PAPER E

 

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

TUESDAY 15 MARCH 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.

 

Departures

 

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.

 

Conclusions/Recommendations

 

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. 

 

Recommendation

 

(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