1009hrs
Last month I attended a planning committee. One case was astonishing, swinging one way then another, with speakers against, whilst the applicants speaker didn't turn up, although scheduled to do so. So undecided (or incapable) were committee of a decision that they deferred it for a rethink this month.
I know those handling the application well - not planning consultants - and took the liberty, unusually, of telling them of the extraordinary debate, pointing out risks and in true entrepreneurial style of course hinting that they suggest to their client appointing a planning consultant now. They didn't... Until about 1009am yesterday.
The morning of that next planning committee had arrived (they dont half come up quickly!). The objectors had seized on indecision in committee, appointed their own planning consultant and sent the entire committee that consultant's conclusions including 2 draft reasons for refusal (an astute move it must be said).
I was instructed immediately by the agents to review these papers and look over the speech he was to deliver. I had an hour to do it. I added one paragraph and stressed the absolute importance of making sure the committee hear it. That should have been enough to ensure the balance went in favour of his client. The agent (perhaps unaccustomed to how quickly 3 minutes of public speaking passes) ran out of time before he could say it. Its easily done but it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Objectors had the whip hand and the application was refused against officer recommendation 8-6.
2216hrs
A couple own forestry land. About 2 years ago a Council approved a very small building as permitted development (for the purposes of forestry). Thinking they could use PD rights once more the couple built another small building as a shelter and tool store. The Council began to suspect (without any apparent reason) the use of the land had changed to 'a leisure plot' and that the newly erected building wasn't being used for forestry. After lots of paperwork, letters and meetings impasse was reached. An enforcement notice was served in May requiring demolition of the new building but making no allegation whatsoever of a change in use of the land.
At that stage our advice was sought. Whilst quoting a reasonable fee we knew, because enforcement is complex, it wouldn't be attractive for the scale of building involved. However after discussion we agreed to prepare an options and issues paper setting out choices they could, should and must (by our advice) take and referred them to useful parallel cases and things they ought to say. They could then decide and proceed on their own understanding the issues and risk. An unusual instruction but one which suited client and budget.
The must part - to ensure they make a deemed application (Ground A appeal) - they didn't like, because they felt it undermined their previous entire case argued for months with the Council; i.e. that the building didn't require planning permission.
At precisely 2216 last night the couple texted me to say the appeal had been allowed (on Ground A), the enforcement notice is quashed and they can keep the building. They are thrilled beyond words that their saga is over and that advice sought, given (and taken) worked.
That in a nutshell, ladies and gentleman, is why you should use a planning consultant.
