Someti mes you wi ll come across development of whi ch you di sapprove.
Thi s may be because your nei ghbour has spoken wi th you i n advance of thei r submi tti ng an appli cati on for planni ng permi ssi on. Often i t i s because your local planni ng authori ty (LPA) has noti fi ed you as a nei ghbour potenti ally affected by i t. Appli cati ons are also posted on LPA’s websi tes (where you can usually vi ew all of the appli cati on documents), deposi ted i n the LPA’s offi ces or i n local li brari es, or publi ci sed i n local newspapers.
So what can you do about i t?
You are enti tled to object to any planni ng appli cati on, whether or not you have been noti fi ed of i t. The way to object about a planni ng appli cati on i s to wri te to the LPA’s planni ng department. Thi s can be done by post or electroni cally by e-mai l or usi ng the comments faci li ty on the websi te. Follow the i nstructi ons for doi ng so and always use the LPA’s reference or appli cati on number and make sure that you send i t to the correct address. Your objecti on should be submi tted wi thi n the requi red ti meframe and i n any event before i t i s determi ned – the earli er the better i n my experi ence.
Whi le i t i s obvi ously helpful to have a number of objectors, avoi d the temptati on of organi si ng a peti ti on or produci ng a standard template objecti on letter. Try to confi ne yourself to planni ng matters because LPAs are prevented from taki ng account of ‘i mmateri al consi derati ons’ and steer well clear of anythi ng that i s li bellous, raci st or otherwi se offensi ve. Concentrate on what wi ll adversely affect you or the nei ghbourhood e.g. resi denti al ameni ty, vi sual i mpact, effect on character, noi se and di sturbance, overlooki ng and loss of pri vacy. Speci fi c desi gnati ons and heri tage consi derati ons such as Green Belt, Conservati on Area or Li sted Bui ldi ng i ssues, Areas of Outstandi ng Natural Beauty or Si tes of Speci al Sci enti fi c Interest and Tree Preservati on Order protected trees all gi ve ri se to addi ti onal consi derati ons whi ch need to be consi dered i n the determi nati on process and whi ch can provi de ri ch grounds for objecti on. The same applies to issues associated with protected species. Concerns about hi ghway safety may also be rai sed, but these are someti mes di ffi cult to sustai n wi thout speci ali st evi dence or the endorsement of the local hi ghway authori ty whi ch may or may not also be the LPA.
The LPA wi ll consi der your objecti on when determi ni ng the appli cati on. Thi s determi nati on i s requi red to be i n accordance wi th “the Development Plan”, unless ‘materi al planni ng consi derati ons’ i ndi cate otherwi se. If you thi nk that the proposal i s i n breach of the relevant poli ci es in the Development Plan then i nclude thi s i n your objecti on.
Most appli cati ons are determi ned by the planni ng offi cer under delegated powers unless there i s ei ther a requi rement that they be determi ned by the Planni ng Commi ttee or there i s a mechani sm for referri ng i t to the Commi ttee where certai n ci rcumstances apply i .e. there are objecti ons or a Member requests i t.
If the matter does go before the Planni ng Commi ttee then you mi ght also want to wri te to all of the Members of the Commi ttee setti ng out your objecti ng di rectly. You mi ght also want to attend the Commi ttee and, i f your LPA permi ts i t, address the Commi ttee orally.
Most appl
If the matter does go before the Plann
If planni ng permi ssi on i s granted and you are unhappy about the way i n whi ch the process was conducted then you may apply to the Hi gh Court by way of an appli cati on for judi ci al revi ew for the permi ssi on to be quashed. The Hi gh Court wi ll only deal wi th the legali ty of the process and wi ll not substi tute i ts own vi ew of the meri ts of the proposal. In any event there are stri ct ti me requi rements for such appli cati ons; there i s a two stage process to undergo i n that the Court must fi rst be sati sfi ed on the papers that there i s at least an arguable case that there was an error of law whi ch would justi fy a quashi ng order bei ng made; and never forget that i t i s an expensi ve process.
If on the otherhand the appli cati on i s refused by the LPA and the appli cant exerci ses hi s/her ri ght of appeal the LPA should i nform you of this. In ci rcumstances where the appeal i s dealt wi th by full wri tten representati ons, heari ng or publi c i nqui ry you wi ll have the ri ght to make further wri tten representati ons i n addi ti on to anythi ng you may have wri tten at the appli cati on stage. You wi ll also have the ri ght to attend any heari ng or publi c i nqui ry. There i s also provi si on for a statutory challenge to the Inspector’s deci si on but thi s agai n relates only to errors of law and not the meri ts of the proposal. Stri ct ti me li mi ts apply.
The danger i n both judi ci al revi ew and statutory challenges i s that the Court has di screti on whether or not to quash the deci si on made, even i f sati sfi ed that there was a legal error i n the deci si on or i n the way i n whi ch i t was reached. If the Court feels that i n the end the same deci si on would be reached agai n, i t may very well refuse to make a quashi ng order and you are left with nothing more than a ‘pyrrhic’ victory.
If you requi re advi ce on the speci fi cs of any development proposal to whi ch you object please do not hesi tate to contact me at my day job.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.