| Topic: | Re:Re:David Tennant | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 15/12/15 12:46:00 |
| Whilst the national guidance encourages proactive dialogue between an LPA and applicants/agents, as LPA's often point out there is nothing in legislation that requires dialogue/negotiation between the parties when determining an application. Generally speaking if an application has been subject of pre-app advice the Council may be more conducive to dialogue during determination, or alternatively on major schemes developers often agree a planning performance agreement with an LPA (by paying a substantial sum) which sets out a timetable for the determination process to provide more certainty about timescales and in theory better dialogue). But more often than not it comes down to the individual case officer - in my experience some are very good at engaging with agents, others rigidly refuse to do so, and the latter is quite common. A JR on such grounds wouldn't get anywhere as there is nothing in legislation requiring an LPA to engage with an agent/applicant, and nor is that alone usually the basis for any kind of 'unreasonable behaviour' costs award at appeal, as only in exceptional circumstances will an Inspector awards costs against an LPA in respect of their behaviour prior to an appeal being lodged. Whilst in my own view they often don't help themselves, it has been a fact for years that planning departments are understaffed - indeed one of my current responsibilities is managing a team of staff who deal with 15% of one London LPA's planning applications because the authority concerned has such a backlog (we do the site visit, prepare the report making the recommendation whether to approve or refuse and ultimately the LPA makes the final decision). And I know of several others. |