In my view, many local planning authorities are poor when it comes to the wording of conditions imposed upon the granting of planning permission. Sometimes this is because Officers don't really think through the wording and fail to heed the advice/six point test given in the relevant Government Circular (11/95) and sometimes it can be because Members overrule their Officers (both Planning and Legal) and impose absurd conditions that won't stand up.Thanks for the link to that article, I just read it. I think it is rather OTT if I'm honest, and the comment from the Leader of North Norfolk District Council is, in my view, laughable - if there are sound planning grounds for refusing an application from any applicant, be it a multi-national company or Joe Bloggs, then the application should be refused on those grounds, without worrying about the potential of that applicant being awarded costs on appeal. Costs are only awarded upon appeal if the Council behaves unreasonably in terms of either its conduct during the appeal proceedings or for refusing an application on grounds that simply can't be defended.The flip side of the coin which the article doesn't touch upon is that applicants often spend thousands of pounds getting a team of experts together to prepare and submit a planning application, all of the professional Officers support the proposal, and then it gets reported to Committee recommended for approval and you have Elected Members, the majority of which have no planning expertise and only limited knowledge/training, making the final decision, often completely disregarding the advice of professional officers and refusing the proposal, essentially because it keeps their local constitutents happy. I've often heard such Members then say in committee "well let them appeal if they want to" but the reality is that some applicants are working on tight timescales and because a public inquiry is typically being determined in over 30 weeks rather than go through an appeal they will instead spend more money trying to tweak the scheme to keep those Councillors happy and hopefully get a decision at least a couple of months sooner. So there is a flip side too.Not, I should stress, that I'm necessarily criticising Elected Members, I don't envy the balancing act they have to perform being making rational/reasonable decisions and trying to represent their local constituents, but having been sat on both sides of the fence I can't begin to explain how frustrating it can be when either Councillors vote not to take enforcement action on something you've worked hard on for months, or when Councillors refuse to grant planning permission for a proposal that has the full support of professional Officers and you know that decision could mean the client gives up and therefore you lose business as a consequence.
Adam Beamish ● 5841d