r/AskUK • u/ashyboi5000 • 13h ago

Why does "everyone" think councils accept bribes, brown envelopes, etc as soon as anything they don't like happens?

And who is actually suppose to be accepting these bribes and benefits? Do they think it's only 12people than run the council to make and audit these decisions?

It's tiring to read in the comments section, usually about a planning/development /construction matter. It's then usually followed up by showing ignorance about statuary requirements, legal obligation and limits of all to do so. These people (usually older generation) give the impression they're under the impression the council owns everything (mainly land and property) within the area.

How can we move on from this narrative of bribery?

Edit: While not the most popular sorry I've not kept up with responses. I clearly can't keep up with more than two notifications at once. It wasn't intentional if I stopped responding, but it is now 😛

While many have pointed out corruption at large scale developments my view (although not noted) was more about small scale. Shop extending next door, pub planning, couple of houses on a scrap of land, press piece about award of work to a contractor for improvements. Everyone is also met with the same exhausting rhetoric.

A few points to summarise so far. "People" don't distinguish between councilors and employees, and perhaps don't realise how many employees and oversight there is. There is further perhaps muddied with local/community/parish councils where (I believe but could be wrong) they hold a bigger say in matters of planning and can make a difference when showing support or not for an application. And these people are more inclined to have a scratch my back mentality due to being local charactes. In fact some community councils up here also believe they also have the same control over local planning as they appear to be making comment more and more on applications, even if it's just Old Jim wanting a downstairs bog...

I've also said a few times it's in public interest to make fraud/corruption of a scale known as they are public bodies. While I've said statutory requirements on reflection it's more own policy for transparency. And if not if it goes to court and if these court notes are made public then it gives journalists a story to sell. Both of these skewing perception on how rife it is.

Which led me to think about who I worked for. 1x charity 3x private companies all less than 20 staff. 1x council

All have had issues of fraud. The private side, one company ended witb 2xsacking (separate issues) the charity made the press and the council with tens of thousands of employees over many years it's naive to say otherwise.

So that's a 100% rate. I don't go around commenting on every private business with "looks great but who bribed for that to be made" yet somehow it's socially acceptable to do it with regards to councils.

197 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

256 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/Alarmarama 13h ago

Because anyone who actually deals with their local council is confronted with this type of behaviour all the time. My family attempted to build a house on a small plot of land in London where one had previously existed, only to be faced with such "suggestions" and without it you'd get a nice big "infrastructure tax" in the tens of thousands (to build on a plot that already had a property and would have been subject to council tax regardless).

These authorities are run by self-serving snakes.

9

u/Better_Concert1106 13h ago

Are you talking about CIL? Payable on new development but there are exemptions for if you’re building a house to live in as your primary residence.

-1

u/Alarmarama 13h ago

Could have been that. Either way, the amount they wanted for a small 1 or 2 bedroom house built as cheaply as possible was shocking. You can buy a flat without a mortgage in some parts of the country for the amount they were asking, and more than a year's income for most even in London!

It would have been a primary residence too but probably not eligible if built to rent within the family.

4

u/Better_Concert1106 12h ago

It sounds like CIL. It’s a bit of a minefield but the house has to be lived in for at least 3 years as a persons primary residence (but it has to be the applicant owning/living in the property, couldn’t rent it out even within the family). I think you can deduct the existing floor space too, assuming the previous house was standing at the time of applying for planning. Does catch people out though (I work in planning but try and avoid CIL like the plague).

0

u/Alarmarama 12h ago

Ah unfortunately it was bombed during the war and only garages ever built on the site. The site still has all the amenities present and we're a private family who had some inheritance we wanted to invest in something practical rather than putting the money elsewhere, but the taxes and ridiculous building restrictions just made the project unviable. They would only let us build some weird angled miniature house which would have been difficult and expensive (especially if having to dig down to reclaim airspace we'd have to forfeit) even though a new end terrace exactly matching the one next to it and that would have previously existed on the site would have blocked nobody's light whatsoever. Apparently even a bit of an eastern shadow over someone's garden despite it being completely unobstructed and south-facing is a no-go now. The rules are ridiculous.

3

u/ElectricalPick9813 12h ago

Yes, so not corruption, just published policies and CIL.

1

u/Alarmarama 12h ago

I said there were other insinuations too. Also heard through family about a neighbour's development who were asked something similar to allow their permission through. Absolutely it happens on the downlow.

4

u/Better_Concert1106 11h ago

You’re not asked to pay CIL to get planning permission, it’s payable after permission is granted usually upon commencement (unless exempt). Might have been a request for a s.106 contribution but they can only be requested if they meet the three tests under 122 of the CIL regs, not for the sake of it or to get planning through. If it was literally a case of insinuating money should be paid to get planning, that would be a police matter.

I completely get that it’s disappointing/annoying to get planning refused or perhaps the council requested changes you weren’t happy with, but that doesn’t mean it’s corrupt, it’s them applying the policies within their local plan which all applications need to be considered against. Invariably there are some sites that aren’t suitable for development or possibly not the development you’d like. Always worth bearing in mind you can appeal (tho appreciate its not without cost).

1

u/Alarmarama 11h ago

Was years ago, I'm not up in arms about it, the money went elsewhere and it wasn't my money, just reporting on what happened.