Agenda item

Members considered planning appeals statistics for the period January to September 2010 together with an assessment of the Householder Appeal Service (HAS).  The report also contained information on a pilot study concerning a proposed change in procedure for conducting appeal site visits for written representation appeals.

Members’ attention was drawn to discrepancies in the statistics given in paragraph 3.1 (page 39).  The Chief Planner informed Members that paragraph 3.1 should in fact read:-

'3.1  In the period January to September 2010 208 new appeals were lodged.  This represents an anticipated total figure of approximately 250 appeals in 2010 compared with 300 in 2009.  Over the same period 205 appeal decisions were received of which 107 were dismissed, 85 were allowed, 5 were part allowed/part dismissed, 1 was invalid, 2 were deemed by the Inspectorate to be out of time and therefore withdrawn and 5 were withdrawn.'

In respect of the percentage figures given in paragraph 3.3 (page 39), the Chief Planner indicated that the remaining 35% of appeals had been dealt with under the fast track appeals (FTA) process.

The percentage figures given at paragraph 3.6 (page 39) did not include the outcome of the remaining 6% of appeals.  Members were informed that 4% had been withdrawn and 2% were ruled to be 'out of time'.

Councillor Peter Fookes asked if applicants were charged to use the FTA process.  The Chief Planner replied that no charge was applied. 

Councillor Douglas Auld was dismayed to learn that under the FTA process, Members were not permitted to contact the Planning Inspectorate and the Council could no longer submit a written statement to accompany the reason(s) for refusing an application.  Councillor Auld recommended (and it was agreed by Members), that the Chief Planner should write to the Inspectorate expressing the Council’s concerns and to report back to a future meeting of the DCC with the Inspectorate’s response.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP suggested (and it was agreed by Members) that a further report clarifying what rights the Council had/did not have during the FTA process be submitted to a future meeting of the DCC.

Councillor Russell Jackson asked if statistics were available to indicate the number of applications which had proceeded to appeal stage as a consequence of being refused under delegated power.  In response, the Chief Planner agreed to submit a report to the next meeting of the DCC, outlining the various methods of appeal and whether those appeals had arisen from a refusal under delegated power.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the Chief Planner write to the Planning Inspectorate expressing the Council's concerns that under the FTA process Members were not permitted to contact the Inspectorate and the Council could no longer submit a written statement to accompany the reason(s) for refusing an application.  An updating report setting out the Inspectorate's response to be submitted to a future meeting of the DCC;

2)  a further report clarifying what rights the Council had/did not have during the FTA process be submitted to a future meeting of the DCC; the Chief Planner would then write to the Planning Minister if appropriate; and

3)  a report be submitted to the next meeting of the DCC outlining the various methods of appeal and whether those appeals had arisen from a refusal under delegated power.