There has been a great of activity on local social media in Dorridge regarding the forthcoming planning appeal which will examine the fate of the bar in Station Approach called Skogen. This results from a failure to secure planning permission for the upper storey of the bar as it was built.

The owner has appealed for public support with  along statement, seeking sympathy for a local business which is a significant investment in the village by a someone born and bred locally whose livelihood now hangs in the balance because the Council turned down the request for planning permission after the upper storey had been added.

The majority of the 158 comments on the ‘B93s The Place To Be’ Facebook page are supportive, concerned at the potential threat to what is considered a welcome new asset in the centre and there is some derision directed at Council planners using words such as ‘petty’ and ‘bureaucrats’.

What is completely missing from the owner’s long statement is any hint of contrition, any suggestion of acknowledgement that what had been done had failed to comply with the legal process. It simply says ‘I did it and then asked for permission’ as if this was a reasonable and acceptable way to go about things.

What it also does not acknowledge is that this particular development appears to have ‘form’ when it comes to riding roughshod over the planning system. See the concerns documented by KDBH Neighbourhood Forum about the flouting of planning conditions at the land clearance stage of the work, long before the second storey issue came into play.

This is far from the only recent case in the local area where planning conditions have been ignored and/or constructions not been erected in compliance with approved drawings. The concern has to be that if no action is taken in such cases, it will be open season. Any of us could ourselves in a situation where a neighbour has permission for a modest extension and builds one double the size. There needs to be regulation and it has to be enforced, or goodness knows what people will build and where. So, please let us not see the Council’s actions in this case as ‘petty and bureaucratic’.

That should not necessarily mean, however, that the premises need to be closed and felled. Some sort of compromise way forward should be possible.

But, surely, we might look for some acknowledgement that ‘doing it first and sorting the paperwork afterwards’ is not a great approach for any business to take and does not set an appropriate precedent at all.

From my personal perspective, putting one’s hands up and saying ‘I got it wrong’ always garners more sympathy than shouting that ‘the pen pushers have got it in for me’.