Issue - meetings

Report DRR13/053

Members considered a summary of the award of costs in planning appeals during 2012.  Details of individual cost decisions were set out in the appendices to the report.

The Chairman suggested that he, together with the Chairmen of Plans Sub-Committees and the Acting Chief Planner form a Panel Group to draw up guidelines which Members would potentially adhere to when making decisions on planning applications. 

Councillor Papworth conveyed his disappointment that costs were being awarded against the Council at the expense of the tax paying public.  Decisions taken on what the Planning Inspector deemed to be ‘unreasonable behaviour’ could be resolved with the introduction of training or guidelines.  Appeals lost partly due to decisions being made against officer recommendation could be avoided if Members views were sought.

Councillor Jackson suggested that the figures for costs be compared with those of previous years to see if any trends emerged.  The words "unreasonable behaviour" in Planning Inspectors' reports should not be used to describe the reason why applications had been considered as incorrectly judged.

Councillor Mellor agreed with the remarks of Councillor Jackson stating that Members could be judged unreasonable if they decided against officer recommendations.  In the majority of cases, Members had the knowledge and experience to decide accordingly.

Councillor Fawthrop reported that several years ago Members had a say in what type of appeal took place; now it was decided by Planning Inspectors.  He also stated that 'unreasonable behaviour' could be attributed to some Planning Inspector decisions.  Councillor Fawthrop also noted that few claims were made against people whose appeals had been deemed to be unreasonable.

It was agreed that when defending appeals, officers should speak to Committee Members to clarify their reasons for the decision taken.  It was noted that there had been occasions when Members overturned officers' recommendations to refuse applications and the appeal had been dismissed.

Councillor Michael reported that the system of appeals had been made easier for applicants with the introduction of the fast-track system and written appeals.

The Chairman empathised with Members' concerns but said the reality was that the Council were losing a lot of money because of the decisions taken by Members and this should be avoided wherever possible.  Members must be able to justify any decisions they made including those taken against officer recommendation.  The Panel Group would consider ways of minimising appeal costs. 

Councillor Jackson suggested that an assessment of the way in which officers build cases to take to appeal should also be undertaken.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  in order to minimise future planning appeal costs awarded against the Council due to ‘unreasonable behaviour’, an action plan be prepared and reported to future meetings of the Development Control Committee and the Renewal and Recreation Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee; and

2.  the Chairman of DC Committee together with Chairmen of Plans Sub-Committees and the Acting Chief Planner form a Panel Group to assist with the preparation of the action plan.

…………………………………………………….

Conclusion of Meeting

As this was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54