I have a growing suspicion that a lot of borough council planning officers are corrupt to one degree or another and was wondering what checks exist on their individual probity. It is obviously a post that is very open to abuse. Since the Tories have basically decided to put every bit of green space up for sale to build houses, I can only see the opportunities for backhanders and the like will have gone up.

Just from keeping an eye on local planning applications I can see that ones involving developers who are in it as a business seem to get through planning a lot quicker than Mr Jones who wants to build a porch or Mr Smith who wants to cut down an overhanging branch. Often these applications seem to appear on page 2 or later of the list of applications, almost as though someone is trying to hide them. The bigger developments also get permission (assuming they ask) to put down traffic monitoring strips ahead of the land even being purchased (who gives that permission and what questions do they ask?)

Would a FoI request to the borough councils involved work? How do they ensure that planning applications that happen to take place over a very nice dinner don’t magically leap to the top of the pile?

Is it totally corrupt, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Quick bump…….

There is often money involved, but it’s all ‘legal’ A large developer may have to make a contribution towards the cost of local resources, like schools and roads, so the council get something back for giving permission.

And then there’s community land trusts, which make money for the councils.

As the the traditional bribes, the local government section of Private Eye would suggest it still goes on. It is often the partner/family member of someone on the council so look into who owns the development company, or who the owner is living with.

Unlikely that a FOI  will get anything useful unless you can be very specific.

First up read the planning regs ans process docs, that should explain what the process is and only then can you comment if it’s not being followed or abused.

 The bigger developments also get permission (assuming they ask) to put down traffic monitoring strips ahead of the land even being purchased (who gives that permission and what questions do they ask?)

That will be in the planning regs, you could go and get the papaerwork together to apply to build  a new estate and see how it goes.

Traffic counts on the road are a standard requirement by the highway authority of an applicant. Sometimes the HA may have up to date survey data but usually an applicant has to do their own. It’s not a conspiracy.

Oh, and officers don’t make the decision, that’s done by elected members – councillors, although officers will have some delegated powers. Large/controversial applications go to committee.

Some councillors are corrupt but it is rare in my experience.

I guess that you’ve had a planning application knocked back? Not used a professional to carry out the work for the submission? Slandering a group of overworked and under supported council workers isn’t going to help change that.

What else upsets you? You really need to stop thinking about these kinds of things too hard.

Councils are under pressure from government to allow housebuilding, often against members’ and officers’ wishes.

Housebuilders are obviously well practiced in getting applications passed smoothly.

Have you been to many meetings?

officer’s wishes dont come into it, their recommendations are based on the merits of applications and each of those compliance with published planning policies and local plans.

Members on the other hand…. make emotional decisions, often in contradiction of national policy, forcing applicants to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate/Govt dept where the refusal is often over turned. If too many decisions by members are overturned, the govt can remove the council of the right to make planning decisions.

Larger developers may well look like they “get through planning more easily” because they have worked with the LA over many weeks and months before submitting an application to avoid wasting everyone’s time with a non-compliant proposal that might likely fail. When developers dont work closely enough with the LA they do fail to succeed and rightly so. It’s got to be done in partnership.

finally, s106 is not a sweetener or a kick back phenomenon (nor is it, sadly, a planning gain mechanism) it is only permissible for use in securing affordable housing contributions (whether physical or payment in lieu) and necessary infrastructure reinforcement than CAN BE JUSTIFIED by the LA. They cant put up a wish list of gold taps. Reinforcement has to be directly proportional to the additional burdens of the proposed development, such as school places per age group (for which there are national formulae), labour force assistance (e.g. local apprenticeship schemes), disabled travel plans etc etc.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go authorise an initial £600k s106 payment for next week to an LA….

officer’s wishes dont come into it

Personal opinions might have been a better phrase WRT officers. They do have them you know.

I can see that ones involving developers who are in it as a business seem to get through planning a lot quicker than Mr Jones who wants to build a porch or Mr Smith who wants to cut down an overhanging branch

That’s probably because the developers employ a planning consultant who have most likely already liaised with the council as part of the pre-planning process, have ensured that the application complies with all the relevant policies and plans, and have probably done most of the work to answer the planning officers’ queries at the outset,

Mr and Mrs Bloggs with their extension probably bunged in a sketch on the back of an envelope (I have actually seen this) which requires a significant amount of further information before it can be approved.

dannyh wrote:

Is it totally corrupt, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Some of it is a bit dodgy, but not in the way you think. As others have pointed out, big developers will have spent hours with planners in advance of an application – though I’m not sure how you’re getting the impression they get through planning quicker, in reality the opposite is the case, even after the point where an application is submitted a large development will be months in the system before approval. Meanwhile the only reason for minor stuff being delayed is that the application hasn’t been done correctly – if all is in order then such applications should sail through, especially ones where the applicant has also taken the opportunity of advice from the planning department before submission.

The system is however now heavily biased towards those who have land and money – an application only has to succeed once and they can apply as often as they like, there is no course of appeal once permission has been granted. That along with national policy being set in a way that legitimate objections are overruled.

Members on the other hand…. make emotional decisions, often in contradiction of national policy, forcing applicants to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate/Govt dept where the refusal is often over turned.

Alternatively you could describe it as them making decisions which reflect the genuine concerns of the people affected by developments and with regard to the reality that developers routinely ignore planning conditions, an issue which planning inspectors dismiss. Genuinely frivolous refusal would result in costs being awarded at appeal which is far from a common occurrence (at least around here) – certainly the case I was most closely involved with the decision was made on balance of harm/benefit and I still believe (which the reality tends to support) that too much weight was given to some supposed proposed benefits whilst a lot of the harm was ruled to not be a valid reason for refusal (and the reality was significant harm which the inspector assured would be prevented by conditions). Meanwhile I can off the top of my head think of a couple of applications where “emotional decisions” were supported by the inspector. Nor do S106 contributions necessarily reflect the genuine burden of development.

Sure, some objections are frivolous and those are sometimes supported by councillors, I’m sure there are also plenty of people involved in the process who do try to do things the right way 🙂

s106 arent there to mop up all “burdens” of development. They have limited scope for providing reinforcement funds.

ideally the system would be more holistic with a planning gain mechanism that feeds into a “local needs” pot first. But it’s just not how the UK has ever done it.

“frivolous” is probably the wrong term to use about members decision making against policy. Costs are rarely awarded at appeal because the threshold of bad decision making is set so very high (has to be almost criminal levels of cantankerism!).

there is no course of appeal once permission has been granted

and rightly so. Once rights are granted, for them to be taken away again would be highly disruptive to business. Let alone imagine if you could lose development rights for a conservatory or dormer window once granted?

Often these applications seem to appear on page 2 or later of the list of applications, almost as though someone is trying to hide them

Most likely is that planning applications are classified according to whether they are major residential, minor, householder etc. and this is held as a numerical code within the system. When they are pulled out to create the weekly list it orders them according to this code. If major residential as a code of 01 they would always appear first with householder applications coming later.

OP – Are you looking at buying land or just wanting  to do an extension etc?

We are considering going self build and looking for land, at which point hopefully this would help

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/right-to-build-supporting-custom-and-self-build

Of the very limited reading I have done so far though, its down to building relationships with local developers / builders.

Its all about working relationships too.  Council planning office will be over stretched, and like anywhere in life they will build working relationships with people (favouritism for want of a better word)

OP your local rugby club is a good place to start when working out local connections. (Rowing, cricket and golf may also be worth a gander).

I had an application for 26 houses refused by the committee despite the planning officers recommendation to approve.  We resubmitted and the same thing happened!  We then appealed, the inspector refused it and his decision was overturned by Javid.  No backhanders involved, just two years of work, reports, surveys, drawings and death threats from the locals….

In the last twelve months I’ve submitted thirty applications and only had two refused.  90% take the eight weeks they specify but a very few have taken longer, six months in one case.

As an ex council planning officer myself, the notion that planning officers are corrupt or ‘on the take’ is completely laughable. The workings of a local authority planning office means that unless you were to bribe the whole department, along with the local councillors, it would have sod all impact.

The page 2 issue is meaningless as well. Every application gets eyes all over it. I know as I run an alerting service specifically for this purpose.

Although there is no right of appeal after planning permission has been granted, you could seek a judicial review if you believe there has been a material impropriety in the planning process  ( i.e. rules not followed properly).  However, this takes a stack of cash and evidence to stand a chance of success, so really only an option for the wealthy and well-connected.

Hmmm

The deputy leader of Westminster council has stepped aside after the Guardian revealed he had received hospitality or gifts 893 times over six years, frequently from property developers seeking planning permission. 

Head of the planning commitee for 17 years, Davis was entertained by and received gifts from property industry figures at least 150 times since the start of 2015 – a rate of almost once a week.

Over six years he was entertained 30 times at the expense of the Westminster Property Association, whose members include many of the most powerful property developers operating in central London. Other freebies included an expenses-paid trip to the south of France and dinners at the Grosvenor House and Goring hotels in London. One property developer who has met Davis on projects on several occasions told the Guardian he was “known as God in the Westminster development world”.

He received tickets to Wimbledon finals day and the sold-out musical Hamilton, and lunches at Chiltern Firehouse and the Ritz. He accepted a two-night stay at a London hotel over New Year’s Eve 2012 and later a night at the luxury Corinthia hotel by Whitehall, less than four miles from his home in Maida Vale.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/08/westminster-deputy-leader-stands-down-amid-investigation-over-gifts

Checks and balances?

Planning officers are members of the royal town planning institute. It requires post graduate degree and experience in practice before you are eligible to join. The role and duty of the RTPI is set out in an act of Parliament.  Planning officers are bound by a code of conduct. You can report planning officers to the institute, if proven they will be struck off.  The list is public. The number of bad eggs is very small.  No one goes into being a planning officer motivated by money. They all want to make the world a better place for people like you OP.  Foolishly.

Councils have planning policies which they are supposed to follow but there is massive scope for corruption.  In Lambeth a huge volume of flat conversion and development over the last nearly 40 years has been done by one company, Lexadon.  There were definitely rumours of links /family members to planning.  He’s purchased a disproportionate number of properties from the council.

maybe he just knows the area better than anyone else, maybe he’s prepared to pay over the odds on occasion.  Maybe other people are discouraged from bidding or buying in some way.  I’ve just finished reading the excellent McMafia (it’s little to do with the tv series – really good – read it) and it’s been a real eye opener on organised crime.  There were certainly various extortion rackets in Brixton – maybe mr Knight had the connections to ensure his developments happened without incident.

Who really knows?

https://www.egi.co.uk/news/lexadon-property-buys-clapham-old-town-site-for-22m-from-lambeth-council/

http://www.brixtonblog.com/brixton-property-developer-gerry-knight-and-his-company-lexadon-fined-175000-under-proceeds-of-crime-act-for-renting-flats-without-proper-planning-permission/25026

he has just been knocked back on a development twice (trying to make it too big) so he doesn’t aways get his way but it has often looked like he has some edge on anyone else in the area

Property developer Jerry Knight looks set to add to his growing Brixton empire with Lambeth Council recommending approval for Acre Lane redevelopment

Planning officers are members of the royal town planning institute. It requires post graduate degree and experience in practice before you are eligible to join. The role and duty of the RTPI is set out in an act of Parliament.  Planning officers are bound by a code of conduct. You can report planning officers to the institute, if proven they will be struck off.  The list is public. The number of bad eggs is very small.  No one goes into being a planning officer motivated by money. They all want to make the world a better place for people like you OP.  Foolishly.

……..and as such, any bribe would also be required to be so large that the recipient didn’t need to work again; perhaps not that likely to secure a positive outcome for Mrs Goggins’ conservatory application or whatever it was that got the OP riled.

With many many years both as LPA Planning Officer and private developer behind me, I can honestly say it isn’t a problem; with one offer of a bottle of scotch and a free car wash all that spring to mind…………but Councillors and estate agents, that another story!

A totally biased view from me. I work in building. I got onto my Parish Council a few years ago.

A more corrupt bunch you could not meet outside of a fraudsters convention. Not corrupt in taking money, but corrupt in the sense that they were<span class=”st” data-hveid=”221″ data-ved=”0ahUKEwjBlbfPhLXaAhWoL8AKHTaSAdQQ4EUI3QEwBA”> willing to use their position to their own advantage/thinking. They would decide against any planning application for new houses, as, usually, ‘there are too many homes there already’,  When pointed out that the houses they lived in were built on green belt land in the 60’s/70’s, their repsonse was that times were different then. They did not want building there, as it would ultimately devalue their houses, as they would then be further from the countryside.The majority of Parish Councillors are no longer voted in, as there are so few people want to do it, that anyone who applies for a position is given it.</span>

I have got a lot of stories about our local Parish Council, it’d take 5 pages here to write them out. To say I was disgusted by their behaviour is an understatement.

Luckily, Parish Councils views are only taken into account by the Borough Council, and in real life, they are ignored. Which brings us to the Borough Council Planning Committee who are both corrupt and incompetent. These are people who have been voted in by the local people. The vast majority have no idea what is involved in planning/building, yet they are making decisions on what you can build in your back garden. Luckily, if they decline your application, you can then appeal the decision. If your application is reasonable, then it will then pass the appeal, and you can build. If they decline again,, you then tell them you’ll be making a Hign Court application to have their decision overturned. If your proposal is reasonable, you will win this easily. But it wont get that far, as the Council has to pay all of your costs if they lose. So, once threatened with that, they then pass your application, with apologies for messing you around.

Large building companies do this if they think they can build on land that is not in the local councils development plan. Unless the land is very valuable to the local community, the decision to allow the building will be allowed. Councils cannot afford to contest against applications that may be allowed by a Court.

So, local Councils – corruption involving money/personal benefits – probably not. Incompetence and lack of nous regarding building companies, then most probably.

ideally the system would be more holistic with a planning gain mechanism that feeds into a “local needs” pot first. But it’s just not how the UK has ever done it

That’s broadly what the Community Infrastructure Levy is designed to do.

The back handers are certainly not working in my town at the moment……

Fair enough, so it looks like (a few isolated major fraud cases apart), it would take at least several people in a planning office to be in cahoots before anything untoward could happen.

FWIW, I am not intending to, nor have ever submitted a planning application for myself or anyone else! When we chose the last three houses we have lived in, we selected them for their homeliness and liveability as they were. Not in order to erect some kind of monstrous ‘dormer window’ that is in reality an extra floor, do it on the cheap, then flog the house to someone with more money than sense – for example. Then move onto another street with another set of neighbors and do something similar – for example.

It is the loss of green space that will never be recoverable in what seems to me to be a builders’ free for all that concerns me.

Fair enough, so it looks like (a few isolated major fraud cases apart)

Note that the major fraud cases mentioned up thread all involve elected officials and not planning officers.

Quote- “It is the loss of green space that will never be recoverable in what seems to me to be a builders’ free for all that concerns me.”

Thats because of a number of reasons.

Population growth – towns/villages need to grow to get more people housed.Brownfield, if available, cannot cope with the numbers needed.

Greenfield sites are, generally, cheaper to build on than brownfield sites. There are around 30 acres off Fosse Road, leicester that has been empty for years after factories were demolished, no builder has come forward to build on it as the land still has a price that is more than a similar greenfield site would be.

Greenfield sites are far easier to work on, and much, much easier to sell. The benefit of greenfield for the builders is larger sites, allowing more houses on one site, access at any time, plan what they want in that field rather than being stuck in the footprint of an old factory, easier deliveries, easy parking for staff, brand new water/electric/gas services that do not need the old roads dug up disrupting the neighbourhood for weeks. Security. Easy to secure, so safe to leave materials out, and finished houses are unlikely to be broken into.

Loads more reasons. Brownfield is difficult to work with. Fine for student flats, difficult for family houses, so greenfield wins every time for builders, and the consumers who buy new build houses before they are built. We’ve been building for 300 years now, it isnt going to stop, as our population is growing. Stop the breeding, and you’ll stop much housing development.

So, basically, let’s just pave the whole **** place over and have done with it, then?

Apart from the speculators, of course, who can afford to buy their own bit of green space and spend millions keeping everyone else out.

Derelict, unoccupied and brownfield are the obvious choice to a neutral. At least you’re not swallowing up green space, but because the developers won’t touch it with a barge pole (as it won’t make the same return), then we continue to rip up countryside whilst leaving gaping patches of wasteland in towns and cities. Brilliant far-sighted stuff again, then.

The trouble is, many/most people do not want to buy brownfield sites. Young people will, as they like life in town centres, they are the only ones who like such developments – why is Leicester so full of student flats built on old factory sites? – because they couldnt be sold as housing for people.

If you made people live in high rise city centre housing, then brownfields would be great, but they arent, as traffic, parking, noise are all factors for people buying houses to settle in. Few people work near to where they live, and public transport is totally useless before 7am and after 9pm (and useless full stop for many people), so city centre living without  a personal vehicle is very hard for most people, and high rise city centre developments just do not have the room for parking.

It’s the population. There are too many of us to stay static. Ask anyone in 1850 about houses being built in the fields half a mile from the town centre, they would complain, it’s been going on for 100’s of years, and isnt going to stop.

it’s been going on for 100’s of years, and isnt going to stop.

Better pack the bags and get on a plane for somewhere else, then.

Except I can’t.

The head of my County Council (Suffolk)also owns a planning application consultancy.

The whole thing is more crooked than Crooked McCrook of Crookedland.

Planning is just a money making wheeze with agents and officers going thought the motions before doing whatever the money wants.

#bunchofcunexttuesadays

The housing market is fixed too, supply and demand, limit the supply drive up prices, £100m bonus for persimon boss whilst homelessness increases.

#morecunexttuesdays

alanl wrote:

If your application is reasonable, then it will then pass the appeal, and you can build. If they decline again,, you then tell them you’ll be making a Hign Court application to have their decision overturned. If your proposal is reasonable, you will win this easily. But it wont get that far, as the Council has to pay all of your costs if they lose. So, once threatened with that, they then pass your application, with apologies for messing you around.

Large building companies do this if they think they can build on land that is not in the local councils development plan. Unless the land is very valuable to the local community, the decision to allow the building will be allowed. Councils cannot afford to contest against applications that may be allowed by a Court.

You make it sound like you know what you’re talking about until that point. I’ve discussed high court appeals with a planning barrister and it doesn’t work at all the way you suggest. Nor given the current planning policy will planning permission be given for a development which isn’t allocated for development in the local plan, provided the council has a 5 year housing land supply (if they don’t have a 5YHLS then the rules change and the chances are such a development will be approved if it meets all other criteria).

Edinburgh a nice mix of incompetent and corrupt

Given TJ’s experience there’s no doubt at all that corruption exists at local council level

Is it widespread and routine? I doubt it, rather my experience on two areas (rights of way diversions under planning law and protection/enforcement of Common land) there’s a huge amount of incompetence and/or lack of experience outside of anything “bog standard” that leads to planning officers essentially making it up as they go along in an attempt to Karyn to do what they think is right’ rather than stopping and asking for advice from their legal team or other departments – in addition to this theres an element of seeking to avoid conflict, which leads to them shying away from enforcement.

The outcome of this is that it causes real institutional failings, I’ve recently dealt with a case where the district council planning dept. tried to authorise a right of way diversion on the quiet through the local planning process because they knew that they knew that the county council rights of way dept. wouldn’t authorise it.

If you are looking for corruption look for house extensions, it is the easiest way for a developer to “reward”

Planning Officers will lie, a recent local application had a document mistakenly scanned in full and mislabeled. I emailed to point it out, they came back with no it doesn’t, and lo and behold the link had changed. Strange seeing as I was able to show the neighbour that their name address and signature had been published

As them why a decision date has changed, I get no it hasn’t. Send a screen shot in and quote the letter they sent me and get some waffle.

All minor but reflective of an organisation where phone calls are made instead of emails and meetinge now go unminuted

Planning is a difficult issue many times someone will be unhappy. Treating the public as mugs does give confidence in the process

I’ve been a member of planning committees on and off for over fifteen years, never been offered any bribe or ‘reward” by a developer or applicant. Not aware that any other member or officer have been offered anything either.