Limit developers ability to submit repeat development plans

Repeated applications for development on the same site are causing major stress to the planning system without any appreciable benefit to the surrounding communities and adding significant cost to planning departments. Relieved of the constant processing and re-processing of essentially the same application planning would become a much quicker and simpler process.

In order to address this I propose:

1. There should be a 'fast track' for a decision on whether a planning application should be rejected or processed depending on whether or not the development is allowable under the Local Development Plans. If not allowable there should be no further action required by the local planning department and no appeals process.

2. If a planning application is rejected there should be a moratorium on further planning applications for the land in question for at least ten years unless the land is zoned for like development under any approved and applicable Local Development Plan during that period.

3. Once submitted developers should be prevented from significantly modifying or withdrawing their application until due process, including any appeals, have been concluded. This is required because many developers bring the appeals process into disrepute by withdrawing at the 11th hour. This, so that the proposal does not bear the 'stain' of a previous rejection and allowing them to re-start the process at the beginning again, often with little modification.


Why the contribution is important

Repeated unwelcome applications is adding a great deal of uncertainty and stress to the local residents affected as well as adding significant cost and delays to planning applications.

Further, we have a well developed and fair strategic planning process that leads to successive five year Local Development Plans. Despite this developers are allowed to submit applications that are clearly contrary to the Plan(s) that has been democratically arrived at. The question therefore arises: what is the point of haveing a stragic plan if unelected developers are allowed to challenge and circumvent it at every opportunity? Or put more colloquially  'why bother?'

Thanks for your consideration

Bill Paul

by scolty100 on February 16, 2016 at 10:42AM

Current Rating

Average score : 4.6
Based on : 32 votes


  • Posted by motherofdragons February 17, 2016 at 16:08

    I agree with scolty100 There are two developments near where I live, both of which have been going on for some time, one for years in fact. they keep changing the proposal, ever so slightly, and so it goes round again. trouble is people do not usually know there has been an amendment to the plan and often do not know they need to object yet again. Both of these proposals have been for lots of housing but being built on green belts. I think we must reinforce the idea that green belts have been designated as such for a reason and should not even be considered for house building. I realise people need houses but I feel we should be re-energising brown belt areas for this purpose.
  • Posted by bwrichard February 19, 2016 at 22:21

    Totally agree. Developers seem to have a policy of keep grinding down opposition until the objectors give up.
  • Posted by allanalstead February 20, 2016 at 10:19

    Absolutely agree!
  • Posted by irc February 21, 2016 at 15:52

    I totally support this argument as the system already favours applicants but provides no redress for affected communities. The other issue is that local authorities are under enormous pressure to comply with excessive requirements from Government for housing land & developers take full advantage of that to repeatedly pursue their own schemes.
  • Posted by kb21182 February 28, 2016 at 19:55

    Totally agree. The stress that this can cause local communities receives little visibility.
  • Posted by JohnColledge February 28, 2016 at 23:06

    If a local authority agrees that a certain % of land should be retained as green belt, that should be adhered to, not 'ifs' and no 'buts'.
  • Posted by BrianMcNeil February 29, 2016 at 17:56

    The development process should not be a "neverending story"; such is simply a device employed by developers who hope local activists will give up, or the property acquired for redevelopment will fall into such disrepair they can demolish and replace with some monstrosity.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas