TUESDAY
8 APRIL 2003
REPORT
BY MONITORING OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 3.10. OF CODE OF PRACTICE FOR
COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS DEALING WITH PLANNING MATTERS
REPORT
BY HEAD OF LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
Background
1. In
the Code of Practice there is a requirement for the Monitoring Officer to
report to this Committee setting out numbers and types of departures from
policy and the numbers and types of decisions against officers advice when
determining applications in the preceding period which in this case is 1 April
2002 to 31 March 2003.
2. During that period the Council dealt
with 2371 applications. Of those 2107
were dealt with under the delegated procedure and 264 applications were
reported to and determined by this Committee.
Departures
3. 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 site is situated (Town and Country Planning (Development Plans
and Consultations) (Departures) Direction 1999).
4. Consequently 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,
the Unitary Development Plan. Therefore
significant care has to be taken in the decision taken shortly after the submission
of the application as to whether it is to be termed as a departure from the
development plan.
5. 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 floorspace, 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 (or
ODPM).
6. I am advised by the Development Control
Manager that in the last year this Authority has handled 59 departure
applications and 27 were eventually granted (conditional) planning
permission. All those applications that
were granted permission will have been determined by this Committee as a
requirement of our own delegation scheme approved by Council in October 2000.
Decisions
Contrary to Officer Recommendation.
7. This clearly applies to all
applications which have been considered by this Committee where Members decide
to overturn a recommendation for approval by refusing permission or overturn a
recommendation for refusal by granting permission.
8. As stated above in the last twelve
months this Committee has determined 264 applications and of these there were
26 cases where Members did not follow the recommendation; less than 10% of all
cases.
Financial
Implications
9. The only indirect 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
(conditional) 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.
Options
10. That the report be noted and that the
Monitoring Officer continue to monitor the situation in consultation with the
Development Control Manager and report back to this Committee at six monthly
intervals.
Conclusions
11 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 GOSE. In the
majority of cases it was an issue where there were policies contained in the
Unitary Development Plan actually conflicted with each other or there were
material considerations which warranted Members taking a decision contrary to
the requirements of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
12. The number of departure applications which were eventually
approved amounts to only just over 1% of the total number of applications
submitted in the last year and consequently this does not denote any kind of
discernible trend or create sufficient concern to warrant any kind of further
examination.
13. In
terms of decisions contrary to the officers recommendation, a substantial
number of the applications reported to the Committee relate to contentious
and/or sensitive issues and it is not unduly surprising that in the exercise of
Members= discretion to give different weight to various
issues there will be some decisions different from the officers
recommendation.
14. The
more interesting test of a decision to refuse permission, where the officer has
recommended approval, is the outcome of any subsequent appeal against that
decision.
_ In the last twelve months
the Development Control Manager has not considered any of the decisions
contrary to officer recommendation were sufficiently serious to warrant
invoking the >cooling-off=
period.
_ The four appeals which
resulted from Members=
decision to withhold permission. Three
appeals were allowed and a decision is awaited on the fourth. Officers were able to defend the Council=s
decision to a point which avoided any award of costs against the Authority.
_ There were four major
applications where Members did not follow the officer=s
recommendation; two of these were refused but not tested on appeal; one being
eventually approved following the submission of a second application.
The
26 cases, less than 10% of the number considered by this Committee, where
Members decide to overturn the officers recommendation is not a sufficiently
high figure to cause any serious concern.
However, I would ask Members to recognise that any decision to overturn
a professional officer=s
recommendation is a serious matter and should only be taken after very careful
consideration and must be supported by sustainable reasons for taking such a
decision.
|
Recommendation That
the report be noted and that the Monitoring Officer continue to monitor the
situation in consultation with the Development Control Manager and report
back to this Committee at six monthly intervals. |
Contact
Points: John Lawson, Head of
Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer
Chris
Hougham, Development Control Manager
Strategic
Director
Corporate
and Environment Services