Planning Permission Palaver

Corruption? Hypocrisy? Incompetence? Stupidity? Lacking Common Sense?

Are people being unduly had over? Are councils living in the real world? Do they even know what they are talking about?

Councils do not seem to be using common sense and do not seem to want anyone else to use it either. They want to tie everything up with an inflexible black or white set of rules that do not apply or equate to the real world we live in. At times, impractical, unviable and unreasonable!

Treated Fairly? It is true that we need some sort of planning control, to stop inconsiderate people building skyscrapers in their back gardens and negatively impacting neighbours, however, considering what we are charged, are the public being treated fairly and even sensibly? Or are councils just taking our money and making life more difficult for the ordinary people, as they so often do?

Setback! There are many instances we have heard about of ordinary people having planning permission denied, on what most people would consider to be unreasonable and unfair, even ridiculous grounds. At such times, this means that applicants have all the hassle of appealing. This often involves considerable extra expense and also means their plans and timetables are considerably setback. In such cases, you would like to think there are just and valid reasons, however, all too often, this is not seen to be the case by the ordinary people. We decided to put Bexley Council to the test, to see what happens! Before we do, the paragraph below, is a short diversion to Dartford, and just one such example!

The Real World! A friend of mine applied for planning permission to park his car on his front garden. Dartford Council told him he couldn't have it because there wasn't enough room to turn round on his front garden, therefore, he couldn't drive both in and out in a forward direction. Well, who can? Those who live in mansions perhaps, but for the rest of us, living in the real world, we have to reverse in and drive out, or vice versa. That's what ordinary people do, everywhere.

Applying Common Sense! When he told them he felt it would be much safer when getting his young children in and out of the car and that he really wanted to get his vehicle off the busy main road, they told him they like vehicles parked on the road, because it acts as traffic calming. Never mind all the broken wing mirrors! And what about the broken kids? After a lengthy and considerable ordeal, involving three different appeals, significant cost, wasted time, grief and anguish, my friend eventually got his planning permission, when an adjudicator had to drive all the way down from Bristol, a distance of 150 miles plus, to ask why nobody at Dartford Council appeared to be applying any common sense!

Which Is It? When I was trying to sort out our pavement-parking problems in Plantation Road, I was told by Bexley Council that, despite paying road tax, motorists actually have no right to park on the road and that council's prefer people to park off road. Well, it would be nice, wouldn't it! If only it were that easy! Mind you, when talking about cars being in the way of a fire engine, because we were also being told we were 'not allowed' to park on our exceptionally wide pavements, the same lady also said the firemen would just tow them all out of the way!" Yes, of course they would, while the house is burning down! Why didn't I think of that?

Back To Bexley Council: Another friend of mine wanted to make an alteration to a roof window setup, which was starting to leak, and which some other properties had already done. He was incensed when Bexley Council told him it would cost him £260, for a pre-application assessment, and he would have to provide the architect's drawings, for which he was quoted £1600, just to find out if he even needed planning permission. We could go on and on, as the number of unsatisfactory instances seem to be endless, but here's just one more example, for now.

Lacked Common Sense! This lady featured in a News Shopper article was told she couldn't have a drop kerb and park her car off road on her front garden, because her house was 30cm to narrow! "She claimed that Bexley Council’s position lacked “commonsense” as other terraced houses in her street that have identical dimensions already have a dropped kerb." As most would agree, it seems wholly unfair to deny people, when other instances exist as precedents everywhere and work perfectly well! But it seems Bexley Council have moved the goal posts!

Quote! A Bexley Council spokesperson said that the minimum size requirements are to ensure that parked vehicles do not obstruct the pavement by overhanging or with opening doors. They added: “Although an applicant may currently own a smaller vehicle, once a crossover is approved, in the future it would be available to be used by large vehicles by the applicant or future owners. “Some properties on this road do have existing driveway access, but these were approved under earlier policies and cannot be revoked. "The current policy has been updated to reflect the increase in vehicle sizes in recent years and the problems experienced where driveways are too small.”

Trying To Get Sense: Ok! Then stipulate that as part of the deal! Don't block it altogether. Remember, we don't live in a perfect world. Besides, some people already have it. Some degree of sensible compromise achieved by WORKING TOGETHER is always good. However, I draw attention to the reasons why this never seems to happen, and I've had plenty of years of experience in examining this problem by trying to get sense out of our local authority. It is currently a pointless waste of time and effort. They NEVER listen, and they do what they like, regardless! That absolutely needs to change! Local authorities are public servants, that is public employees; they therefore, need to start listening to the people paying their wages, that is working with them and for them, not against them!

You Know Who! The trouble is, our local authorities are arrogant and they don't actually understand the negative ramifications of their actions. That's why they should listen more to the public (the ones actually paying the bill). For example, let's ask why vehicles HAVE grown so much. Answer: it's because local authorities, up and down the country, have completely wrecked our roads, spending millions of pounds of public money, against the majority will of the people paying the bill, by dropping their plop everywhere in the form of road humps. It turns out the best way to navigate this ridiculous autocratically imposed obstacle course, that particularly penalizes anyone in a LITTLE car, is to buy a MASSIVE GREAT 4x4. Now cars are too big, roads are too small, carpark spaces are not big enough, and the lady above has been told she can't have a drop kerb, even though many have already got it! Who have we got to thank? Yes! You know who!

An Absolute Blight! When Bexley Council were undertaking their unilateral, autocratic scheme to wreck the roads in Slade Green (against the majority will of the people paying for it), we asked for a couple of clearly marked speed cameras on Bridge Road / Slade Green Road, the main arterial route instead of the ridiculous humps. Speed cameras are uniform in their effect on vehicles and DO NOT hinder or damage emergency vehicles. They also slow vehicles appropriately. The unhelpful response we got, at a pointless already-decided-but-tick-a-box-and-pay-some-lip-service-anyway public consultaion meeting was, "We don't do speed cameras!" Well, it would be nice if you did! Road humps are green-unfriendly, dangerous, damaging, non-uniform in effect and an absolute blight! Plus, they were invented in the stone age!

Anyway, Back To Our Plot: Due to other priorities, the rear garden of our end-of-terrace property has been unfenced and overgrown for many years; in fact, since around the early nineties, when the wall came down (no, not the one in Berlin). We managed clear the garden and put some hard core down around 15 years ago, with a view to perhaps laying some type one, and providing a bit more parking (as we were having significant trouble with Bexley Council, trying to park sensibly in our own road). However, even this was thwarted due to a shortage of funds and there has been an ongoing battle to keep nature at bay ever since, with the garden at one point being wildly overgrown.

Issues: As well as being a bit of an eyesore for neighbours, it has also meant we have had no external storage and the garden has been unusable for anyone wishing to sit in it. It has also meant we have had some security issues and occasional fly-tipping on the garden. The lack of secure garage storage has meant having a motorbike by the back door, cycles in the lounge, an electronics' workshop in the back half of the lounge, kayak in the studio (or the back of the van) and a constant ongoing game of Chinese puzzle over many years. This is to say nothing of storage boxes, fishing gear and other stuff, that it would be nice just be able to put in a garage, if we could. Being a musician, there is also some equipment that it would be good to securely store. With a view to trying to correct all of this, when eventually able, we applied to Bexley Council for planning permission to build a reasonable sized storage facility on our derelict garden and erect a perimeter wall with a sliding gate. Not unreasonable, you would think. In fact, the guy who did the drawings, said it shouldn't be a problem at all! However, given our past experiences with Bexley Council, we should perhaps have known better!

Quite Enough! On the 15th May 2025, a nice young lady came down to investigate our planning application. She was a trainee planner and said she hadn't been in the job that long. She was here for about 20 minutes to take some photos and said she wasn't quite sure of the situation so she would have to go back and report to her boss, who despite me paying a considerable amount of money for the service, didn't bother to accompany her, or come down himself. The application fee for the Council was £613. Perhaps it wasn't quite enough! There was, therefore, no chance to discuss options, or come up with agreeable solutions to guarantee a safe passage for planning permission.

A Lot Of Money! To get any real help or advice from the Council, you have to pay for a pre-application service, meaning someone will actually then come along, have a look and give you some advice, but it costs an extra £260. That would mean an outgoing to the Council of £873. The drawing of the plans and the submission on my behalf, has cost £680, so, at the moment, we have had to pay £1293! If we had to add another £260, it would mean an outlay of £1553.00. All in all, it's a lot of money before you've even laid a brick!

Road To Nowhere! As the architect told us, "It shouldn't be a problem", we hoped that the process would fairly straightforward. However, on 03/06/25, we had notification from the Council that our planning permission had been refused, so despite paying out £1293, all we have found is a road to nowhere. Talking of which, at the bottom of our garden, where we wanted to build the garage, there is a back alley which the Council say is classed as a 'private road'. It's overgrown and nobody drives down it, although my neighbour was using it to park his car(s). The property is also located in low-lying land adjacent to the tidal stretches of the river Thames, which is consequently considered as a 'flood zone'. These two factors are currently the reasons for the refusal of our planning permission.

---

Bexley Council's Reasoning

Bexley Council's Reasons: Relevant text from Bexley Council's planning permission refusal letter...

1 The wall/fence and gate, by reason of their location and height, along with the proposed structure at the rear of the garden would obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Plantation Road from the private road. As such they are contrary to Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy T4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP10, DP23 and DP24 of the Local Plan (2023), all of which seek to ensure highway safety

2 In the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding. As such, the application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 181) and Policy DP32 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023)

Note: When you go into something like this, as a ordinary member of the public, one relies on the experts, that is the people in the trade, to get advice (which we have to pay for). In this case, neither my architect (cost £680), or the Council (cost £613), in any prior communications, advised me that I would need a Flood Risk Assessment. I can't ask my architect why he didn't advise me, as shortly after submitting my application he was hit and killed by a dangerous driver whilst walking home with his partner (left critically injured in hospital). However, you would think the Council could, likewise, have advised me, rather than just taking my money and refusing my permission when it was too late!

---

Analysis

Point 1: The Back Alley: Yes, we do have a back alley at the bottom of the garden, and it is wide enough for a car. Nobody actually drives down it, as it is overgrown. It has, in recent times, been used at the Plantation Road end for parking by my nextdoor neighbour who, at the time of the Council's visit, had two cars parked on it, one of which was SORN. The Council say that our construction would "obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Plantation Road from the private road." They mean my neighbour's parked car. In fact, he has now just moved. Bexley Council make it sound like our back alley is busy highway, with a continuous string of traffic driving into Plantation Road. However, we are just talking about the one car that was parking there.

It's Everywhere! Plantation Road is a very quiet no-through road. Living in the real world, it's a fact of life that there are many examples of this 'obstructed visibility" everywhere. Places that are in far busier with both traffic and pedestrians, such as Crayford High Street. People are expected to cope, use their common sense and drive sensibly. Yes, we can actually do that, when we're 'allowed' to! Unfortunately Bexley Council's control-freak mentality, which defies common sense (and democracy), rears its ugly head everywhere, to the obvious inconvenience and detriment of society and the ordinary people that have to pay for it!

Point 2: Flood Risk: Slade Green is in a flood zone and parts of did flood in 1953 due to North Sea flood that apparently over 300 people in eastern England and around 2,500 people overall, including the Netherlands and Belgium. The flood occurred due to a combination a rapid moving low-pressure weather system, resultant high winds and a high spring tide, which breached sea defences and embankments. It was also at a time previous to the reinforcing of the Thames embankment and the building of the Thames and Dartford Creek Barriers. According to a resident living here at the time, the water came up as far as the Corner Pin pub. But still 250 metres short of this property.

Too Much To Ask? As a 'mere' member of the public, it should not be not my responsibility to manage water supply, drainage, flood prevention and infrastructure. We pay very significant amounts of to water companies and the council, supposedly to manage and deal with exactly these things. Is it too much to ask that they do what we actually pay them to do? Of course it is!

All Gone! I personally also pay the Environment Agency and Paddle UK annually, for my fishing and kayaking (which granted, may come in handy to get to the shops in the event of an unlikely flood). I expect drains and flood defences to be properly managed and sufficient and I expect councils not to keep building all over flood plain and valuable playing fields, such as the Howbury fields (pictured right), over 70,000 square metres of prime playing field, all gone! Plus the bit to the left!

Natural Drainage: The Howbury playing fields were a much-loved facility, used and cherished by the community; a massive area of natural drainage that Bexley Council decided to build all over AGAINST the majority wishes of the people that live here. They built more houses, caused more congestion, and gave us more problems. They took away facilities, amenities and depleted natural drainage. No wonder they're so worried about my back garden.

Hypocrisy! You can't help feeling that our social-management system is riddled with hypocrisy. Hypocrisy from those in charge, who do just what they like when it suits them, and don't listen to, or consider the public (that is the people paying their wages). And they still think they're entitled to give the little people an unnecessarily hard time, taking our money and making life difficult when we just want to get on with our lives.

---

Positive And Proactive Manner?

Really? Page two of Bexley Council’s refusal letter states…

In dealing with this planning application, Bexley Council has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 186 & 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to seek solutions to problems where practicable.

Blatant Lie! This stock response from Bexley Council is just another blatant lie. Bexley Council actually charge an extra £260 to 'work with the applicant' and expect you to pay for a preplanning assessment. As we were advised accordingly by our architect, we didn't do that in this case and consequently they have not been very helpful. They have certainly not worked with me in a positive and proactive manner to seek solutions. They have taken my money, denied my permission, and said I can appeal if I want to. It looks like it's all down to me to waste time and money to pander to, what many see as (at least everyone I've asked so far), ridiculous and unhelpful hypocritical nonsense!

No Comment! I did subsequently phone our trainee planner, on the 02/07/25 to clarify a few things, and point out the existing precedents and some of the blatant hypocrisy. She simply said she could not comment on anything that was already there. She then suggested I email Development Control. Following her guidance, this I did on Wed 02/07/2025 12:00. So far, apart from an automated response, as of lunchtime 04/07/25, I have had no reply from my email to Development Control and no reply from the email I sent on Tue 01/07/25 14:31, to the Environment Agency, regarding the flood risk assessment.

Help At Last? As of mid afternoon, 04/07/25 I have now had an email back from our trainee planner, who herself responded to the email she suggested I send to Development Control. She thanked me for my patience and said she would forward it to the relevant department. Are they actually all the same department, one wonders?

Any Help For Noah? Our Trainee Planner also said she would let me know when she heard back regarding the situation with the flood report. The Enviroment Agency emailed to say someone would be in touch. So, we shall await contact.

---

Bexley Council's Response from Highways

07/07/9:29am - email from our trainee planner to say the Highways Team have come back with the following

I would suggest the applicant move the building and wall into the garden from plantation road, allowing a buffer within their land, or alternatively lessen the width of the building so that it doesn’t go for the full width so that the 2.4x2.4m pedestrian splays can be achieved.

The sliding gate would also have the same issue with lack of visibility – although this was not included in the report. This can be overcome by extending the length of the gate, or providing a suitable fence on either side of the opening portion in lieu of brick pillars and wall

---

Not Great Ideas!

Negative Impact! The above suggestions from Bexley Council's Highways' department, significantly negatively impact what we would actually like to do. It means we're expected to do some significant compromising, wasting garden space (which will become dead space), sacrificing on storage space, sacrificing on security and sacrificing on privacy. Plus, the overall finish won't be as neat and tidy and it looks looks like they don't want us to have privacy from the road, due to wall height restrictions. It also means building two lots of wall or fence, as with our idea, the garage was the boundary wall, meaning we only needed to build it once! A much better idea for us!

That Is The Question! Our garden isn't massive, and if the neighbours are happy with our plans, it would nice to be able to make the best of it. The question is, should we have to give up our garden space and compromise on storage space, security and privacy, to pander to Bexley Council's hypocrisy and nonsense, for a blocked back alley that nobody actually drives down, in a quiet dead-end street with just 22 houses and my back garden. Especially when, in the real world this kind of problem exists everywhere, in much busier places. Also, can we find alternative solutions?

Out Of Alignment! As for moving the location of our proposed sliding gate, which would (as proposed) line up with the existing parking pad, it's a rather ridiculous and completely nonsensical idea, as it would then be out of alignment with the parking pad and no longer line up with the vehicle!

LEZ Then ULEZ! Yes, that's my new Renault Trafic van (at the time) which cost over £7,000, after I had to scrap my perfectly good previous Peugeot Expert van (for just £200), for round one - LEZ (The Low Emission Zone) which no one had a vote on. I then had to scrap the one in the picture (for just £292), which was also still a perfectly good van, for round two - ULEZ (The Ultra Low Emission Zone) which, yes, you guessed it, no one had a vote on! No wonder people get so fed up with our local authorities behaving like tyrants! Because that's exactly what they do. They're supposed to serving, not bossing. And no wonder it's taken so long to get the house and the garden done, when I have to keep finding so much money to buy another van! It's not like a do a lot of mileage.

Better Ideas For Us! Anyway, enough moaning! We have some suggestions of our own. As Bexley Council are complaining about trafic from the back alley, we thought we could simply block vehicle-wide access to the alley with a bollard, as has been done where the alley continues on the opposite side of the road. My neighbour, who has the house at the bottom of garden, says she would prefer vehicles not to be parking in the alley and not to be driving in the alley either, so this could be a good solution.

30mph Wheelspin! As for the sliding gate and exit from my drive, we can site a mirror (or two), install a flashing warning light (or two) and a nice loud audible warning to warn pedestrians and vehicles alike when I open the gate and exit my garden. Something that keeps repeating, "Caution! Vehicle exiting!", or similar! Just in case I happen wheelspin off my drive at 30mph. It will probably pee the neighbours off though! But, let's see what Bexley Council say!

One Set Of Rules?

The Old Community Centre: At the other end of our back alley, or private road, is the site of the old community centre. This site is on the corner of Bridge Road and Slade Green Road, the busy central main arterial road that runs right through the heart of Slade Green.

B.C.'s Own Words! Before we go on, let's remind ourselves of Bexley Council's own words in their planning permission refusal letter...

The wall/fence and gate, by reason of their location and height, along with the proposed structure at the rear of the garden would obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Plantation Road from the private road

Bexley Council's Fence: Note the height of the fence that Bexley Council have erected around the site of the old community centre, and the fact that the gates exit onto the busy main road. Note also the fact that the fence obstructs visibility for pedestrians approaching the carpark exit and obstructs visibility for vehicles entering Bridge Road from the car park.

What Can We Say?

We Could Say: To quote Bexley Council's own words...

The wall/fence and gate, by reason of their location and height, obstruct visibility of a vehicle entering Bridge Road from the private carpark

When It Suits! Perhaps Bexley Council didn't notice! Or perhaps they don't know what they're doing! Or perhaps they just don't care! Hypocrisy? Of course! It's Bexley Council! They just do what THEY like when it suits them! Never mind the people paying their wages!

Mum's Concern! The same fence, which extends for some distance, also obstructs vision for pedestrians trying to cross the busy road. While I was taking the photos, one young mum told me that because of the fence and the obstructed visibility, she'd told her young daughter she must cross the road much further down, where she could clearly be seen, and clearly see any oncoming traffic. It's a busy road!

Encouraging Common Sense! Unlike Plantation Road, a quiet little dead-end backstreet, places like Bridge Road and Crayford High Street are very busy locations with high traffic density and high pedestrian footfall. People accept this, because it's the real world we live in and it's practical. We make the best of it. This world is not perfect, and it never will be. However, it can still work with a bit of care and common sense and in millions of places like these, all over the country, it does and it has to! We have to start encouraging people to be self-controlled, that is suitably control themselves and use their common sense. You cannot control everything with a red or green light, and you cannot put everything in a black or white box. Life is not quite that simplistic. The trouble is, those who work for our local authorities, seem to think it is! As far as the ordinary people are concerned, this has got to change!

More Photos of Bexley Council's Fence - Breaking Their Own Rules?

---

EA Response (23/07/25): We've now had an email back from the Environment Agency, regarding the flood risk assessment business. I call it a business because and it looks like there could be significant additional outlay, by the time this is all sorted. For further advice the EA say they charge £115 per hour/per person plus VAT. The email came with a 21 page attachment, entitled Pre Application Guidance Note. It's hard to credit that we can be tied up in so much red tape. Remember, we only want to build a garage and a garden wall!

---

Time To Appeal!

The Appeal: Our trainee planner advised that we could appeal. We've also had numerous letters from companies that offer such services on one's behalf. As stated above, we had already been quoted £1100 for such a service, from someone our architect knew. However, rather than paying out further substantial amounts that we would rather spend on the house, we thought we would try the appeal process ourselves. Remember, we only want to build a garage and put up a garden wall in a quiet back street. Being as we were being refused on grounds that most considered quite unreasonable, over the top and hypocritical, we thought we would submit some grounds for appeal, with accompanying photographic evidence, and see what happens.

The Process: Uploading the appeal and necessary documents online to the Planning Inspectorate was a fairly straightforward process (thankfully). The appeal documents and any supporting evidence, photographs, etc., can be uploaded as it's collected and ready to go, then click save to come back later. We were told that we had until the 25/08/2025 to get it all in and we finalised the submission on 22/08/2025. We were then informed that the appeal process can take up to 10 weeks. This will take us into November, meaning we will have lost the opportunity to get the work done in the summer months for this year.

The Question Remains: Bexley Council's decision has cost a lot of time and put us back by many months; meaning we've lost the opportunity to build at the best and most suitable time of year. Bearing in mind we only want to build a garage and a garden wall on our own back garden (that is our own piece of land), is all of this nonsense from Bexley Council about a flood risk assessment and the 'private road' actually justified, or necessary? No one I have spoken to (so far), seems to think it is, including my architect who told me, "It shouldn't be a problem." There currently seems to be a distinct discrepancy between what the ordinary people expect from our local authorities and what we actually get. Whatever way we look at it, this is Bexley Council charging us money, costing us money, and making life more difficult! This is a common theme that runs right throughout our social-management system, all over. Something that really needs to change!

---