Concern over “revenge” planning applications

The agenda for Thursday’s area planning committee reveals that two planning applications, submitted as a publicity stunt last year by a York Councillor, are actually going to be debated by a committee of 11 members.

Ironically the Councillor who submitted the applications will be barred from the debate as he is deemed by regulations to have a “pecuniary or vested interest”.

The first – a proposal to provide a 3 space gypsy caravan site outside the front door of the Councils West Offices – has generated a 10 page officer report. Not surprisingly it is recommended for refusal, although not without the highways network management department recording that it has “no objections to the plan” which includes provision for the storage of scrap metal.

The ploy does, of course, seek to highlight an issue which is significant for many. The location of gypsy caravan sites has always been controversial with local residents fearing that differing lifestyles will adversely impact on their neighbourhood.

In 2013, when Labour published their Local Plan, they courted controversy by slipping in new – and extended – caravan sites without any prior consultation. Their 2014 revamp was little better with Wetherby Road residents waking up one morning to find that a new site had been identified near Harewood Whin.

The second application is for the erection of a statue on a traffic island on Station Rise near the City walls. Although the nature of the statue is not recorded in the application, its promoters have said in the media that it would be a “marble life-sized statue on a red granite pedestal to the person who voters in a planned public poll considered most responsible for ‘fiascos which have afflicted York.’ It is unclear who would pay for the statue and whether the figure would be updated as public opinion shifted.

Some may think that, in a time of increased social media use, there are other cheaper and more flexible ways of making a point. Indeed we are on the brink of having the technology available to remotely project holograms into differing locations.  No need for on site equipment, so no need for planning permission. Just imagine if a well known local architect was to wake up each morning to find a member of the York Labour Cabinet apparently peering through his window?

The statue application has also been recommended for refusal although officials have struggled to justify their concerns given the existence of similar statues nearby.

In neither case does the applicant have the permission of the site owner for a change of use of the land.

The real issue relates to the costs of dealing with the applications. Council committee meetings are expensively to stage. Many residents attend, or view on line, to see how particular proposals, which have a real chance of success, fare. They deserve to have their issues dealt with first. The applications to be decided on Thursday include proposals for a House in Multiple Occupation in Osbaldwick, erection of a new house in Halifax Court and provision of garages at a site near 72 Huntington Road   

Another concern may be the precedent that is being set.

Pretty much anyone with the money (a fee of between £200 and £400 is payable) can apply for planning permission to do virtually anything anywhere. Only those with a valid title to the land or buildings under question actually normally make applications. Even prospective purchasers are wary, fearing that the price may increase if a planning application for a new use is granted to them, rather than the current owner.

So a wealthy resident with an axe to grind could apply, say, to install a cesspit in the lounge of a house in, say, Osbaldwick. It would have little chance of success, but might attract publicity and generate some discomfort for the house owner.

That is not what the planning system was designed to do.

Mildly amusing initially, but we don’t need any more “revenge” planning applications in York

—-

The York Council had a poor quarter with a significant proportion of planning appeals allowed. The figures in the published report (below) seem to have been transposed with 7 appeals (70%) being allowed in the last quarter of 2014.