Planning debates

Firstly, what a shambles with the microphones consistently failing and interrupting the proceedings and the councillors’ replies. At times it was very difficult to hear what was being said, however you could certainly hear the chairperson project his voice.

Surely for a local authority that is holding over £70 million in reserve we can get some better microphones or replacement batteries, if that is what is failing!

Now on to my main point – the red line on the planning application documents.

It was noted that the red line did not go to the public highway on the crematorium application location plan that Emma Jones, the planning officer, displayed on the screen for all to see. When questioned about this by a councillor, she confirmed the applicant did control all of the land to the public highway, as is required. Nothing more was said.

Then came Samantha Owen’s presentation of the equally and possibly more controversial application for the Pizza Hut in Mylen Road. This application received over 130 letters of objection.

Some serious debate took place. Then it was also noticed that the change of position of the extract pipework was outside of the red line of the application site.

Again, this was questioned by a councillor and strangely neither Samantha Owen or the Head of Planning, Paul Jackson, could answer the councillor’s question as to whether this made the application invalid. Instead, Paul Jackson wanted the recommendation for permission amended to reflect this question and it would be for him to deal with later.

This is surely a fundamental question that you would expect a senior planning officer such as Samantha Owen, and certainly the head of planning Paul Jackson to know the answer!

Or is it that they both knew the answer and did not want the public and press present to know they had made a mistake in validating these two applications as presented to the NAPC that are quite possibly invalid?

A simple search on the internet regarding the red line rule supplies the following information: Gov.UK website planning guidance.

“What information should be included on a location plan?

“A location plan should be based on an up-to-date map.

The scale should typically be 1:1250 or 1:2500, but wherever possible the plan should be scaled to fit onto A4 or A3 size paper. A location plan should identify sufficient roads and / or buildings on land adjoining the application site to ensure that the exact location of the application site is clear.

“The application site should be edged clearly with a red line on the location plan. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development (eg land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings). A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to or adjoining the application site.

“Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 14-024-20140306 Revision date: 06 03 2014”.

I suppose the get out clause the local authority could use is the wording of the paragraph – ‘should’ is used where ‘shall’ would be more definitive and appropriate.

Is this the level of competence of the planning officers at TVBC, who are tasked by our government with dealing efficiently, effectively and importantly in a fully compliant manner with planning applications or is it time for TVBC planning department to be merged with another local authority that offers a more consistent approach and timely decision making process such as BDBC?

This could save borough residents tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, that could be used for more worthwhile services, such as public toilets or a changing places toilet to name a couple of the hot topics of late.

Full name and address supplied.