PAPER E
ISLE
OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
TUESDAY
15 FEBRUARY 2005
Officer: John Lawson, Monitoring Officer Tel: (01983) 823203
REPORT PREPARED FOR MONITORING OFFICER IN CONNECTION
WITH CODE OF PRACTICE FOR COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS DEALING WITH PLANNING
MATTERS (PARAGRAPH 3.10)
Background
1. The Constitution requires the Monitoring Officer to report to this Committee setting out numbers and types of departures from planning policy and the numbers and types of decisions against officers’ advice.
2.
Members
received a report at the meeting held on 20 January 2004, which dealt with the
six month period from 1 April 2003 to 30 September 2003. During that period the Council dealt with
1,115 applications.
3.
This
report will cover the period from 1 October 2003 to 30 October 2004. During this period the Council dealt with
2,687 applications. Of those 2,687,
2,527 were dealt with under the delegated procedure; the remaining 160 were
reported to be determined by this Committee.
4.
The
next report will deal with the six month period between 1 November 2004 to 30
May 2005.
5.
The
revised Code of Procedure within the Constitution, refers to the need for DCC
Members to identify whether they are not consistently able to support policies.
6.
A
departure application means an application for planning permission for
development, which does not accord with one or more provisions of the
development plan in force in the area in which the application is situated
(Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultations) (Departures)
Direction 1999).
7.
Members
will appreciate that a substantial number of applications are submitted which
if approved, would be considered to be a departure from the development plan,
in this case, our Unitary Development Plan.
Consequently significant care has to be taken in the decision taken
shortly after the submission of the application as to whether it is to be
treated as a departure from the development plan.
8.
The
advice given in DTLR Circular 07/99 is that if an Authority is minded to
approve a departure application which is large in terms of the number of units
or overall floor space, development of land belonging to the Council,
development of land by the Council or development which by reason of its scale,
nature or location would significantly prejudice the implementation of the
policies and proposals of the development plan then it must be referred to the
First Secretary of State otherwise known as the ODPM.
9.
In
the twelve month period up to 30 October 2004 this Authority handled 62
departure applications, 23 were granted (conditional) planning permission. All those applications that were granted
permission were determined by this Committee as a requirement of the scheme of
delegation approved by Council in October 2000.
10.
In
terms of decisions to grant permission where the application is a departure
from the development plan, there has not been an instance in the last twelve
months which necessitated referring the matter to the Secretary of State. In the majority of cases it was an issue
where there were policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan which
conflicted with each other or there were material considerations which
warranted Members taking a decision contrary to the requirements of Section 54A
of the 1990 Act. Further, there has been no instance within the last twelve
months where Members had made a decision that would warrant the Head of Service
to invoke a ‘Cooling Off’ period.
Decisions
Contrary to Officer Recommendation
11.
This
term applies to all applications that have been considered by this Committee
where Members decide to overturn a recommendation for approval by refusing
permission or vice versa.
12.
As
stated above, during the twelve month period the Committee determined 160
applications and of these were 23 cases where Members did not follow the
recommendation; almost 15% of all cases.
13.
Of
the 23 determinations against recommendations, there were no discernable
patterns in location, there being an even spread across the Island and between
urban and rural locations.
14.
Analysis
of the Members moving and seconding decisions against recommendation does show
some pattern. Whereas some Members of
the Committee neither moved nor seconded such a motion, ten did do so with five
Members doing so more frequently then their colleagues.
15.
In
terms of decisions contrary to the Officers’ recommendations, a substantial
number of the applications reported to the Committee relate to contentious
and/or sensitive sites and it is not surprising that in the exercise of
Members’ discretion that they give a different weight to various issues and
there will be some decisions different from the Officers’ recommendation. That is of course the purpose of the
Committee, which should not become a rubber stamp for approving
recommendations. It is equally
important to note that departure applications and decisions against
recommendation should be supported by clear and sustainable reasons.
16.
There
are prominently five Members of the Committee who commonly appear as the Movers
and Seconder of the motion to go against Officer’s recommendations. The reasons for refusal against Officer’s
recommendations have been varied, the most frequent used are design/mass/ scale
following by access/parking, economic or conservation reasons.
Financial
Implications
17.
The
only financial implication in terms of deciding to approve a major application,
which is a departure from the development plan or refuse permission where
Officers have recommended approval, is in terms of holding a possible local
inquiry, if the application was “called-in” or there was an appeal and the
chance of an award of costs against the Council as Local Planning Authority,
would take place if the appointed Inspector supports an application when there
is sustainable evidence to prove that the Council had acted unreasonably.
18.
In
terms of developing an understanding whether:
·
There
are some policies a number of Members regularly feel able to support.
·
There
are some Officers, teams or types of application which regularly create
recommendations some Members feel unable to support.
·
There
are some Members who feel unable to support policy on regular occasions.
Future Steps
19.
It
is suggested that the available data on moving and seconding motions which lead
to a determination against recommendation shows only part of the picture. It is necessary to consider recording votes
as well and not only on those determinations which do go against recommendation
or policy, but also where a Member moves or votes for, unsuccessfully, to
determine against policy or recommendation.
The quarterly report has
been ineffective. It is suggested that
in order to develop that understanding, DCC votes should be recorded and
analysed in the proforma attached at Appendix 1, report at six month
intervals.
(i) That
the report be noted.
(ii) That
the proforma attached as Appendix 1 be completed for a trial period of six
months to form the basis of the next report to DCC .
APPENDIX 1
|
Date of Meeting: |
|||
|
Agenda Item |
Members Moving, Seconding or Voting Against Policy or Recommendation |
Policy Voted Against |
Report Author |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|