Issue - meetings

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report and appendices.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017.

The report advised the decision making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals, particularly those refused by committee to officer recommendation. The purpose was to inform Members of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and in cases where the refusal was found unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs could be made against the Council.

Since 2011/12 there had been two local indicators, one measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (GOV08) and the other measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (GOV07).

Over the six-month period between 1 October 2016 and 31 March 2017, the Council received 54 decisions on appeals (51 of which were planning related appeals, the other 3 were enforcement related).

GOV07 and 08 measured planning application decisions taken at appeal and out of a combined total of 51, 16 were allowed (31%). Broken down further, GOV07 officer performance was 8 out of 40 allowed (20%) and GOV08 committee reversal performance was 8 out of 11 (73%) for the 6 month period.

Members noted that the Area Plans West Sub-Committee had no appeals allowed against decisions made.

RESOLVED:

That the Probity in Planning report covering the period 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017 be noted.

(Director of Governance)  To consider the attached report and appendices.

The Sub-Committee received a report on “Probity in Planning, Appeal Decisions, 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017”.

The report advised the decision-making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals, particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation. The purpose was to inform the Committee of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and, in cases where the refusal was found to be unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs made against the Council.

Since 2011/12, there were two local Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). One measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (GOV08) and the other measured the performance of officer recommendations, which were in the main delegated decisions (GOV07).

Over the six-month period between 1 October 2016 and 31 March 2017, the Council received 54 decisions on appeals (51 of which were planning related appeals, the other 3 were enforcement related).

GOV07 and 08 measured planning application decisions taken at appeal and out of a combined total of 51, 16 were allowed (31%). Broken down further, GOV07 officer performance was 8 out of 40 allowed (20%) and GOV08 committee reversal performance was 8 out of 11 (73%) for the 6 month period. The appeal performance for GOV08, committee reversals, was noticeably outside of its KPI target of 50% target, at 73%.

On the planning appeals that arose during the 6-month period from the decisions of the Area Planning Sub-Committee East to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers, four appeals were allowed and one was dismissed.

Councillor J M Whitehouse commented on the following Appeal Decisions:

(1)  Field adjacent to Horse Shoe Farm, London Road, Harlow (Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/W/16/3158090 (EPF/2716/15)) – regarding the agricultural building issue, where the issue seemed to be whether the use was agricultural or not, and that was where the debate stopped; and

(2)  Bridge House, Roding Road, Loughton (EPF/1997/15) – regarding building in flood risk areas. This was previously a ‘show stopper’ but the outcome of the appeal seemed to suggest that this was no longer the case, if the Council could not demonstrate obvious places for development elsewhere.

The Principal Planning Officer replied on the latter that in future the Council would have to argue an appeal like this differently and show that there were other smaller sites that would support smaller sized developments elsewhere in the District.

Councillor B Surtees commented that there was always this debate about the probity of making decisions that [the Council] might not find the grounds to resist them if it went to appeal. However, the Councillor congratulated officers on managing the costs involved.

RESOLVED:

That the Probity in Planning report covering the period 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017 be noted.

(Director of Governance)  To consider the attached report and appendices.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions  1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017.

The report advised the decision making committees of the results of all successful allowed appeals, particularly those refused by committee to officer recommendation. The purpose was to inform Members of the consequences of their decisions in this respect and in cases where the refusal was found unsupportable on planning grounds, an award of costs could be made against the Council.

Since 2011/12 there had been two local indicators, one measured all planning application type appeals as a result of committee reversals of officer recommendations (GOV08) and the other measured the performance of officer recommendations and delegated decisions (GOV07).

Over the six-month period between 1 October 2016 and 31 March 2017, the Council received 54 decisions on appeals (51 of which were planning related appeals, the other 3 were enforcement related).

GOV07 and 08 measure planning application decisions taken at appeal and out of a combined total of 51, 16 were allowed (31%). Broken down further, GOV07 officer performance was 8 out of 40 allowed (20%) and GOV08 committee reversal performance was 8 out of 11 (73%) for the 6 month period.

For the Area Plans South Sub-Committee, there were 4 appeals allowed against decisions made.

RESOLVED:

That the Probity in Planning report covering the period 1 October 2016 to 31 March 2017 be noted.