Oh dear - This is looking legally very dark

discotroll

davidmcn wrote: »

You seem to be talking about action other than in relation to your current application, but it's not clear what you mean?

Sorry - one of the pieces of information supplied to the PC went beyond just a false claim regarding the nature of the land I own (and wish to build on) and actually stated that I am breaking the law in respect to a protected species. This was then forwarded to my planning officer by the PC as a 'fact' together with a request to take action against me for breaking the law...

patman99

All Councillors (even Parish Councillors) have to abide by the governance of the Standards Board for England & Wales.

davidmcn

discotroll wrote: »

Sorry - one of the pieces of information supplied to the PC went beyond just a false claim regarding the nature of the land I own (and wish to build on) and actually stated that I am breaking the law in respect to a protected species. This was then forwarded to my planning officer by the PC as a 'fact' together with a request to take action against me for breaking the law...

Ok, but planners are used to be being told things which aren't true facts (whether in representations to planning applications or otherwise), I wouldn't worry about them being daft enough to take anything at face value - and that's assuming that what they're talking about is even a planning consideration.

Doozergirl

davidmcn wrote: »

Ok, but planners are used to be being told things which aren't true facts (whether in representations to planning applications or otherwise), I wouldn't worry about them being daft enough to take anything at face value - and that's assuming that what they're talking about is even a planning consideration.

I completely agree. The comments a planning officer must read and hear have to be a near-endless endless source of dinner party conversation. I'm sure only some of those comments are true.

marksoton

I'm sorry but the whole impression i get is your claims are convoluted and conspiratorial.

Neither of which tend to go down well when an impartial party rules on a decision.

lush_walrus

Who are you referring to as the 'planning group'. There is the case officer, who is the planning officer that puts forward their recommendations for approval or not to the committee members and then there are the committee members whom are a selection of councillors who vote on a planning application at a planning committee meeting and hold the ultimate power of decision.

With regards to the planning process and the role of parish councillors within it. I assume you are referring to the parish councillor as having sent in an objection to your planning application, if so they ar entitled to do such whether they have the correct facts or not. Anyone can write an objection to anything and state as they wish. It is up to you as the applicant to ensure the case officer whom is dealing application has the facts to decide upon. If I decide to write an objection to your application for a single storey brick bungalow stating that it is a 20 storey tower and I think it shouldnt be permitted on the basis that it is very high and painted blue, the planner will be able to look at the application and see that my objections are indeed not valid. The planning officers do not form their opinion on an application on the number of valid or invalid objections, they gather these as part of the decision process. Their main focus is on whether the application can be recommended for approval based on local and national planning guidance and policies. The number and basis of objections are used by members of the committee to help reach a decision they are the political representatives of their constituents. If there are a lot of objections from a particular area the councillor for that area will obviously vote against it going ahead. They want to please those whom vote for them.

The same is true for the parish councillors, it is very normal for a parish councillor to object to an application in their parish - they may be looking after themselves or speaking on behalf or their parishioners it doesn't matter they are entitled to object and with whatever reason valid or not.

But, if they are on the planning committee for your application and therefore holding the ability to vote on your application then they legally have to declare their conflict of interest and the chair then will state they need to stand down from voting.

Is that the situation here? Or is it just an objection reason you disagree with? If so there is no wrongdoing.

You then discuss that a planning officer is taking action against you. Planning officers do not have an ability to take actions, are you intact referring to an enforcement officer? Has something been built without permission? Is that what you are referring to?

Throwing around references to the law of tort is a bit bizzare and unnecessary.

moneyistooshorttomention

On the subject of whether there is a protected species on the land concerned - is there?

Perhaps the way forward there is to offer to pay a specialist of the Council's choice to assess as to whether this is the case or no (ie in order to ensure this is an impartial specialist - and not biased towards either yourself or the Council).

Davesnave

I refer you to my post on the earlier thread:

Davesnave wrote: »

Just don't find any great crested newts or rare bats in your scrub!

csgohan4

life is too short

AdrianC

lush_walrus wrote: »

Who are you referring to as the 'planning group'. There is the case officer, who is the planning officer that puts forward their recommendations for approval or not to the committee members and then there are the committee members whom are a selection of councillors who vote on a planning application at a planning committee meeting and hold the ultimate power of decision.

The majority of planning applications don't go to committee - they're decided by the planning officer alone. Our parish council is involved in an application at the moment which we're actively pushing (with the county councillor) to get put before the committee. It's a fairly contentious retrospective application, and it's still uncertain that it'll go before the committee...