Agenda item

5.1       The Committee received a report which provided an overview of the appeals process and an update on planning appeals received during the last financial                      year, including an overview of success rate of planning appeals and analysis                       of any notable and allowed appeals and trends.

5.2       Members held a discussion and noted the following: -

5.2.1   Members agreed that future statistics regarding appeal performances over a            certain period should also include figures of the previous year. The                   Committee agreed that this would aid in assessing the performance of the     Service Area and identifying any trends.

5.2.2   The Committee agreed that a guidance on advertisement consent applications should be devised and commented that the guide would be helpful to both Planning Inspectors and Members. Members commented that the Westminster has unique characteristics, and this should be communicated to Inspectors.

5.2.3    Members noted that any refusals of planning applications made at their Sub-            Committees must be based on strong planning grounds and that advice and guidance should be sought from the Presiding Officer when making these decisions. The Committee noted that a total of three appeals were allowed which related to decisions made at their Sub-Committee and acknowledged that this was a good indicator that the majority of decisions made by these bodies were robust.

5.2.4   The Committee noted that the Planning Inspectors decisions regarding appeals should be read and that these case studies were instructive on how Inspectors interpret the development plan policies. Members commented that this information would also be useful to officers.

5.2.5   Officers advised that the majority of appeals failed, and these included decisions made by planning committees and under delegated authority. This is a universal trend across all LPAs. Members were informed that decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate could be at odds with their interpretation of the development plan policies and this could either be resolved by amending policy or it be acknowledged that certain appeal decisions can be anomalous and an outlier to the prevailing interpretation of a particular policy. Officers commented that increase costs would be incurred in areas of conflict.

5.2.6   Members noted that the grounds of refusal on planning applications which          was determined by the Planning (Major) ApplicationsSub-Committee had been withdrawn during the subsequent Public Inquiry and were advised that such an occurrence was not unique. Officers informed that these actions normally take place when the reasons for a decision to refuse permission are deconstructed during the cross examination of witnesses by appellants legal representatives at appeal. The Committee noted this but commented on the importance of the sovereignty of the Planning Committees.

5.2.7    Members thanked Officers for the report. 

RESOLVED

1.     That the contents of the report be noted and the overall good performance of the Town Planning service in defending decisions to refuse permission at appeal.

2.     That future statistics regarding appeal performances over a set period also include the figures of the previous year.

3.     That the Committee receive a briefing paper detailing how decisions for reasons of refusals for planning applications made at the Planning Sub-Committees could be withdrawn during subsequent appeals, particularly where the appeal is held by way of a Public Inquiry, and how this affects the sovereignty of the Sub-Committee.