Issue - meetings

To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019. In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the decision-making committee of the results of all successful allowed appeals (i.e. particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation).

The purpose of the report was to inform the Area Plans Sub-Committee South 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 might have been made against the Council.

Over the six-month period between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2019, the Council received 56 decisions on appeals (54 of which were planning related appeals, the other two were enforcement related). Seven appeals out of 54 were allowed (13%). Broken down further, Committee reversals performed very well with only 2 out of 14 allowed (14.3%) and there was also a good officer delegated decisions performance of 5 out of 40 (12.5%) allowed.

Out of the planning appeals that arose from decisions of the Area Plans Sub-Committee South to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6-month period, one appeal was allowed against decisions made and three were dismissed. Out of 2 Enforcement Notice appeals, both were dismissed, but only one was of relevance to this Sub-Committee.

During this period, there were no successful award of costs against the Council.

Whilst performance in defending appeals at 22.6% appeared to be modest, there was no national comparison of authority performance. Members and officers were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case must be not only relevant and necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs. This was more important now than ever given that a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State could award costs, even if neither side had made an application for them. Whilst there was clearly pressure on Members to refuse in cases where there were objections from local residents, these views (and only when they were related to the planning issues of the case) were one of a number of relevant issues to balance out in order to understand the merits of the particular development being applied for.

            RESOLVED:

That the probity in Planning report covering the period 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019 be noted.

To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019. In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the decision-making committee of the results of all successful allowed appeals (i.e. particularly those refused by committee contrary to officer recommendation).

The purpose of the report was to inform the Area Plans Sub-Committee West 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 might have been made against the Council.

Over the six-month period between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2019, the Council received 56 decisions on appeals (54 of which were planning related appeals, the other two were enforcement related). Seven appeals out of 54 were allowed (13%). Broken down further, Committee reversals performed very well with only 2 out of 14 allowed (14.3%) and there was also a good officer delegated decisions performance of 5 out of 40 (12.5%) allowed.

Out of the planning appeals that arose from decisions of the Area Plans Sub-Committee West to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6-month period, zero appeals were allowed against decisions made and zero were dismissed. Out of 2 Enforcement Notice appeals, both were dismissed, but only one was of relevance to this Sub-Committee.

During this period, there were no successful award of costs against the Council.

Whilst performance in defending appeals at 22.6% appeared to be modest, there was no national comparison of authority performance. Members and officers were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case must be not only relevant and necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs. This was more important now than ever given that a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State could award costs, even if neither side had made an application for them. Whilst there was clearly pressure on Members to refuse in cases where there were objections from local residents, these views (and only when they were related to the planning issues of the case) were one of a number of relevant issues to balance out in order to understand the merits of the particular development being applied for.

            RESOLVED:

That the probity in Planning report covering the period 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019 be noted.

To consider the attached report.

The Sub-Committee received a report regarding Probity in Planning – Appeal Decisions, 1 April 2019 to 30 September 2019.

In compliance with the recommendation of the District Auditor, the report advised the Sub-Committee of the results of all successful allowed appeals (i.e. 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 might be made against the Council.

Over the six-month period between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2019, the Council received 56 decisions on appeals (54 of which were planning related appeals, and the other 2 were enforcement related).

Out of a total of 54 planning related appeals, 7 were allowed (13%). Broken down further, Committee reversals performed very well with only 2 out of 14 allowed (14.3%) and there was also a good Officer delegated decisions performance of 5 out of 40 (12.5%) allowed.

Out of the planning appeals that arose from decisions of the Area Planning Sub-Committee East to refuse contrary to the recommendation put to them by officers during the 6-month period, 1 appeal was allowed against decisions made and 8 were dismissed.

Performance in defending planning application related appeals was reasonable at 22.6%, meaning of course the Council was successful in defending its decisions in 77.4% of cases.   Whilst there was no national comparison of authority performance, Members and Officers were reminded that in refusing planning permission there needed to be justified reasons that in each case must be not only relevant and necessary, but also sound and defendable so as to avoid paying costs. This was more important now than ever given a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State could award costs, even if neither side had made an application for them.

            RESOLVED:

            That the probity in Planning report covering the period 1 April 2019 to
30 September 2019 be noted.