Planning - Southwark's guidance (? ) v. professional bodies

[intexasatthe moment]

I'm thinking with regard to streets/transport which seems not to be something that planning officers deal with . They seem to rely on advice from internal departments and sometimes on external guidance quoted by applicants eg Institution of Civil Engineers .

Officers sometimes seem to go with such external opinion even when it differs from requirements found in Southwark's planning documents eg Sustainable Transport SPD .

Does anyone have any insight into why a published Southwark specification should carry less weight than the recommendations from a non planning agency ?

I think SPD's are probably for guidance only but if they are going to be by passed in favour of other advice wouldn't it be sensible ,in the interests of clarity ,to indicate which advice and in what circumstances carries more weight ?

[MarkT]

The Council's statement of Community Involvement (SCI) paragraph 2.6 quotes the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 38.6 with regard to the Development Plan "the determination must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise" The SCI, in its opening paragraph, states that the SCI is "a Legal (statutory) document that must be complied with by all planning processes)"

I think we can therefore expect the Officer's decision reports, in each case, to justify the comparative weight they have given to different considerations. The letters after the name of an consultant or objector should not in themselves carry any weight at all.

[intexasatthe moment]

Thanks MarkT - that's really helpful and makes sense .

[MarkT]

Texas,

Your opening question relates to streets, which, as you point out, does not currently come under planning. The Council has already taken the Decision to create a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) though it seems a long time coming:

23 October 2012 - Decision Taker: Cabinet Member for Transport, Environment, and Recycling. Report title: Adoption of Southwark Streetscape Design Manual.

The SSDM is an interim arrangement. Once it is a part of the planning system I think the weight issue will be clearer, if only because the contributions to a particular application are published.

Southwark's planning documents such as the Dulwich SPD include a diagram showing a hierarchy of published policies, National - London - Borough - local. These are all reviewed on their own time scales, and policies evolve, so a local document might be due for review, and is contradicted and outweighed by higher authority.

The Council publishes a list of statutory consultants and national and local interest groups, and on receipt of an application, the officers will notify those on the list to whom it is at first sight relevant, along with the general public notification, appropriate to the scale of the proposal. Of course, the applicant will not volunteer the potentially controversial aspects of the proposal, so, subject to the policies, it is frequently local individuals who can make the best contribution to the consultation.

[intexasatthe moment]

Mark ,I feel that I am developing an obssesion with planning and am ridiculously thrilled to read your posts which I find very helpful .

I have noticed the heirarchy diagramme that you refer to - I must take a proper look .

Regarding streets - it seems faintly odd for Southwark to consult with " Transport " as an internal consultation and when " transport " present no ojections ,and no explanation for their lack of concern at a missmatch with the SSDM then to go with the Institute of Civil Engineers . The latter body being quoted by the applicant but not ( apparently ,as not appearing as a Statutory consultee ) approached by Planning .

Mmm .

and for anyone else reading - this all sounds complicated ,and I guess it is but don't be put off as it is understandable . And planning has such an effect on us all .

[MarkT]

Thanks Texas,

Perhaps I'm a little ahead of you with regard to planning processes, but I think we are unpicking the streets issues together. If anyone else out there can help us make sense of it, please chip in.

Without studying the actual case you are describing, I recognise the scenario: An applicant presents a slick case, backed by "expert" evidence; busy case officer deciding the case; no objections from members of the public; application passed on the nod.

By the way was the applicant?s supporting evidence provided by yer actual Institution of Civil Engineers or by an individual member?

I like the ?expert? consultant. Typically going for the fast buck, they use the scatter gun strategy, dressed up as expert opinion. I always look up the laws or policies they cite and I read them. I frequently use their own references to demolish them.

Unfortunately such lack of rigor is not limited to the private sector. Look up dropped kerbs on the Council website and you will find a direct link to a Section of legislation. I suspect the officers responsible for the new double yellow line rules have not read their own legal references.

MarkT

[spider69]

What is Cllrs Barbers take and response on this "passed on the nod"

Go to Community Council Meeting and you can see this in action. Unfortunaly many local residents cannot find the time to go so the few that want something backed by Cllrs end up getting it passed.

Wrong

[intexasatthe moment]

Spider - I don't think planning applications get passed " on the nod " in Southwark . And my experience of community Council meetings has been that applications are refused ,not passed on the nod ,or any other way .

But I think developers are getting ever more skilled at spinning and presentation and that individuals who are affected by applications need to look carefully at the proposals and try to ensure that things aren't slipped past planning officers who are not familar with the site .

I also think there are some issues which are grey areas in applications and allow clever applicants to wriggle round specifications for things like access for Fire Engines .

[intexasatthe moment]

Mark - I have been looking at garage court developments and also some backland developments and the issues around vehicle access ,particularly fire engines.( Have also been looking at dropped kerb/waiting restrictions ,but that's another story .)

It seems to me that Southwark Planning need to develop/hone their guidance relating to access when considering applications .

Maybe they don't feel it's necessary as ( I think ) the access for fire engines comes under building regs ?

The Manual For Streets has guidance and says that local Fire Officers should be consulted where accesss falls below a certain standard . But planning applications where narrow access is involved don't seem to get referred to Fire Officers by planning . They are referred to the internal Southwark " Transport " but the comments back seem mainly confined to refuse and bike storage .

Perhaps it's a problem of streets/transport not being sufficiently integrated with planning ? Perhaps planning don't involve themselves because it's a building regs thing ?

Whatever it doesn't seem right to consider a piece of land for development in isolation of fire access . I would imagine that each application would need to be considered individually by fire officers which I guess makes a nonsense of me thinking Southwark needs to produce more explicit guidance . For instance,maybe sometimes access is possible in an emergency from neighbouring sites .

From the applicants point of view I think it's hard for them to know where they stand and from the neighbours point of view I think there is fear about fire in a confined plot ,particularly with timber framed and the current fashion for timber clad ( which Southwark seem to favour for garage/backland etc developmemts ) buildings .

[MarkT]

Tex,

the requirement for the individual instance will be site-specific, and the policies must be thorough enough to ensure all aspects will receive appropriate consideration. Some aspects of policy may be prescriptive; sometimes guidelines are more appropriate. For the specific application you mention, the access/exit route is both long and narrow and I would expect such to be refused. There must, however be opportunity for creative solutions, so a good policy would allow for specific expert consideration.

Planning and building regs should coordinate.

The creation or review of a policy is the opportunity for input from experts, statutory bodies, professionals, and amateurs, and the plain common sense views of regular citizens. Safe solution should be obvious, once in place.

Southwark is about to launch a 4 month public consultation - 31st October - on the "New Southwark Plan"; see the Planning Policy section on the Council website. This can be an opportunity to make sure all these matters are properly covered and integrated.

Mark

[MarkT]

Community Councils no longer consider planning applications. It is now done by Borough-wide Planning Committees. Applications of up to eg 10 dwellings are dealt with by officers, unless they are controversial - more than 5 objections, where officers are inclined to approve.

Those arrangements are specified in the Council?s current constitution. However, the Council?s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) requires most applications to be decided by Community Councils, with a threshold number of objections of only 3.

There are pros and cons with regard to both the threshold number of objections and in the predominance of local knowledge and interest in the decision making body. However, those matters were thoroughly examined in the preparation of the SCI which was subjected to full public and expert consultation and to public examination by a Government Inspector. The SCI in its opening words states that it is a statutory document that must be followed.

There appears to be a direct conflict between the SCI and the Constitution.

It is the applicant who writes the description of the proposal and the location, including the street address, as it appears on the public notification, and therefore has an opportunity for a huge degree of spin. Why would the applicant volunteer the shortcomings in the proposed development, or that it will destroy some historic artefact or wildlife habitat. That?s why we have to be alert. Once matters are brought to the attention of officers and Councillors, I am confident that they receive proper consideration with reference to the relevant policies.