Issue - meetings

Report HPR2020/33

This report provided an update on the planning appeals received and decided in the financial year 2019/2020 and included the first six months of 2020/2021 to capture the decisions of the majority of appeals made in the financial year 2019/2020.  Some charts showed a comparison of Bromley’s statistics with those nationally, however the national figures for the last quarter would not be available until November 2020. 

Due to the Covid19 pandemic, rules for conducting site visits, hearings and inquiries had changed.¹  Physical events were not being undertaken for the foreseeable future.  Wherever reasonable to do so, site visits were being arranged rather than events.  Some virtual hearings were taking place and it was hoped that the vast majority of all postponed hearings would take place as soon as possible in the following months.  In relation to planning inquiries, the Planning Inspectorate had been holding numerous case conferences with a view to turning a few into virtually held inquiries; the remaining ones would be re-arranged at the earliest opportunity.  Therefore, as a result of the difficulties in conducting site visits, hearings and inquiries there had been a delay in appeal decisions being made.

¹ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/889299/COVID-19_Guidance_for_site_visits_hearings_and_inquiries_28_May_2020v2.odt

The Assistant Director, Planning reported that appeals could take up to one year for a decision to be made. Therefore, this report related to cases prior to the introduction of the Planning Advisory Service report. It was likely that a number of decisions which had been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic would be delayed into 2021.

Councillor Allen considered that this report showed there was an urgent need for more Member training. The number of applications overturned, together with the number of call-in applications refused by Members showed that Members continually ignored the advice given by planning officers in the reports. As a result, Councillors’ actions were the cause of many lost appeals. The Chairman responded that the most contentious applications were submitted for consideration by Members and the outcome could go either way. Councillor Owen believed that officer recommendations prejudiced Inspectors’ decisions.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.