Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Councils ponder pulling advertising for planning applications
A recent study found that people did not look for planning notices in their local press.
The findings of suggest that many councils could save money through reducing their advertising of planning notices.
Now the government is consulting on the necessity of putting statutory notices in local newspapers.
What do you think folks? How should Haringey let us know about planing application notices? Is it worth Haringey spenidng the money on advertising or is there a better way?
Read more here. Thanks to Kevin Harris of Local Level for pointing this story out to me.
The findings of suggest that many councils could save money through reducing their advertising of planning notices.
Now the government is consulting on the necessity of putting statutory notices in local newspapers.
What do you think folks? How should Haringey let us know about planing application notices? Is it worth Haringey spenidng the money on advertising or is there a better way?
Read more here. Thanks to Kevin Harris of Local Level for pointing this story out to me.
Tags for Forum Posts: local newspapers
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I'm not sure that the majority of people look for planning applications anywhere be it on the press or on the internet.
That said, I think that the press should carry these notices as lots of people who might be flicking through the paper might spot something of interest but who, understandably, might not do by browsing the planning pages of a council website. The press would do us a great service by putting the notices more prominently and not burying them somewhere between the small ads and the adverts for "exotic services".
I think there should be as many avenues as possible for people to find out what is being planned for their neighbourhood.
The planning pages should set up a localised RSS feed for any new applications that come in i.e. by neighbourhoods; the local paper should carry a page near the front of the paper presented more attractively and possibly near the extensive property pages they carry in the middle and have an online list as mentioned by the article; and immediate neighbours to any planning permission requested informed of a request that involves major renovation (not for putting a dormer in, but for turning a house into bedsits etc).
What we need is the greatest transparency possible with as many avenues as possible. Note I don't mention the Haringey People. If Haringey were to replace that with something less expensive and glossy, savings could be made there rather than by cutting off revenue streams to local papers.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Perhaps details of planning applications should be displayed by the applicant on the gate or the lampost nearest to the property ?
-
-
I have a problem with those teeny tiny signs that are put up to announce requests for planning permission or changes to licensing. They are usually hidden away somewhere on the property on an A5 piece of paper , or there is miniscule sign tacked to a lampost in legalese, not plain English, and they require you to have a pen and paper handy at all times to note down references and who to write to (and some people don't feel comfortable being seen writing down stuff in the street for fear of who is watching)
Notices in local papers, letters to immediate neighbours and online notification makes it easier for people to find things out and act on them.
btw, despite its rather dull name the Planning blog from which this story is taken makes an interesting read as it covers many topics to do with development and design
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I assume this refers to the Killian, Pretty Review last November. (Downloadable here.)
(Incidentally. Ed Balls opposes scrapping this legal requirement.)
Interestingly, the support for keeping planning applications in local newpapers seems to be based less on local information, than the loss of income to the newspapers. (Estimated at £15 million p.a.).
The Review suggested that:
"Removing the requirement to advertise in local newspapers would provide local planning authorities with the scope to use a wider range and more diverse mix of publicity avenues, including newspaper publication, web publication, site notices, neighbour letters, public meetings, public notice boards or employing community liaison staff. It would also give local authorities greater autonomy in the use of their budget and resources".
Whether or not these are helpful changes, it seems to me that the Review correctly identifies the inadequacy of the existing system. Here's a quote from one of their case studies.
"We are at present involved in a planning application, which will seriously affect our personal environment, along with that of many others surrounding us. This was brought to our attention in the usual way by the local planning office but almost everyone else in the vicinity were left to their own devices to gain information on the proposal. This would include searching local newspapers and/or perhaps reading an A5 sized information poster, which had been discreetly attached to a telephone post near to the location involved. This, we feel, is a most unsatisfactory form of communication, particularly when contentious issues are involved. It was left to the likes of ourselves to form a communications network with adjoining neighbours who had all been oblivious of the application (albeit some of whom were adjoining the proposed development site). We feel there needs to be some alternative method of making this initial communication, whereby those affected will be informed from the outset."
Ring any bells for Hol members?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Interesting.
I'm not surprised that most people don't look for planning notices in the local press. Published public notices are likely to be scanned by a few institutions like banks and law firms and less likely to be read by indivduals on a regular basis.
The motivation by councils to pull this advertising might be to cut down on their work by reducing the number of objections to Applications and if that is the reason, it is a wrong-headed approach.
Whether or not local press advertising is kept, reduced or abolished, councils need to do a better job of notifying the locality that is directly affected by planning proposals.
There is sometimes the suspicion that the council does the minimnum, or less, to notify Planning Applications because it cuts down on Objections and therefore, the amount of work they have to do.
.,
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Have to declare an interest here. I was the one of the people at Camden planning who got government permission to stop publishing press notices for planning applications except when they were major applications (for 10 or more residential units or over 1,000 m2 of non residential space) and a few other categories. That was about 4 years ago - and we did this as a pilot.
We carried out a lot of work to find out how many people commented on applications because they had seen them in the local press and it was very, very low. We didn't save the money, we used it to come up with more innovative ways of consulting - better designed site notices that went up on time (and as importantly came down!). We also used some of the saved cash to employ an outreach worker who goes into local communites to encourage them to get more involved in the planning process. For example we've worked with schools on projects where children plan changes for their local area and try to come to solutions that work for the majority of people.
Rather than reduce the number of people commenting, it's increased participation. It's that work that the government is using as a model for other local authorities. Yes, they will save money from not publishing fairly ineffective press notices but they will be expected to find better ways to let people know about applications.
By the way Clive, it's not the number of objections that matter, it's the grounds on which the objection is made. A 100 signature petition that objects to an application because the petitioners don't like it, is less effectve that one objection on the grounds of planning policy, law or local impact.
PS - the ineffective press notices we stopped publishing cost almost £80k a year.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Thanks Michael - useful insider's view (Was wondering if we'd hear from you on this one!)
-
-
If 100 residents don't like something, that does create a 'local impact'.
I accept that some objections (obviously) are going to be more valid than others.
But if the local area canvassed is limited to say, a 25 metre radius of the site of a planning application, that is likely to generate fewer responses, valid or otherwise, than an area of say a 250 metre radius. I do not know what the criteria is for the area to which letters go out.
Presumably all objections – valid or otherwise – have to be sifted and assessed so a smaller area canvassed is likely to generate less work and aggravation than a larger area, no?
Regarding the press notices, the question has to be asked, who does use them? And if some companies use them, might it be more efficient to publish planning applications on a web page?
.
-
-
Depends upon the impact of the application. For a conservatory at the back of the house, immediate neighbours would be enough but something that could impact more widely, a new housing development that would bring mre traffic into the area for instance, should be much more widely publicised. The real problem Clive is that there isn't really any proper guidance on this. The better authorities canvass wide and the not so good narrow - as long as they are within the law.
Planners can only refuse something if it is contrary to law or policy. They may have to agree to an application even if they don't like it themselves because the development is lawful. If they turn it down, the case can go to the Planning Inspectorate and if they find the authority has acted illegally in refusing it, they simply overturn the decision and, in some cases, award costs to the applicant.
As for web publicity - have a look at this
-
-
Michael: I think you've identified an area that needs to be addressed here and that is the criteria for physical notification, like a letter through the door. I am quite prepared to believe you when you say there isn't really any proper guidance (on publicising planning applications). I think it would be good if there could be, so that both the public and planning departments know what is expected of planning departments.
To what extent can you predict the likely Objections from a given Application where locals know of it?
I heard a suggestion recently that council employees ought to be obliged live in the Borough in which they are employed (the thinking being that they might be less tolerant of mistakes, muck-ups and incompetence by their colleagues, if they themselves have to live with the consequences).
Any comment?!
.
-
-
Couple of things - all local authorities must publish a "Statement of Community Involvement" which lays out the minimum consultation standards (see Camden's here and Haringey's here).
When you get an application (well, at least where I work) you tend to use local knowledge to determine the extent of a consultation. For instance, interest in a change to a front porch in Kentish Town is unlikely to generate the same amount of interest as the same application in Hampstead village. That of course relies on knowing the borough and having experienced staff which brings me on to your second point about local recuitment.
There is a national shortage of planners. It takes ages to qualify and the job isn't that well paid. That's why most London authorities rely heavily on planners from countries with similar regimes like Australia and New Zealand.
It would be great to have planner who lives locally but I can't afford to live in Camden (£500k for a 1 bed flat!) and God knows who can afford to live in Kensington and Chelsea!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
