Agenda item
Appeals decision monitoring: 2013/2014
This report follows previous monitoring information presented to the Members and provides recent information and analysis of appeal decisions for 2013/2014. This information is also compared and collated with appeal decisions for 2012/2013. The report also evaluates how the council’s current policies are being used in determining planning applications.
Minutes:
Stephen Weeks presented the report and advised that the number of planning appeals allowed by the inspectorate in 2013/14 had risen by 9% compared to 2012/13. As a result of this, he advised that decisions particularly in respect of household applications needed to be revisited. Members noted that the Government had issued a temporary relaxation in respect of permitted developments in the hope that it would encourage the building industry and boost the economy. Stephen Weeks advised that a number of applicants were taking advantage of obtaining the opportunity for prior approval and these arrangements were due to remain until June 2016. The relaxation in permitted developments was impacting on the Planning Inspectorate’s decisions and had led to an increase in appeals being allowed. As a result, Stephen Weeks advised that the Planning Service would issue revised guidance on household applications relaxing some requirements and this would be put before the Planning Committee at a future meeting.
During discussion, a member enquired whether an additional extension to an existing extension on a house dwelling could be done under the current more relaxed planning regulations. Another member expressed interest in receiving a report providing information on funds that had been received from Section 106 agreements and whether it was possible for members to have access to Acolaid. It was queried whether residents were required to consult their neighbours in respect of prior approval applications. Another member asked whether it was possible for future reports to break down appeals allowed by application type. Reasons were sought of the occasions when the Planning Inspectorate had disagreed with the council’s decision. In acknowledging that most of the appeals involved household applications, a member asked what the processes for updating the council’s policy on design and neighbourhood amenities would be and how long would the consultation and subsequent implementation of the changes take. It was also asked what approach would be taken to household applications between now and the changes being introduced. Information was sought on the impact this would have on council policy and it was asked whether the permitted development policy applied to conservation areas.
A member asked what impact extensions had on green space and was there a policy to address this. A question was raised as to whether an increase in enforcement appeals was likely because applicants had not understood the changes to permitted developments and had not obtained prior approval. It was also queried whether permitted developments applied to flats. A member enquired on the costs of the appeal to the council. Another member asked if information could be provided on the council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 5 and SPG17.
In reply to the issues raised, Stephen Weeks advised that an additional extension to an existing one would be permitted providing the existing extension had been built as a permitted development and that the additional extension did not exceed that allowed under permitted development. Stephen Weeks informed members that Section 106 agreements did not apply to refused permissions and a separate report on Section 106 funds and the Community Infrastructure Levy could be provided at a future meeting. Members heard that they would each require a separate licence to access Acolaid and this would require further discussion if there was a desire to have this. Stephen Weeks explained that under prior approval, applicants were not required to consult their neighbours other than what was required under the Party Wall Act but the Council were. It was noted that prior approval did not apply to flats and the permitted development policy applied to conservation areas subject to some restrictions. Stephen Weeks stated that future reports could include a breakdown of appeals by application type and he commented that large scale planning application appeals were uncommon to date, and while there were a few more middling sized application appeals, the bulk of the appeals were household applications which was understandable in view that most applications were of this type. Stephen Weeks advised that staff time spent on appeals, as opposed to costs, had a larger impact on resources. Typically, an informal hearing may last a day or longer, whilst a public inquiry could take up a number of days and there would be costs involved in legal and specialist representation.
Stephen Weeks advised that the reasons on the occasions that the Planning Inspectorate disagreed with the council’s decisions varied, however making changes to design and policy in response to this would reflect a priority area in terms of decisions by the Planning Inspectorate. Stephen Weeks informed members that updating the council’s policy on design and neighbourhood amenities would involve consultation that would then lead to changes to the council’s SPG5 and SPG17. Consideration of the major issues was already being undertaken and a more cautious approach was being taken. In terms of timescale to implement the changes, Stephen Weeks advised that ideally this would be done by the end of 2014/15, however this would be dependent on filling vacant posts. Members noted that a number of local authorities were also having similar issues and were considering revising their policies. With regard to extensions and loss of green space in rear gardens, members noted that the only policy that applied was in relation to ensuring ‘sustainable drainage’ in front gardens when hard surfacing took place. Turning to enforcement appeals, Stephen Weeks advised that applicants usually had a reasonable knowledge of what is permissible and that lack of understanding of planning regulations were not the usual reasons for the appeals. Enforcement appeals were rarely upheld and the council was focusing its efforts in particular on outbuildings that may be used as separate dwellings, commonly referred to as ‘beds in sheds’. Stephen Weeks added that a report on this issue could be presented at a future meeting. He also agreed to provide members with the web link to the council’s SPG5 and SPG17.
RESOLVED:-
that the report on appeals decision monitoring 2013/14 be noted.
Supporting documents: