Free Go's - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Free Go's
Nigel Hancock, modified 7 Years ago.
Free Go's
New Member Posts: 14 Join Date: 19/10/11 Recent PostsQuick couple of questions on a recent scenario.
Planning application submitted for 5 detached dwellings without entering into any pre application discsussions with the LPA.
Q1. Would you allow the application to be amended to 4 dwellings if you thought that 5 dwellings was unacceptable but 4 was ok?
Q2. If the application was refused at 5 dwellings would you allow a free go if it was resubmitted for 4 dwellings?
Thoughts welcomed
My view is this. Are you a Development Control or a Development Management service? If it is the former , then you will not accept working amendments as part of the determination of a current application, if it is the latter and it is a way of ensuring a worthwhile and deliverable scheme then why wouldnt you seek to negotiate as part of the process.?
As regards a 'free go' the wording says similar, it does not say identical. I think you would be hard pressed to say 4 is not similar to 5.
Nigel Hancock, modified 7 Years ago.
RE: Free Go's
New Member Posts: 14 Join Date: 19/10/11 Recent PostsOk so reverse the scenario, would you allow them to add a house to the scheme if we thought that a 5 dwelling scheme worked better than a 4 dwelling scheme (which would have been identified at pre app). And is this just a numbers game or a percentage game. I.e 5 to 4 is 20% so if there was a 100 dwelling scheme could that be amended to 80 (or 120 if you go the other way)?
And if a scheme for 4 dwellings was approved would you allow a free go if they then submitted and application for 5?
Actually this is a'cultural issue' and that is what i was getting at. The question as originally posed relates to imprecise advice which requires the decion maker ( the LPA ) to come to a view. That view will depend on the culture of the organisation. If the culture of the organisation is to facilitate the delivery of sustainable developement as expeditiously as it can, it will not put up additional procedural barriers to prevent that development taking place. If the culture is not to do that, then you will want to make the applicant go through as many procedural 'hoops' as you deem fit. You can make the numbers ( within the Wednesbury test of reasonableness) to fit whichever culture you operate within.
I note two references to pre- apps. In my professional opinion too many LPA's have got themselves 'hung up' on the need to go through pre-apps. Pre- apps are not binding on either party, and in that respect from an applicant's point of view are only useful ( if they have a good consulant on board) for identifying issues that are not always in the public domain. From a LPA prespective they are useful to see what may be submittted in advance and to consider what may or may not be acceptable. The fact that an applicant chooses not to go through a pre-app does not mean to say they should be treated any differently to those who do. Anyone who thinks differently should show me where it says that in any piece of policy, guidance or legislation. The only 'view' that actually matters in law is the determination of the planning ( or other ) application, ( See Reprotech V East Sussex)