Issue - meetings

The Council noted that appeals against planning decisions were a statutory provision within planning law.  An applicant could appeal any decision (or failure to make a decision). Where an appeal was lodged the local planning authority should be prepared to make a robust defence of its decision.  For most appeals this was done at officer level.  Therefore, whilst there was a time cost to this there was not a cost in terms of appointing consultants to defend the decision on behalf of the Council.

For large scale appeals on complex applications, it was usually necessary to appoint Counsel and specialist witnesses. However, in these cases there was still the expectation that Council officers would act as the planning witness.

Where an application is refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation these tended to be more controversial.  Often such overturns would be considered by either a hearing or inquiry, and this would necessitate attendance in person to defend the appeals.  Due to conflicts in respect of professional integrity Council officers who had recommended approval cannot professionally defend a refusal.  Therefore, it was necessary to appoint external consultants to defend such appeals, for which there was no budget and, therefore, supplementary budgets were required to secure funds to make such appointments.

The Council considered a report which sought a supplementary budget for three appeals which had already been considered and to agree the funding of those.  Going forward a supplementary estimate would be brought forward at the time an appeal was made to secure agreement for monies to defend the appeal.

At its meeting held on 24 November 2022, the Executive also considered this matter and had endorsed the recommendation in the report to Council.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julia McShane proposed, and Councillor Tim Anderson seconded a motion to approve a supplementary estimate of £535,000 to cover the payments required to defend three specific planning appeals.

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       recognition that the ability of the Planning Committee to refuse planning applications contrary to officer recommendations should not be fettered, provided that the reasons for refusal were robust planning reasons;

·       concerns expressed over statement in the report that alternative options for future reports could include the possible withdrawal of reasons for refusal or accepting that the Council will not defend particular matters if funding was not agreed.  The Leader confirmed, however, that it was not a statement of policy, and no recommendation in that regard had been made.

Having considered the report, the Council

RESOLVED: That a supplementary estimate for the Development Management service of £535,000 to cover the payments required to defend three significant appeals relating to Member overturn decisions which were subsequently heard at either public inquiry or as a hearing, be approved.

Reason: To ensure robust defence of planning appeals resulting from Member overturn decisions.

Decision:

1.    That the need for a supplementary estimate for the Development Management service of £535,000 to cover the payments required to defend three significant appeals relating to Member overturn decisions which were subsequently heard at either public inquiry or as a hearing, be noted.

2.    That full Council (6 December 2022) be recommended to note the report and to approve the supplementary estimate.

Reason(s):

To ensure robust defence of planning appeals resulting from Member overturn decisions.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None.

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

Appeals against planning decisions were a statutory provision within planning law.  An applicant could appeal any decision or a failure to make a decision on a planning application. When an appeal was lodged, the local planning authority should be prepared to make a robust defence of its decision.  Most appeals were addressed at officer level incurring a time cost, but for large scale appeals on complex applications there was a necessity to appoint additional counsel and specialist witnesses. There was currently no budget for such appointments and therefore a supplementary budget was sought.

The Executive considered a report that sought a supplementary budget for three appeals which had already been considered (Ash Manor, the Howard of Effingham and Urnfield) and a supplementary estimate to be brought forward at the time an appeal was made to secure agreement for monies to defend the appeal. The report was introduced by the Lead Councillor for Development Management.

It was noted that the funding would be drawn from the revenue budget which was a serious level of cost to the Council and that every care should be taken to ensure that planning refusals were underpinned by policy. The Chairman of the Planning Committee, Councillor Fiona White was in attendance and commented that Planning Committee members must be able to use their discretion if they understood there to be sound policy reasons for refusal.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the need for a supplementary estimate for the Development Management service of £535,000 to cover the payments required to defend three significant appeals relating to Member overturn decisions which were subsequently heard at either public inquiry or as a hearing, be noted.

(2)    That full Council (6 December 2022) be recommended to note the report and to approve the supplementary estimate.

Reason:

To ensure robust defence of planning appeals resulting from Member overturn decisions.