Author Topic: Honister Zip Wire proposal  (Read 10256 times)

dave_p

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #135 on: 16:14:37, 17/12/18 »
  You are of course right.  I was simplifying things and drawing from my experience of watching a neighbouring council in Cumbria in action.  In particular, I have seen on more than one occasion a delegated VOC which, had it been part of the original application, may well have resulted in a different outcome or at least different conditions attached to the approval.  As to lobbying, I once approached my District Councillor over a planning application to be told planning was "nothing to do with him" - an interesting reply given that he held the planning portfolio at the time.  It made me so angry I stood against him at the next election - I didn't win but I frightened him.  In my opinion, the outcome of Planning Committee can be something of a lottery but the system is very much skewed in favour of the developer.
You are quite right to say the system is entirely skewed in favour of the developer.  Not least in the fact that refusals can be appealled but not approvals. 

To expand on what I said before, it's worth considering what the underlying motivation is for councillors v planning officers.
Planning officers are employed by the council, currently amid lots of cuts and general funding shortages. They will have seen their teams shrink dramatically and often seen colleagues lose jobs through rounds of redundancies.  So they will be acutely concerned about refusing applications which are then overturned on appeal.  That commonly leads to a costs award to the applicant.  So less money in the council to pay wages.  This means that officers won't want to refuse applications where there are no policy issues, because they know they'll probably lose the appeal.  Your solar farm example is typical of this.
Councillors are also paid by the council, but more importantly, they are voted in by local people.  So their primary focus is on keeping the locals happy in order to be re-elected.  Losing money in an appeal is less important to them as long as they are seen to be on the side of the locals.  So if locals want a zip line because they all want jobs there, the committee will typically approve an application, irrespective of a pile of objections from hikers who live elsewhere in the country.
Isn't Town Planning fascinating eh?

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6274
Re: Honister Zip Wire proposal
« Reply #136 on: 15:32:33, 04/01/19 »

Just got a reply to my letter to the Secretary of State.

 Date: 03/01/2019


Dear Mr Ridge


Application by Honister Slate Mine for Dual purpose aerial wire for extraction of stone and tourism use at Honister Slate Mine: Application number 7/2018/2011


Thank you for your letter of  16/12/18 asking the Secretary of State to call in the above planning application.   The application is currently under consideration and your views, along with all other relevant information, will be taken into account before the Secretary of State decides whether or not to call-in the application for determination. I hope you will understand that I cannot comment on the matter further, as to do so might prejudice the Secretary of State’s position.  Please note that as you have made representations about a planning application which is before the Secretary of State, it may be necessary to make your letter available to a third party should that party make a request for information on representations made to the Secretary of State on the application. Any personal or identifying information will be removed before release.   I will let you know the outcome in due course.


Yours sincerely
Tara Dickenson
Planning casework Manager
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where