When Subjective Planning Decisions Override Design and Client Needs

Do the tastes of one unelected official dictate what you can do with your home? Not all planning applications are predictable. On a recent project, we were met with a blanket refusal despite no objections from neighbours and no obvious policy breach. The official report ran through the possible objections one by one, confirming in each case that we complied fully with the council's guidance. In this case, though, the case officer deemed the design "incongruous", and rejected the proposal without further dialogue. We applied for a pre-app and were told "off the record" that the council just didn't really like contemporary design at the moment. The property next door had a contemporary rendered extension, which had been approved despite breaking almost all the rules set out in the council's guidance: flat roof, projecting forward of the front elevation, oversized, etc. We revised our proposal to fit the planner's request and eventually got consent, but only after receiving local objections to the new scheme (which we hadn't got for the original proposal). Despite the objections, the new proposal was approved. In this particular scenario... - The client didn't get quite what they wanted - The changes increased the cost for the clients - The neighbours now felt the need to object where they hadn't before - Our opinions, as qualified Architects, were overruled by someone with no background in design. In short, everyone involved, it seems, felt worse off, apart from one. Have you experienced a situation where the planning process left almost everyone involved feeling worse off?