I think where we're at slightly different perspectives Vanessa is that I'm not necessarily talking about situations where LPA's roll over for developers, but arguably the precise opposite, i.e. where Planning Committee members play to the public gallery.One of my biggest clients is one of the main fast food operators in the UK/world and there's no doubt they are treated differently when their applications come before a planning committee than if the applicant was say "Joe Bloggs Fish and Chips", with Joe Bloggs having been a local resident for 30 years.And quite simply that is wrong, as the identity of the applicant isn't a material planning consideration. However, as I've said many times, the days of LPA solicitors actually being quite vocal during Planning Committee meetings and reminding Members of what they can and cannot consider seem to be long gone, many times I find Officers just sit there in silence.Which always gets my back up, because when I was an Officer if I or a colleague had finalised a recommendation then I regarded it as my duty to defend that recommendation, and often as a planning consultant when I'm faced with that silence from Officers I effectively end up having to 'educate' Members, which is something that any planning consultant hates to do as it can often not be well received by Members.Richmond Council Planning Committee made a decision a couple of weeks back that whilst I'm pleased about on a personal level, as the applicant is a friend/acquaintance of mine, on a professional level I was horrified by.My friend now occupies a premises in Teddington which 4 years ago had been refused permission (and dismissed on appeal) to be converted from a shop to a restaurant. He came to me and I said there was no way of getting around that, but then the legislation changed meaning that for 2 years he could trade as a restaurant without requiring planning permission and there was nothing the Council could do about it.So he did, and at the end of the 2 years I applied on his behalf for a further temporary permission of 3 years, bearing in mind that we were no longer talking about a hypothetical use but a successful local eatery employing around 15 staff, and also the two neighbouring restaurants either had become or had been vacant for some time over the last couple of years. I was far from confident and I advised my friend accordingly, but it was worth a go.As I expected, Officers (whilst saying that they thought I'd put every argument possible forward in support of the application) were minded to refuse. I approached local Councillors asking if they might call the application, and basically I was sent packing.The application got refused under delegated powers and was dismissed on appeal by an Inspector in April on the basis that the principle of continued restaurant use was contrary to policy.At which point I told my friend (who'd been paying me mates rates) that I couldn't possibly continue to be involved because as a professional planning consultant there was nowhere for me to take this matter, and from a professional integrity point of view I couldn't possibly stand there infront of Richmond Committee and say to Members "hey, ignore the 2 Inspector decisions, one as recently as April 2017, ignore your adopted policies and let my friend continue their restaurant".But my friend put in an application for permanent (not temporary) restaurant use and, as I half jokingly suggested, generated a social media storm, resulting in a petition of over 8000 people supporting the application.Officers quite correctly recommended refusal, due to the weight of local interest the application got called into committee, and the very same Ward Councillor who I'd approached on the temporary application and who had told me that he wouldn't call that application in, suddenly does a complete 180 and speaks at committee in favour of the application (and is it just coincidence that his U-turn came after his party leader/MP also wrote in support ?).So at committee it ends up with a permanent application for restaurant use being approved unanimously, to the understandable delight of the public gallery and my friend, with the only constraint being the fact that the permission is restricted to the current occupiers.So what message does that send out ? - look, planning policies don't matter, appeal decisions (one as recently as 5 months ago and refusing a temporary continuation) don't matter, but hey, if you create enough public interest we'll play to the gallery - that's the message it sends out.As I say I'm pleased for my friend, but I genuinely find it insulting to the planning profession, and what really infuriates me is that most of the time that Committee is all about adhering to planning policies.It just leaves such a bad taste, and you know that if an objector had the financial backing to seek a judicial review of that decision then it would be quashed immediately.
Adam Beamish ● 2886d