We blogged back in September about the new requirement to include on planning decision notices a statement confirming how the LPA has acted in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with the application. I received a grant of consent last week that included such a statement.
It struck me that the statement, accurate as it was, sounded a bit 'odd'. It read a bit like a school report, or a comment on a performance review form.
In this case, it stated that the authority had worked with the applicant to find a way around some potential damage to important trees. They had, but does everyone need to know that? I don't imagine that the officer wouldn't have tackled the issue in the same way prior to the need for the statement on the decision notice.
Has anyone noticed a difference in the way applications are dealt with since this requirement came in?
The requirement of this 'positive and proactive planning' statement came in recently for me on a major outline application where a consultee had said an extra report would be required. So, 5 weeks into the 13 weeks the case officer was demanding the application be withdrawn so the extra report (not a validation requirement by the way) could be completed.
A quick reminder of the new statement had the officer backtracking and we are now engaged in a more 'proactive' process. Time will tell if it's positive!
Posted by: Andy Ward | 20/02/2013 at 12:27
Further to Andy’s point and from a local authority perspective, we have become more aware of the need to engage the applicant on schemes where previously it may have been a clear cut refusal.
Posted by: Gemma Bristow | 21/02/2013 at 13:33
I think its a bit mad. I can't see how it is enforceable, or how a failure to make the statement could be formulated into a legally sound ground of challenge except in the most extreme circumstances where there might be an independent ground of challenge in any event. Let's see how long it takes before I am proved wrong!
Posted by: Matt Gilks | 15/04/2013 at 12:20