Talk:Development management in the United Kingdom

Wikify-date tag applied

Confirmed by email that the large blocks of text added to this article were written originally and solely for this article, and all copyrights are forgone - no copyvio. No need to release under GDFL as no copyright applies - public domain. Hence I have reverted my own reversion. It still needs some wikifying though. DWaterson 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic news - I'll wikify it. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC) How are we referencing this? I wonder if it might not be a bad idea to post the email here for the future (with the authors permission of course). --Mcginnly | Natter 16:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Placed an additional para in about elected councillors

An internal link to "Land Use" in the first line goes to an item on U.S Land Use controls which would be missleading as "Development Control" relates to the U.K planning system.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBoswell (talk • contribs)

Perhaps we should great a redlink such as Land use in the United Kingdom that can be written up later as a stub? By the way it's wikipedia convention to sign your comments on talk pages so people know who wrote what and when. Great article by the way. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that "Land Use in the United Kingdom" is going to cover anything that isn't already in "Town and Country Planning", "Planning Permission", or this entry on "Development Control" - although as a stub it could sensibly link to all of them. I do have a further thought which I would value some comments upon. A high proportion of those visiting these entries are going to be members of the British public seeking some knowledge or advice on how best to comment or object to a given planning application in which they are interested. The Sub Section on Public Involvement covers much of this ground, but I am thinking about adding a section specifically on "How to Comment on a Planning Application". This would consist of a series of DO's and DON'TS. There is a good public service reason for doing so, but I am not sure that such "advice" is the sort of material that belongs in Wikipedia? What do people think? Incidentally, in responce to your point above I can't yet work out how to sign correctly - somebody please point me to the correct page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBoswell (talk • contribs)

Hi Tony, I'm no expert here and relatively new to wikipedia myself - that's quite an interesting question, I wonder if there might be legal implications in offering advice? I'm going to involve some other more experienced admins in this, but in the interim here are my thoughts - If we're reporting what has been published elsewhere in a 'this source suggests xyz' style then it should be ok - but I think I would avoid using wikipedia as a public information service in the tailored way you describe - people can read up on the hard facts here, by all means; so a mention that people can comment on a planning application by approaching the local planning department will be fine (as long as it is cited according to Wikipedia's citation policy. Telling them that "if you want to stop Nasty Homes UK building next to your house then 1.Get the politicians on your side - Petitions work, especially when it's election time, find our who's on the committee, get a load of people to sign a really big long and heavy petition and use them to prop the councils doors open every week. 2.Report seeing a great crested newt in a puddle next to your house only this morning and you think it's a habitat. 3.Get an emergency TPO on all of the trees on the site .......etc." might be more problematic. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding signing your messages, either type ~~~~ (4 Tildes) or hit the signature button - which is located above the box that you write in when you are editing a page. The button looks like part of a signature and is pretty much bang splat in the middle of the row of buttons so you can't miss it; also, if you hover over each button with the mouse then after a second or two it tells you what each button does. The convention is that we always sign talk pages and never sign articles. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally wouldn't "Land Use in the United Kingdom" also be able to cover land use in a more geographical way rather than just a narrow planning definition - eg. it might end up with historical sections in it such as "Post Roman English landuse until the middle ages" or "Impact of the industrial revolution on Welsh landuse". - Just a thought. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the signiture button - I knew it would be obvious! I will knock up a draft of what I have in mind and send to you directly in a few days. The points to be made will flow logically from the earlier Subheadings about the subject as a whole. eAs an architect you should appreciate it!--TonyBoswell 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A better idea would be to post it to the talk page here - everyone can comment then. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I got a friendly admin to comment:-

You already sent him WP:CITE, also be sure to give him {{welcome}} on his talk, at least so he can find the MOS [The admin is refering to the Manual of style]. Get him to remove all of those bullet points because they aren't really in accordance with the MOS. As far as the Do's and Don'ts go, Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, kind of covers avoiding that under 4. Instruction manuals. (legal, medical, otherwise) the otherwise being here planning. I'm not sure what else to say. Does that help? DVD+ R/W 14:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about indescriminate information. That was what worried me earlier on - see above. What I have in mind is the subheading and text below. First of all I think that there is a good public service reason for inserting it, as a high proportion of readers will be British public looking for just this sort of advice. They would find it genuinely useful, and frankly so would the democratic process which they are seeking to take part in(!) Secondly, although it explains how to consider and best present issues, it is not comparable to a step by step guide to say DIY brain surgery. (That would definitely be inappropriate). Finally, I cannot conceive of any potential for legal liabilities. What the text contains is uncontencious advice and there are no consequences in either following it or in rejecting it. There is also a broader point. British local authorities are traditionally very bad at public communication and the "customer interface" thing. Advice published by official sources is universally produced on a lowest common denominator basis - it is edited down until the most sensitive person involved sees nothing left for anyone to dissagree with. Although it is rigourously factual and truthful in the observations which are included, this whole article is the sort of thing that very few LAs would be prepared to publish in an attributable form. As an open source document it offers knowledge and advice which a lot of planning practitioners would be pleased to publish, if they were not subject to political sensitivities. In future this Wikipedia article will be available so that enquiring members of the public can be simply referred to it, and some more enlightened LAs could even distribute hard copy in responce to enquiries - but without having any responsibility for its origin.

Subject to an edit what I have in mind is below. It would fit below the subheading on Public Involvement. I will also revisit the original article in terms of style and use of bullets, although some sort of paragraph structure is almost essential to aid readability. --TonyBoswell 17:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How Best to Comment on a Planning Application - Practical Points

Remember that the planning officers and local councillors who make decisions about planning application are basically quite reasonable people, but they are not all knowing and they are not infallible. Your own local knowledge can be extremely useful. They are not the enemy, or in league with property developers against the people of the area which they serve. The reason they seek views from the public is because they are interested in trying to reflect those views; provided that public opinion can be reflected in terms which are relevant to planning, and also in accordance with formally adopted planning policies which have been prepared in consultation with the wider public earlier on.

The following points are intended to give best practical advice, and should help you to marshal your thoughts before writing to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) about any given planning application.

1. DO read over the above section on Public Involvement in Development Control.

2. DO include your name, address, and the reference number of the planning application which concerns you. The LPA will need to acknowledge your letter and later keep you informed about events by letter. They will have a large number of planning applications and they need to be sure which one you are referring to.

3. DO make sure that your comments are received in good time. The law requires that any views received after the period allowed for public comments must be ignored when deciding a planning application – (although the planning officers dealing with the case will probably get to read anything which you send).

4. DO send a copy of your comments to one or more of your local Councillors, (even if they are sent after the period allowed for public consultations). Their names and contact details will be available from local authority offices, local libraries, or the LPA’s own website.

5. DO make sure that you have understood what the planning application is actually about – don’t rely upon rumours or what you hear from neighbours. All of the application documents and drawings will be viewable at the LPA’s offices during working hours or on the LPA’s own website at any time of day. If in doubt about something then telephone or email the planning officer dealing with the case. (You have a right to know that the planning application has been submitted, but it is up to you to find out what it is about, and what the implications might be for you personally).

6. DO consider the positives. Almost any proposed development has at least some merits. It may involve needed renewal or regeneration of an older neighbourhood; it might improve the local housing supply to better match the local population, add to local employment, or perhaps other benefits. Are those benefits worth having? If not, then what particular points make the proposal unacceptable to you?

7. DO address the issues raised by the application actually being considered. The LPA can only make a decision on the planning application which the applicant has submitted. You may have some good ideas about a better way of developing the site. Do write making your suggestions, but the LPA cannot refuse planning permission simply because someone thinks that there might be a better alternative.

8. DO think about local facilities and infrastructure. Local services such as doctors, dentists, public transport and school places are often oversubscribed but, just like shops and banks in the commercial sphere, they are provided in response to increasing local demand. Paradoxically an increase in local population could actually improve the position over time. (A shortage of say local dentists is not grounds for refusing planning permission). If there are problems with the local drains and public sewers then those problems will need to be solved whether planning permission is granted for new development or not. By permitting new development the developer may be required to fund sewerage improvements which would be of benefit to the community as a whole. The question is, do the LPA and the Drainage Authority know about local problems, and might you suggest that they make the granting of planning permission conditional upon solving those problems? Highway congestion is a fact of life but, unless additional traffic would threaten safety, (outside a local school for example), then reduced personal convenience arising from additional traffic from a new development will seldom be grounds for refusing planning permission. If traffic is affecting amenity in local residential roads, perhaps due to Heavy Good Vehicles (HGV’s) then, as long as it can fairly and reasonably be related to the proposed new development, should the applicant be required to fund the promotion of a Road Traffic Order (RTO) to ban HGV’s from some local streets? Controlling new development should be an opportunity to make improvements to the local area and can be quite creative in getting things done. You can tell the LPA how you think a proposed new development might help this process or hinder it?

9. DO make sure that your views are based on planning considerations which the LPA can actually take into account. For example, you may feel that the proposed development would reduce the value of your own property. Any loss of value to nearby properties can never be a material planning consideration. However, the reasons why a development might reduce values could well be a planning consideration – can you explain why you expect values to reduce? A certain amount of disruption is unavoidable whenever any new development is being built. However the LPA cannot refuse planning permission on the assumption that the future builder might cause an unlawful obstruction to local streets, or fail to comply with relevant health and safety legislation while building goes on. (If any offences do take place then it will be for the Police, Health and Safety Executive or Environmental Health Officers to deal with).

10. DON’T object to a development simply on the basis that you will be able to see it. It may well be visible – but what is actually wrong with it? (The loss of someone’s private view, or a change to that view, is not in itself grounds to refuse planning permission).

11. DON’T include anything in your letter which you would not want other people to read. All letters and documents will be on file for other members of the public to read.

12. DON’T simply send in a copy of someone else’s letter. Multiple letters making the same point over and over again do not make the point any stronger. Planning is not a black art, and it doesn’t take any expert knowledge to make your own views known. In a democracy what the LPA would like to know about is your own opinion.

13. DON’T just sign a petition, unless it explains and makes clear what your own views are about the proposed development. The fact that lots of people signed a petition against a proposal is always very interesting, but it isn’t very useful unless it explains why they object, and in terms which are relevant planning considerations. (Unpopularity alone is not grounds for refusing planning permission).

I'm afraid I think this might be rather problematic for inclusion in the article. Wikipedia policy requires a neutral point of view, and as such, phrases such as "Planning is not a black art" are likely to be considered too opinionated. Furthermore, the style of a sort of Do/Don't instructional list is going to run dangerously close to original research, also contrary to Wikipedia policy. In particular, I would avoid the use of the second-person voice, and rewrite in the third-person. I think, for example, the only way this would be suitable for an encyclopaedic article would be if it were re-written in the style of:

(e.g. point 2) It is essential for objectors to include their name, address, and the reference number of the planning application in question on any objection letter. This is because the LPA will have a large number of planning applications, and need to be sure to which one the objection refers. The LPA will acknowledge the letter and keep the objector informed about any further events by post.

Or,

(e.g. point 12) Many objectors to planning applications send in multiple copies of pro-forma template letters prepared by other people. In practice, this is mostly ineffective as multiple letters making the same point over and over again do not make the point any stronger. The LPA operates in a democratic environment, and objectors are free to inform the LPA of their own views and opinions.

DWaterson 20:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Take your point. I will revisit the text in that light, although I continue to think that there is a very strong case for including it as such. It isn't original resurch as such, rather the sort of material that many readers are looking for.--TonyBoswell 09:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted a heavily revised section on "How best to ... etc". This is not original reserach as covered in the discussion above, and has been "de-personalized". In essence the text is a precis of the very best and practical advice published in websites or written documents covering the same subject area. Altough the Article as a whole is written for an international readership, a fairly high proportion of readers will be "attentive" U.K citizens looking for both knowledge and advice on how best to engage with the U.K planning and development control system. To that extent I think that it serves a worthwile public benefit, while not directly violating Wikipedia criteria. --212.87.70.50 17:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A further point is that several U.K Local Planning Authorities have started refering their citizens to this article as - since it is an open source document - they are not responsible for its content and thus it is both candid and avoids political correctness. At least one LPA is using it to help in the training which is given to newly elected elected councillors as part of "showing them the ropes". --212.87.70.50 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - the last two entries were me. I hadn't signed in.--TonyBoswell 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Hi there Tony, you've done a lot of work on this. Before adding any more you need to start adding references to support the statements you've made. WP:CITE gives some good guidance and WP:NPOV should help you with the article's 'voice'. I'd be particularly careful with statements like "The effect of this approach has been to encourage mediocrity in the quality of new development throughout the U.K for much of the post war period" - that seems quite contentious and arguable - I'm sure some of the residents of the Byker Wall and BedZED, for example might disagree! --Mcginnly | Natter 18:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What wikipedia is not

Tony, I'm afraid I've found a policy at WP:NOT#IINFO that says "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.". I think the goals of your writing the "How Best to Comment on a Planning Application - Practical Points" don't really conform to wikipedias policies and you risk losing the paragraph unless it can be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way. sorry. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony, please respond to this, or we'll have to move it out of the article. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikifying process

Hi editors here. I'm a member of the Wikification Wikiproject and have come to help wikify this article. I'm British and know a bit about planning and development, which may not necessarily be advantages. First I'm going to add tags for the lack of references and the fact that the article does not present a world-wide view of its subject. In regard to the second of these, I know that "development control" as defined here is a British concept, but the encyclopedia is world-wide and we have to avoid mystifying a reader from, say, India, who happens upon this page.Itsmejudith 16:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The globalize tag is no big deal so long as it is remembered that the potential audience could be wider than just those currently resident in the UK. I would support the change of name as suggested in the edit summary.Itsmejudith 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Next I am going to remove the section with practical advice per discussion above.Itsmejudith 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go with that - being bold........--Mcginnly | Natter 17:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the new pagename is rather inelegant. I'd support a move to Development control in the United Kingdom though. Any objections? DWaterson 20:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

None from me - it follows the pattern established by Town and country planning in the United Kingdom - long, unwieldy but well established. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is longer, though is also reflected in other article names aside from T&CP in the UK, e.g. City status in the United Kingdom, Parliament of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, etc. (Though that last one is ghastly!) DWaterson 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I that didn't mean to sound like a snide approval - It was a real approval and a comment that the time to change 'the convention' has passed - too many articles using the format - So yes, support the move. Regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also happy with DWaterson's suggestion.Itsmejudith 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, no offence was taken - I was just indicating other precedents for the name change. It is longer, which is not ideal given that naming policy indicates that we should use the shortest name wherever possible, but I think there is justification for this name in this case. DWaterson 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Finished as far as one usually does when wikifying, removed the tag. I'll leave the article in your hands now. You could consider having a "To-do" list, starting with the referencing. Article seems to me to contain lots of useful information but is still a bit lengthy, the order might not be perfect, and the whole potential audience needs bearing in mind (not just people about to put in an application). Really enjoyed working on it and look forward to reading it again as a GA or even FA!Itsmejudith 11:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks I have been out of the loop while breaking limbs going down hill on ice (there is another word for it). This looks a lot better than my original drafts --TonyBoswell 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does Development Control redirect to this page? Surely Development Control as a general and historical concept justifies a page of its own? How was development controlled in ancient Rome? How is development controlled in modern China? Etc? Adondai 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this raises a wider issue. Category:Urban studies and planning doesn't really indicate many articles about (what we in the UK call) development control. More work needs to be done, either on creating a new global article from which this article could be linked, or on adding sections into the relevant articles for each country, or by creating new freestanding articles on development control (or whatever it is called) in each country. The same principles apply in talking about historical periods. Each of those options would require effort by informed editors, using published sources, and sufficiently knowledgeable and informed editors are in increasingly short supply. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Development control in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120132057/http://www.ltpnetwork.gov.uk/Documents/Document/technical%20guidance%20on%20accessibility%20planning%20in%20LTPs.pdf to http://www.ltpnetwork.gov.uk/Documents/Document/technical%20guidance%20on%20accessibility%20planning%20in%20LTPs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Development control in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926014438/http://www.kjm-design.co.uk/planning-guidance/ to http://www.kjm-design.co.uk/planning-guidance/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070101212737/http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/261/HouseholderDevelopmentConsentReviewSteeringGroupReport_id1501261.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/261/HouseholderDevelopmentConsentReviewSteeringGroupReport_id1501261.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)