Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report and appendices.

The Select Committee received a report and a Powerpoint presentation from the Assistant Director (Development Management) regarding Planning Appeals Performance.

Applicants applying for planning permission through a local planning authority, could appeal to the Secretary of State, any decision made whether it be refusal or granting with conditions. In these instances, all parties provided the evidence required and were normally determined by exchange of written statements or appearance at a hearing or inquiry.

Appeal performance was reported every 6 months to the area planning committees using two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), GOV007 which measured the percentage of planning applications recommended by planning officers for refusal,  overturned and granted planning permission by appeal and GOV008 which measured the percentage of planning applications refused by Councillors against the recommendation of the planning officers and subsequently granted planning permission on appeal. Members sought clarity and understanding on why some appeals were dismissed and others were allowed, which in turn would help towards improving performance of these two KPIs as identified in their individual improvement plans.

It was difficult to show common themes in why some appeals were more successful than others, but the Assistant Director (Development Management) had picked out 6 relatively recent cases across the district for further scrutiny, which he did in the form of a presentation to the committee and these were:

(a)  (EPF/2693/14) 42 Princes Road, Buckhurst Hill – Appeal allowed.

(b)  (EPF/1412/14) Church Hill Car Park, Church Hill, Loughton – Appeal allowed with costs.

(c)  (EPF/0180/15) 47a Theydon Park Road, Theydon Bois – Appeal dismissed.

(d)  (EPF/1556/14) Former Haulage Yard, Sewardstone Road, Waltham Abbey – Appeal dismissed.

(e)  (EPF/2358/14) 134 High Street, Ongar – Appeal allowed.

(f)    (EPF/1924/12) 261 High Street, Epping – Appeal allowed.

Members were advised on the problems of attempting to successfully defend a decision to refuse at an appeal if there were no objections from the local Highways authority. However, they felt that the staff at Essex County Council Highways were not particularly pro-active in checking planning applications at the consultation stage for neighbour objections on highway grounds whereas Councillors felt, if they did, then they could raise objections which would support their own views at the committee meeting.

The Assistant Director (Development Management) informed the select committee that an officer from Highways visited the District Council planning offices most weeks to review current planning applications and also made regular site visits in the area as well. An option for area planning sub-committees was to defer items for a fuller Highways assessment of the application in question. The Governance and Development Management Portfolio Holder advised caution when objecting to planning applications against officer recommendation as good evidence was needed to justify a refusal in all reasons put forward. Whilst there was a risk that costs could be awarded against any reason for refusal being appealed. The Assistant Director (Development Management) put the appeals situation into context by stating that there had only been one successful appeal this year where costs had been awarded against the authority.

The current method of analysing the appeals record from the area planning sub-committees was through the Probity in Planning reports submitted to the committees every six months at the end of the meeting which was in some was after a very heavy agenda. It was suggested that a summary of appeal decisions could regularly appear in the Bulletin and that officers consider adding tis as part of the annual planning training for Members. The Probity in Planning reports did not always receive adequate attention after a long meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Appeals Performance report be noted.