago, Mattg4321 said:

I’ll bet they probably won’t. Hopefully you’ll have nothing to worry about, but if you do, then nothing you do or say will make any difference anyway. If the PO has recommended for approval then it should be approved. If it isn’t then it will be at appeal by the planning inspectorate. 
 

We had a very similar case about 10 years ago. Refused by a committee made up of only one political party. One of the objectors knew one of them. They refused on the night without giving a reason why. Said it would be in the report or something. Made the PO come up with a reason (out of character). Yes the same officer who recommended it for approval. 
 

This same officer had to justify to the planning inspectorate why it should be refused (after earlier supporting it). Of course they lost and nearly had to pay us compensation. Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about it, but I got some pleasure out of smiling at the objector who caused all the problems every time I saw him afterwards - which was very few!

Incredibly frustrating and local councils should face higher compensation costs for going against the planning officer and then losing at appeal.  It might then remove the politics that should not feature.

[flanagaj]

One last question on this.  I will find out whether any of the objectors are planning on speaking at the committee meeting tomorrow.  If they are not and given the planning officer is recommending the application for approval, would people still suggest we pay for the planning consultant from the architect practice to attend, or are we simply wasting money and we are better off just addressing the committee and asking for their support in approving our application?

Edited May 12 by flanagaj

[Alan Ambrose]

My vote would be yes - to avoud unforseen mishaps. Maybe just a quick-witted planning point when asked to clarify a detail or somesuch.

[flanagaj]

Thanks for all your help.  We were last in the list of applications, but our worry was short lived.  My wife read a short and personal speech regarding this being our dream for a long time.  No questions from the committee to my wife or I and none either from the committee to the planning officers.  Approved unanimously.  Really chuffed and a bit dumbfounded it's finally over.  The not knowing what the outcome is stressful.  You put your life on hold.

[Redbeard]

Congratulations! 

[Big Jimbo]

Well done. Pop that cork.

[flanagaj]

8 minutes ago, Big Jimbo said:

Well done. Pop that cork.

You were 100% correct.  Not one question.  All the previous applications each took 15-20 minutes with long drawn out speeches from the applicants.  Ours was done and dusted under 5 mins.  Even the Chairman commented how my wife’s statement was the shortest of the night.  The personable ‘self-build’ aspect to the speech and not mentioning anything to do with consultee objections was great advice!  So thanks again.

[garrymartin]

Congratulations!