Agenda item

There are three planning appeals for major development where planning permission has been refused by the Council. All of these decisions were made at the Development Control Committee (DCC) contrary to the Officer recommendation. A Supplementary Estimate is sought to be able to present a case to these appeals because Officers are unable to fully articulate the case for the Council.

The Cabinet 

            RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL

            That a supplementary estimate of £40,000 is agreed in order to defent decisions taken on planning applications M/80/19/PL; P/58/19PL and BE/109/19/OUT at planning appeal.

            The Band D equivalent for a £40k supplementary estimate is £0.64.

The Cabinet received a report from the Group Head of Planning which sought approval of a supplementary estimate of £40,000 to be able to present a case to defend three planning appeals for major development where planning permission had been refused by the Council.  The three applications had been refused by the Development Control Committee contrary to Officer recommendation and related to:

·         Middleton Poultry Farm

·         Inglenook Hotel, Pagham

·         Shripney Road, Shripney

The Group Head of Planning explained that Officers’ current appeal workload was exceptionally high and had increased significantly since May 2019. The Planning Department had limited resources to deal with appeals.  In the municipal year May 2019 to May 2020, 16 out of 81 applications that had been referred to the Development Control Committee had been overturned and refused planning permission.  This had resulted in 14 appeals to defend - ten current appeals as four had already been determined.  It was emphasised that the department had a very limited budget for this work and that Officers could not sustain such an increase in workload within existing resources.  Some of the appeals were for major development proposals and so had more significant issues to address as well as there being an increased exposure to cost awards against the Council, this was why a supplementary estimate was being sought. 

 In considering the report Cabinet asked various questions.  The Group Head of Planning was asked why it had been confirmed that Officers would be unable to fully articulate the case for the Council, especially as they were highly skilled in planning matters.  It was explained that there were several reasons why the supplementary estimate has been requested.  Officers had previously articulated decisions of the Committee particularly recently and had faced comments from Members about the quality of cases made at appeal and on issues where they would have genuinely struggled to have come up with a cogent case following the debate made at the Committee.  It was felt that the best solution was to seek a supplementary estimate and to source outside help on these appeals for this reason and due to the workload pressures already explained. 

The Chairman then invited non-Cabinet Councillors to ask questions.  Several participated and outlined concern over the workload of the Officer team and whether the Council was looking to expand the number of Officers in the Planning team to consider the number of planning applications rejected at the Development Control Committee.  Questions were also asked about what would be the supplementary cap before this issue was reviewed?  The Chairman responded to part of this question reminding Councillors that any voting that took place against an Officer recommendation was entirely cross party reflecting the quasi-judicial nature of the Committee.  A better education and briefing of Members with each application might assist.  The Group Head of Planning could not confirm that a permanent solution in terms of extra funding or posts in Planning could resolve the current issue.  If this situation continued to be a trend, then this would require the need for further investigation. 

Following further discussion,

The Cabinet

            RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That

A supplementary estimate of £40,000 is agreed in order to defend decisions taken on planning applications M/80/19/PL, P/58/19/PL and BE/109/19/0UT at planning appeal be approved.

[The Band D equivalent for £40 supplementary estimate is £0.64].

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/005/200720, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.