Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch When approving planning permission, with recommendations from officers employed by the council, does a council(lor) have any responsibility under the HASAW or The Management of H&S at Work?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By The toecap Both surely
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte They also need to ensure that the mice pies are nut free ;)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight I like a nice mice pie,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch Thanks for that Descarte but I much prefer your opinions on Mind & Body Dualism!
Regards
Mitch
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham Planning (and in particular those in the conservation world) have come up with some interesting ideas that they 'approve/enforce/guide/etc'. . and of course the poor builder works at the risk end of the game.
Whilst it would be nice to say that they come under HASAWA Section 3 duties & CDM - try search the HSE's data base for notices or enforcement against them.
I think you will find that they have not been held to account for what they impose on others to build!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
Its very political as 'elected members' are not[usually] employees / employers whilst they are acting as 'elected members'irrespective, even though they make the final decision in many many cases i.e. planning rules etc
I appreaciates your thoughts as they should be accountable. However?!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch My question originates from the granting of planning permission for a Taxi company that is using a residential area for parking it's vehicles. This has road safety road safety issues. I have asked the Councils own HSE department to comment specifically about this and will keep you informed.
Regards
Mitch
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Oliver I take it the local residents are over the moon.
I would have thought that if a subsequent offence occurs that comes under the jurisdiction of HASWA, then the advice provided by the council employees would have some bearing on who would be held to account.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch {aul,
I hope so. I am one of the local residents and the council accept no responsibility for their decision referring it to the police as a parking matter. Mt point is that the original decision to grant planning permission was the councils responsibility.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs Tenuous link I think.
If they grant planning permission to a factory, and the factory subsequently injures someone, are you saying the approvers would be liable there too?
It is for the taxi firm to conduct all aspects of its business without injury or harm to others.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins Surely conditions were applied to the planning approval, such as the maximum number of vehicles and where they could park?
Alan
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Joe Doc I don't think there is an issue from a H&S legislative point of view, however road safety legislation may be another avenue (no pun intended) to consider, as local authorities do have wide powers in this area.
I'm not a planning expert but I think consideration has to be given to the rules in which I believe Council's themselves operate.
If someone seeking approval gets rejected only on the basis of local complainers, does that not leave a council open to action from them if it cannot be justified under planning guidelines. A wee bit of damned if you do and damned if you don't!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48 Mitch, decisions made by councils are the responsibility of the whole council or body corporate. It acts under authority from the government. Councillors have to understand, sign agreement to and carry out their duties in accordance with a very strict code of conduct on penalty of being disqualified. Councillors are members and not officers or employees. as long aas they at within those codes they are acting lawfully. Planning laws are also very strictly proscribed and outline all manner of things including those about which council may or not consider. Where there is a traffic safety consideration then they may rely upon advice and guidance from, for example, the police. Those directly affected by planning matters, neighbours etc, must also be formally consulted as part of due process. Thus in your case, if you objected before the approval was given then you have been heard: the decision taken included your objectons as long as they were on grounds within planning procedures. Talk to your local Councillor to find out why the permission was granted and then decide whether raising an appeal is possible and desirable. Your councillor should help you through this. Trying to pin somewhat obtuse, and I am pretty confident non existent, legal duties after the event in order to reverse a decision is pointless. Even if it were possible on the grounds you suggest, it would take years. Local councils do make mistakes sometimes: but they live in world of proceduralised codes so they get it right far more often. The proper officers would be out of a job if they didnt get it right most of the time. The lesson here is to get involved before the planning decision if you feel that it will affect your life or that of your community.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch Pete,
I understand what you have said and I did get involved, objecting when retrospective!! planning permission was applied for. The town council also objected on the same grounds, traffic volume, road safety, quality of life for neighbours etc.. to no avail
Thanks anyway to you and all who contributed. The matter is now going through the borough councils complaints procedure monitored by the local government ombudsman.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By srd My local council is advertising for a health and safety advisor / inspector, and the job description includes having to check planning applications for H&S issues.
Stephen.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch Thanks Alan,
A little light reading! Having spoken to various organisations involved, Town Council etc I am keen to get to the bottom of this as no-one else seems to know either.
Regards
Mitch
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
new laws are coming out shortly that address some accountability areas re this sujbect
actions are in theory possible but I cannot remember one
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hewett Mitch,
Good Luck.
Alan
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson Mitch,
The strict answer is no they do not have any responsibility under the HSW Act when advising on planning matters.
Regards Adrian Watson
PS Get a copy of Judicial Review Handbook 4th Edn Michael Fordham from the library.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By I McDonald Mitch
I have personal and ongoing experience in this problem. No responsibility under H&S Laws. Planning permission in its self does not give the right to build, etc. Planning permission only identifies that the scheme has been approved as it is not considered to be detrimental to the area.
My neighbour (good bless him), built on the side of his house over a common right of way, the foundations under sail my land and the barge board and rain water goods over sail my land. I identified this when "retrospective" planning permission was sought. Other neighbours identified the right of way issue, etc, yet planning permission was granted. After months of communication, etc, to the authority, it was identified that somebody could submit plans and have them approved to build on MY LAND and I would not have much of a say. As permission is granted for a time limited period (possibly with restrictions), permission may have been sought with a view to future development.
The only action that my legal advice have told me I can pursue is to place a court order on the individual for trespass (cheeky bloke uses my access to garage area when I am out), take it to the courts for building on my land and over a right of way arguing that the structure is creating a nuisance to me and others. I am taking this action (18 months in already) however; have been advised that it will cost £6,000+ and the likelihood that my costs will be awarded is slim. Chances of him being ordered to remove the structure and reinstate the right of way excellent.
Ian
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.