Amex hotel proposal will be decided at BHCC Planning Committee 17th February

[Triggaaar]

Just playing devils advocate here...

Re "as long as the application complies with planning law and published planning policy"

And anyone reading the planning officer's report will see that they don't think it does and why. Seemingly not taking on board Councillors' pre-application comments/requests/suggestions on the design and then, more or less, showing two fingers to a couple of fairly standard S106 commitments didn't really leave the officer(s) with any choice.

Does not taking on board the Councillors' comments etc have anything to do with planning law and policy?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Another stupid post criticising the greens for no reason. The plan to stretch Churchill square to the seafront and tear down the centre and set up an arena/facility at black rock has been around for over 10 years!

Another stupid post denying the reality of what the Greens did after forming a council administration, albeit minority, in 2011. The work on the new plan was not started until 2012 and the Policy and Resources Committee did not meet until 2014 to consider the new proposals. Whilst there may have been all party support and there was a undoubtedly a previous plan, this one was clearly pushed forward whilst the Greens held a majority and, in my opinion, any plan to create a Brighton Centre type arena at Black Rock will only create more traffic gridlock like every other plan introduced during that awful period of local government for the City.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Another stupid post denying the reality of what the Greens did after forming a council administration, albeit minority, in 2011. The work on the new plan was not started until 2012 and the Policy and Resources Committee did not meet until 2014 to consider the new proposals. Whilst there may have been all party support and there was a undoubtedly a previous plan, this one was clearly pushed forward whilst the Greens held a majority and, in my opinion, any plan to create a Brighton Centre type arena at Black Rock will only create more traffic gridlock like every other plan introduced during that awful period of local government for the City.

Our formally adopted Local Plan (2005) is still relevant because not all the replacement Local Development Frameworks have been adopted yet, so we have various documents covering the city. The Local Development Frameworks were introduced by the Labour government in 2004, and local authorities have been developing them ever since to replace their local plans. There is a list of the studies that form the LDF framework documents here. These go back to 2005 when the LDF was started - just after the Local Plan was fully adopted.

Got to say, you really are barking up the wrong tree blaming the greens for this one.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Another stupid post denying the reality of what the Greens did after forming a council administration, albeit minority, in 2011. The work on the new plan was not started until 2012 and the Policy and Resources Committee did not meet until 2014 to consider the new proposals. Whilst there may have been all party support and there was a undoubtedly a previous plan, this one was clearly pushed forward whilst the Greens held a majority and, in my opinion, any plan to create a Brighton Centre type arena at Black Rock will only create more traffic gridlock like every other plan introduced during that awful period of local government for the City.

You clearly have an objection to a development at Black Rock, and there indeed traffic considerations that would have to be factored into any shcme that eventually gained approval on that site. Fair comment, and I agree. To use that objection to make a political point about the Greens, who were in no postion to push anything through without cross-party support.

This development has been under consideration since the mid 2000's and was quite fairly well advanced prior to the credit crunch, long before the Greens were anywhere near power in the city. Planners and politicians have been exploring this option for a long time indeed and to claim it is a product of a fevered green imagination is nonsense.

 

[The Albion Roar]

Certainly has. I did some work for the Brighton Centre about seven years ago and the management there were fully aware that there were plans afoot to scrap the Centre.

At the time, there was still the possibility of knocking the Centre down and rebuilding it in its present spot but there also discussions about moving it elsewhere. And this was all some time before the Greens had any sort of control of the council

Same, except I was doing some work for them in 2001 (we did their 'What's On' guide), and there was plenty of talk of it then, although the manager I dealt with would get defensive and cross with anyone who suggested anyone was going to do anything with the Brighton Centre.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Just playing devils advocate here...

Re "as long as the application complies with planning law and published planning policy"Does not taking on board the Councillors' comments etc have anything to do with planning law and policy?

Not necessarily but in this case very much yes.

 

[Triggaaar]

Not necessarily but in this case very much yes.

How is not taking on board Councillors' pre-application comments/requests/suggestions on the design failing to comply with planning law / published policy?

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Many developers in the town dealing with Brighton's planning dept. programme in an appeal from the outset of a project. BHA may well have foreseen this, and to get what they need, they've already assumed a refusal and have planned for an appeal to the planning inspectorate. Brighton's planning dept. has a completely no risk approach to granting permission, if there is the slightest controversy they refuse and basically leave it out of their hands to an appeal inspector. I don't have figures to hand, but they lose a large number of appeals compared to national averages - it must cost the tax payer a small fortune.

The facts don't back this up. See table P154 on this page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-planning-application-statistics

Of the 3774 applications determined by BHCC, 146 were allowed on appeal, which is about 4%.

Only a small proportion of decisions are appealed, often they involve balanced judgement, i.e. close to a 50/50, and the Council have taken the decision to refuse. Of the 357 appeals lodged, 146 were allowed, which is 40%. This is pretty much bang on national average, the Government considers any figure of 40% or less to demonstrate a good quality of decision making. Bear in mind most of these cases will be balanced decisions, close to 50/50. People don't in general tend to go to the time and expense of appealing schemes which are non-starters.

In regard to the costs of an appeal, the appellant almost always pays their own costs. The Inspector can award costs to the appellant if the Council has behaved unreasonably, this only happens a couple of times a year, which again demonstrates that the Council is in general behaving in a reasonable and appropriate fashion.

So, a more accurate assessment would be that BHCC follow a similar approach to most authorities and that Planning Inspectors (who at the end of the day are just individuals giving a second opinion) agree with the decision of the council more often than not. Apologies for bringing facts into this, I know it tends to kill what is an otherwise quite entertaining discussion

 

[Bold Seagull]

The facts don't back this up. See table P154 on this page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-planning-application-statistics

Of the 3774 applications determined by BHCC, 146 were allowed on appeal, which is about 4%.

Only a small proportion of decisions are appealed, often they involve balanced judgement, i.e. close to a 50/50, and the Council have taken the decision to refuse. Of the 357 appeals lodged, 146 were allowed, which is 40%. This is pretty much bang on national average, the Government considers any figure of 40% or less to demonstrate a good quality of decision making. Bear in mind most of these cases will be balanced decisions, close to 50/50. People don't in general tend to go to the time and expense of appealing schemes which are non-starters.

In regard to the costs of an appeal, the appellant almost always pays their own costs. The Inspector can award costs to the appellant if the Council has behaved unreasonably, this only happens a couple of times a year, which again demonstrates that the Council is in general behaving in a reasonable and appropriate fashion.

So, a more accurate assessment would be that BHCC follow a similar approach to most authorities and that Planning Inspectors (who at the end of the day are just individuals giving a second opinion) agree with the decision of the council more often than not. Apologies for bringing facts into this, I know it tends to kill what is an otherwise quite entertaining discussion

You have to be aware that the vast majority of planning applications for these statistics are householder applications for nothing more than a raised patio, porch, small extension etc. so typically don't normally go to appeal. My point as I stated was from developers whose applications only make up a small portion of those received in total, and my point was also on how many appeals that are made against BH are successful, not the total number of cases that go to appeal.

Clearly you're an employee, and as an agent in the town, we've had this nonsense thrown back every since the Planning Forums were started back in 2006, but stopped being a 'forum' when it was clear the department had no intention of listening, only spouting statistics that suited them...q.e.d.


edit: just checked your link, noting it is for 'minor and other development decisisons'.....BHCC has the 3rd highest number of cases overturned at appeal - only Bromley and Hillingdon had more cases overturned on appeal in the rest of the country, 3rd worst out of 336 other local authorities!!! Brilliant, you've really made my day!

BHCC had 357 appeals made against them, 146 were successful - 41% just for minor decisions...

Would be interesting to see the statistics for anything not considered minor.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

You have to be aware that the vast majority of planning applications for these statistics are householder applications for nothing more than a raised patio, porch, small extension etc. so typically don't normally go to appeal. My point as I stated was from developers whose applications only make up a small portion of those received in total, and my point was also on how many appeals that are made against BH are successful, not the total number of cases that go to appeal.

Clearly you're an employee, and as an agent in the town, we've had this nonsense thrown back every since the Planning Forums were started back in 2006, but stopped being a 'forum' when it was clear the department had no intention of listening, only spouting statistics that suited them...q.e.d.


edit: just checked your link, noting it is for 'minor and other development decisisons'.....BHCC has the 3rd highest number of cases overturned at appeal - only Bromley and Hillingdon had more cases overturned on appeal in the rest of the country, 3rd worst out of 336 other local authorities!!! Brilliant, you've really made my day!

BHCC had 357 appeals made against them, 146 were successful - 41% it's not national average by a long chalk.

What is the national average?

 

[Bold Seagull]

What is the national average?

No idea, just running down your statistics I could see who the worst performers are, and then there are also those that skew the statistics because they have just 30 appeals against them and 10 are won. Seriously, did you look at the list before you posted it and acted all clever and condescending?

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Hope this helps:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/planning-inspectorate-statistics

National average for 2015 was 33%. Not sure I can swallow 7% above national average as 'a long chalk'. The percentage allowed is more relevant than the amount allowed. If a council who determined 10,000 applications had 500 appeals allowed, that is less of a concern than if a council who determined 1000 applications had 400 appeals allowed.

Again, sorry to have to bring facts into it, also I appreciate you are entitled to your own opinion even if it the facts suggest otherwise.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Hope this helps:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/planning-inspectorate-statistics

National average for 2015 was 33%. Not sure I can swallow 7% above national average as 'a long chalk'. The percentage allowed is more relevant than the amount allowed. If a council who determined 10,000 applications had 500 appeals allowed, that is less of a concern than if a council who determined 1000 applications had 400 appeals allowed.

Again, sorry to have to bring facts into it, also I appreciate you are entitled to your own opinion even if it the facts suggest otherwise.

They're statistics that require context. You'd really need to see statistics of comparable sized authorities to Brighton for these to be truly meaningful, and like for like on the type of decisions made. Minor and other applications is anything from a patio, change of use to a development of up to 9 units or up to 1h of commercial development. So you've bought facts that don't really help you counter my original points at all.

Of those 357 appeals lodged, you can write off a fair number being angry homeowners upset at a decision even if it is the right one. The point I was making, is that informed developers with architects and planning consultants are accepting the appeal route, and will no doubt make up a large portion of those 146 successful appeals.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I agree a proportion of appeals are allowed. They usually relate to balanced matters so I'm not surprised. With 33% allowed nationally this all seems par for the course. If something unusual was going on at BHCC I would have thought the statistics would reveal this, but they appear to suggest things are generally in line with the national picture in regard to the proportion of appeals allowed.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I agree a proportion of appeals are allowed. They usually relate to balanced matters so I'm not surprised. With 33% allowed nationally this all seems par for the course. If something unusual was going on at BHCC I would have thought the statistics would reveal this, but they appear to suggest things are generally in line with the national picture in regard to the proportion of appeals allowed.

I could go into my opinion on what is going on at BHCC. Lack of delegation at senior level, not having confidence in planning officers, planning case officers being undermined by the management team on advice they give, agents being unable to communicate with the management team and therefore it is never clear where you stand, a large turnover of staff. They'll be in special measures soon just as has happened with Horsham.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

I agree they have lots of problems, this isn't one of them.

 

[Shy Talk]

I don't like to interrupt a good argument, but does anybody know the percentage of appeal success according to whether officers recommended approval or refusal? Shirley, an appeal will be more likely to succeed if the officers recommended approval in the first place?

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

They're statistics that require context. You'd really need to see statistics of comparable sized authorities to Brighton for these to be truly meaningful, and like for like on the type of decisions made. Minor and other applications is anything from a patio, change of use to a development of up to 9 units or up to 1h of commercial development. So you've bought facts that don't really help you counter my original points at all.

Sorry yes kept to minors and others as they make up the vast majority of the Planning depts output (i.e. 98%). If Majors are of concern there are figures available for those too.

Government's Table P152- BHCC determined 75 Major applications over a 24 month period. In this time 8 appeals were decided; 2 were allowed. That's 25% of appeals allowed, and equivalent to 3% of all BHCC decisions on Major applications being overturned on appeal. You mentioned earlier when it's such a small number the stats mean less, nevertheless these are the figures on the larger schemes you refer to.

Comparing to national figures to see whether BHCC are out of kilter with other authorities, Table 2.5 shows that nationally in respect of Major applications 47% (255 out of 543) of appeals were allowed. So on Major applications BHCC decisions were overturned approximately half as many times as is the national average.

The stats therefore suggest that on Major applications at appeal BHCC may be performing better than most authorities across the country.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sorry yes kept to minors and others as they make up the vast majority of the Planning depts output (i.e. 98%). If Majors are of concern there are figures available for those too.

Government's Table P152- BHCC determined 75 Major applications over a 24 month period. In this time 8 appeals were decided; 2 were allowed. That's 25% of appeals allowed, and equivalent to 3% of all BHCC decisions on Major applications being overturned on appeal. You mentioned earlier when it's such a small number the stats mean less, nevertheless these are the figures on the larger schemes you refer to.

Comparing to national figures to see whether BHCC are out of kilter with other authorities, Table 2.5 shows that nationally in respect of Major applications 47% (255 out of 543) of appeals were allowed. So on Major applications BHCC decisions were overturned approximately half as many times as is the national average.

The stats therefore suggest that on Major applications at appeal BHCC may be performing better than most authorities across the country.

If you want to fly the flag for the planning department then just say so. I wasn't just referring to majors in commenting on what minor applications cover. What you'd need to do for example within the minor stats, is separate out what are new build commercial applications, new build residential, new residential through conversion, householder, change of use - then when you've broken those down, you could break them down even further i.e. new build residential into 1 to 3 dwellings, 4 to 6, 7 to 9 - so that you could identify where the appeals are coming from, and if one sub group has a particular rate of success to another.

It is no secret that local authorities pour over these statistics and shape their workload accordingly to deliver the best stats. The council will prioritise applications that are easily decided so that their decisions within the timeframe can be met.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I don't like to interrupt a good argument, but does anybody know the percentage of appeal success according to whether officers recommended approval or refusal? Shirley, an appeal will be more likely to succeed if the officers recommended approval in the first place?

It's a good question, and one which is relevant to my response above. What these stats don't break down is for example:
delegated refusals that go to appeal
recommendation for refusals that are refused at planning committee that go to appeal
recommendation for approvals that are refused at planning committee that got to appeal

I've seen a few recommendations for refusal being approved at planning committee, as well as recommendations to approve get refused - you'll never change that as a group of councillors is a different uncontrollable beast compared to the delegated decisions the planning department is tasked to make.