What is the point of planning consultation?

I agree. Cardiff's sense of place can be defined by a few key things. In architectural terms, the castle, the stadium and the civic centre in the city centre.. in the bay, the Millennium centre, the Norwegian church and the St Davids hotel... and in the inner residential areas, the vernacular late 19th / early 20th century housing. More generally there are geographic place-makers like the bay itself, and the hills on the edge of the city.

And as I said, devaluation of property is not deemed a planning consideration. Arguably it should be - as one of the negative externalities a development can have on its neighbours is a loss of value. If this is due to loss of amenity (as opposed to a larger supply of housing, say), efficiency and fairness would require compensation for such losses. But as it stands the law does not.

There is a legal requirement to consult on planning so that people can object. Sometimes objections will be raised that are "planning considerations" - things like amenity, pollution, traffic, obviously poor design. Other times objections will be raised that are not legitimate planning considerations. Things like affects on house prices or views.

And the number of objections is not itself a planning consideration. You can have one objection but if it raises a significant legitimate issue - for instance, significant loss of privacy and overshadowing of a single neighbour - it can lead to refusal. Or you can have 3000 people signing a petition raising general concerns about a development, but it still go ahead because the issues raised aren't that strong.

Now in this case we have a building proposed for demolition that has not been deemed worthy of listing. An unused building at that. The planning authority don't really have a legitimate reason for refusal no matter how many people sign a petition. Something would need to change - the building being listed, for instance.

In my view its good that planning works this way. Planning should be something of a technocratic exercise where developments can be refused for a number of restricted and well-defined reasons that relate to specific negative impacts on neighbouring occupiers or the wider area. It shouldn't operate as a popularity contest.

Cambo

what is your experience of planning? I sort of agree with the sentiments of your post, but to claim planning is a technocrat exercise is a little wide of the mark. Generally planners are morons and I speak from personal experience. The whole charade is a tick box exercise against plans that may be a decade or so out of date. Planners have this wonderful ability to overlook the reality of the situation and refer to the manual on each and every occasion. The general purpose of the UK planning system is without a shadow of a doubt to stifle economic growth and make it as difficult as possible for businesses to get anything done.

Oh come on Jantra - it is not the aim of planners or councils or governments to "stifle growth" and "make it as difficult as possible for businesses to get anything done". Governments are incredibly keen to boost growth - sometimes at the cost of other objectives like the environment -, and this means they are often keen to support business too, although they may object to particular business practises.

Now the issue is that governments have other objectives and incentives too. The need to raise revenue to fund public services. Other economic and social policy objectives, often related to employment (e.g. working conditions and employment protection, or diversity of staff, or wages or use of "British workers") but others too. Planning policy developed out of the realisation that inappropriate development can have costs - in terms of health or the environment. People wanted to avoid the slums and badly sited industrial concerns of the 19th century. But they also wanted to avoid the sprawl that expanded at really quite a rapid space during the 1920s and 1930s. So they looked to planning. The idea is to get a balance between multiple objectives - growth and protection of neighbouring occupiers and the wider environment.

Obviously the system is slow and frustrating. But as I said, by constraining the grounds for refusal quite narrowly, it does better than if it were based simply on whether there is a critical mass of objections.

Cambo

In the past two months we have had planning decisions as follows:-

refusal of COU from B classes (industrial) to D2 (leisure) on the grounds the warehouse was on core employment land. The building had been empty for 4 years, the landlord/agent had agreed there was no market demand in this building any longer. Rather than give consent the council referred to the LDP from 15 years ago which stated core employment land cannot be built on. This meant no job creation or investment instead the city having an empty building

granting of COU but for a period of 18 months as the landowner had previously applied for outline resi development and the council did not want to lose the proposed resi. This is despite the landlord confirming the resi would no longer proceed and that in any case development couldn't proceed until 2026 at the earliest given the leases in place on the existing site.

In both cases the LPA and the officers were unable to comprehend the reality and could only refer to their manuals.

Therefore please do not tell me LPA's strive for economic development as they do not. Its a tick box exercise and if the boxes cannot be ticked then progress cannot be made. The UK planning system stifles economic growth and does not help it and the whole process is a joke. We have seen recently that JR smart had to apply for number 3 capital quarter when every single interested stakeholder would have already been aware of the project and knew it was happening. Whose benefit is served in that particular case by having an application?

Cambo,

There's no point arguing with Jantra on this. Whilst I agree with you, and disagree with him, he'll go on and on and on.

It's boring for all to read.

*cue pissed off response

I can't resist sorry.

1) Yes, mechanistic systems can sometimes be a bit "tick-box". But mechanistic systems leave less scope for corruption or favouratism.
2) Of course it can go wrong. We've often discussed problems with things like the saturation zone, or rules around maintaining employment or shop uses when there are changes of use (to leisure or catering often).
3) Time limits can be important. You cannot grant a permission now for a development in 11 years time as the neighbouring uses or environmental standards or other things may have changed by then, making a development acceptable in principle now, unacceptable then.

Cambo

I'm aware of your discussion points you've raised and don't necessarily disagree with them. What I am asking is a less process driven approach which ends up with decisions that make no sense. There also needs to be a public interest element - e.g. do we really need a planning app for 3 capital quarter when all parties agree it should be built.

We've been on the end of some strange planning decisions. Having met with the LPAs in each case, we've been told by the case officers that they would like to help but the planning policy doesn't give them the flexibility to do so. A planning framework that doesn't allow for flexibility is a poor framework.

On one side of the table you have an LPA economic development officer supporting your case for job creation and investment whereas on the other side you have a planning officer saying the outdated LDP doesn't allow for it. Generally planning will triumph over economic development.

If you ever get involved in the planning process you will see its a farce. I admire your idealised approach to it being essential to the sustainable growth of our cities, but my experience is that planning officers don't really comprehend the decisions that they make. Some decisions border on the absurd.