Misinformation in Planning Application

FreeBear

Assuming (no offence but others may have alternatives to your descriptions) what has been stated is correct then this is fraud.

I'd be very careful bandying around words like fraud.
Whilst guidance recommends X number of parking spaces, it is just that, a recommendation. If there are mitigations in place, it may be possible to get away with fewer. But the planning dept could see through the claimed mitigations and insist on a minimum parking requirement.

magicmoneyportaloo

What does your parish / town council think?

daveyjp

Nice long list, but strip it down and it is thin gruel. Getting a refusal isn't easy as a council has to be certain they are on solid ground as if not they often have to pick up the costs of any successful appeal by the applicant.

From that long list 11 relate to highways/parking matters. Effect on exisiting businesses generally isn't a valid concern - we live in a commercial world.

Anything techical as regards noise or operational requirements (which may be guidance and not a requirement) will need a professional report to dispute the applicants planning reports.

Herzlos

So what's your actual objection? As far as I can tell this seems to boil down to parking.
Taking the first 3 points at face value:
—
"Old prefab preschool had capacity for 30 - new build 42.

• Applicant compares our village population of 750 to suburban area of up to 100,000.

• Applicant states they will employ 5 staff - legally a minimum of 9 are needed."

• —
  
  Rebuilding from 30 spaces to 42 seems perfectly reasonable.
  
  What's the comparison got to do with anything? I'd assume the nursery would be for anyone and not just residents. They've obviously felt there's a business case for it.
  
  Why do you think they need 9 staff for 42 kids?
  
  The legal requirements in England are:
  1:3 for under 2s
  1:5 for two-year-olds
  1:8 or 1:13 for aged 3+.
  
  So the staff requirements could be anything from 4 to 14 depending on the ages of the kids. They've said 5 which makes me assume they are aiming at ages 3+.
  
  
  To be honest this has the usual NIMBY approach of throwing anything you can imagine at it and hoping something sticks, even though you know it's all tenuous. I genuinely feel for the planning officers who have to sift through this crap on a daily basis.

TroubledTarts

I would not waste too much time and effort objecting to this.

I put this in the category of people that move near a local pub and then moan about noise, moving near to a school you have to expect changes over time and expansion.

BobStokes10

There seems a lot of different concerns mixed together here. It often helps to break things down into the parts that the planning authority can consider, and then follow the right route for each one.

1. Highways, parking and traffic These are assessed by the Highways Authority, not the planning case officer. If you believe the applicant’s parking numbers or traffic assumptions are incorrect, you can write directly to the planning case officer and ask them to confirm what evidence Highways relied on, confirm whether the applicant’s figures were independently checked, confirm whether the SEND school impact was factored in

2. Noise and amenity If no acoustic assessment has been done for 42 children, you can request that the planning officer asks the applicant for one. This is a normal part of the process.

3. Accuracy of the submitted information If population data, bus frequency, staffing ratios or parking guidance have been misquoted or altered, you can submit a representation asking the planning officer to verify those figures. Planning officers must base decisions on accurate information, so this is a valid point to raise.

4. Safety, access and infrastructure Narrow roads, lack of pavements, lighting and accident history can all be raised as material considerations. These should be directed to the planning case officer with a request that Highways reassess the safety impact.

5. What planning cannot consider Things like the viability of the existing preschool or competition between providers are not planning grounds, so it’s best to leave those out of any formal objection.

Who to contact

The planning case officer — for accuracy of information, noise, amenity, and overall impact.

The Highways Authority (via the case officer) — for parking, traffic and safety concerns.

Your local councillor — they can request the application be called to committee if needed

How to structure your objection Keep it short and grouped under headings such as:

Highways and parking

Noise and amenity

Accuracy of submitted information

Safety and access

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81994929#Comment_81994929

1. Highways, parking and traffic These are assessed by the Highways Authority, not the planning case officer. If you believe the applicant’s parking numbers or traffic assumptions are incorrect, you can write directly to the planning case officer and ask them to confirm what evidence Highways relied on, confirm whether the applicant’s figures were independently checked, confirm whether the SEND school impact was factored in

The Highway Authority is a statutory consultee for a planning application and will assess the information supplied by the applicant, along with its own information, to form an opinion on whether to comment on the application and/or make a recommendation for refusal.

The planning case officer assesses the responses from the consultees, including the Highway Authority, and decides whether there are grounds to refuse the application, or to approve it with conditions. They may make their own assessment of highway/parking/traffic issues. They do not have to accept a recommendation for refusal if there are compelling grounds for approval. It is always the Planning Authority that makes the final decision (subject to no appeal).