How to object to planning permission?

Brand_X

I know this a little off-topic but I don't know where else to put this question; planning permission was granted for 2 houses on a piece of land opposite where I live, which nobody gave much thought to at the time because the site is on the other side of the fields, but then in came massive amounts of plant equipment and the site began spreading.

I looked up the site on the council's website and there was an "application to vary condition 2, schedule A" which I never saw posted anywhere; the original plan was zip-tied to a lamp post but I never saw the amendment.

To put this in perspective, the original document is 2.41 megabytes, while the "extra" document is 165 kilobytes - a mere footnote. It changes the permission to build 2 houses to 120 houses. It's blatant dirty tricks and whoever approved the new plan must have taken a backhander from the developer.

http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/planning_online/%28S%28t0tnvnfkt1zgvgthyhrs2ksc%29%29/Details.aspx

One hundred and twenty.. Jesus H... There's going to be nothing left of the green space, the original proposed site has spread like a cancer and it's creeping out over the fields; last time I looked there were four JCB diggers and two cranes out there.

princeofpounds

Not seen that before... But if the amended plans have been approved there is probably little you can do regarding objecting. That is supposed to happen before the plans are assessed.

There is a possibility of judicial review in the weeks after being granted, but that requires expensive lawyers and a serious court fight where you could end up paying costs. I.e. Not an option, especially as legally this may be above board.

I think the best thing you could do is an official complaint, perhaps escalate to the local govt ombudsman. Also contact your councillor to complain, possibly MP. And the press might be interested in a 'trick' like this; especially the Mail or Private Eye.

But ultimately suspect nothing legally wrong has been done here at all. The information was always there in public. And the site may have been given permission anyway. Your house was someone's 'cancer' before too.

Ps your link doesn't work, at least for me.

societys_child

Erm. .. not a good idea to name someone personally and accuse them of stealing. Can see this thread getting deleted . . .

AdrianC

Your link just takes you to a generic search page. Quote the application reference.

I find it, frankly, unbelievable that permission for two houses can be changed to permission for a hundred and twenty so simply. Are you SURE you've got that right?

AdrianC

societys_child wrote: »

Erm. .. not a good idea to name someone personally and accuse them of stealing. Can see this thread getting deleted . . .

That post, at least. OP - if you want help, delete that post now.

I've already reported it to the mods.

davidmcn

No, the link doesn't work, but by Googling I presume you're talking about application 08/14/00044? That was granted on 5 December 2014, so you're certainly too late to do anything about it now.

However, I think you've misunderstood what it was. It's a relatively minor variation of application no. 08/12/00143, which was agreed in principle by a committee meeting on 15 January 2013. That includes the permission for 120 houses. I'm not sure what the permission for 2 houses you're referring to is?

There were other people objecting to both applications, so they haven't exactly got it in under the radar.

robatwork

OP you should edit out those names as you have no proof of them being con men and your interesting thread will just get deleted.

In the meantime contact your (maybe new) MP as they will be flushed from election victory fever and raring to help for a few weeks.

AdrianC

davidmcn wrote: »

However, I think you've misunderstood what it was. It's a relatively minor variation of application no. 08/12/00143, which was agreed in principle by a committee meeting on 15 January 2013. That includes the permission for 120 houses.

Indeed, the title of the application, as received in August 2012, is...
"Erection of 120 dwellings, garages, formation of access and landscaping."

Original application :-
http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/planning_online/(S(q3txky5bskqjoii5ayuzon43))/Details.aspx?App=08/12/00143

Minor updates :-
http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/planning_online/(S(q3txky5bskqjoii5ayuzon43))/Details.aspx?App=08/14/00044

rosie383

That's very clear AdrianC. Looks as if the consultation period was pretty clear and the amendments are very minor indeed.

PasturesNew

Apart from the fact it's too late, you can't object just on a number, or that you consider it to mean loss of green space .... you have to object to it against written documents such as the Local Plan etc. It's a whole series of documents about what is acceptable/what's wanted and needed. The county council will have written one and the council and any other body/council and probably the water board .... and loads of official bodies.

e.g. if the water company said "We'd not want that built on, it's a flood plain" then that'd be a valid objection as it's been documented as "not what we want" so you can point to it and say "goes against that".

So you'd have to compare everything for the new builds about every huge document that all the "powers that be" have decided is the right/wrong thing to do.

But, to be frank, you missed the boat.

AdrianC

On a side issue, was anybody else briefly baffled by the fact that Sedgemoor is in the SW, whilst Sedgefield (Tony Blair's old seat) is in the NE?