Forum Topic

The actual decision notice setting out the reason(s) for refusal hasn't been published yet, so (having also not been party to Thursday's meeting) I won't speculate.But it isn't unheard of for a scheme involving an Officer recommendation for approval to be dismissed on appeal.  Many planning issues are subjective, so it isn't the case of Officers always being right etc.  And although Planning Inspectors are usually the ultimate decision maker, they themselves have to make subjective judgements.Through 23 years of experience I can run rings around the average person when it comes to technical planning matters and such like, but when it comes to deciding whether the design of something is acceptable or not I'm no more qualified than the next person.A Council (or an appellant) will only have costs awarded against it on appeal if they have behaved unreasonably.  It's very hard to conclude that 'unreasonable behaviour' has taken place if the issue is a subjective one.  Seeking costs against Councils isn't an action I take lightly (to put together a costs application in itself is time consuming) but a recent example involved a proposal whereby we had commissioned lots of surveys which in turn informed reports prepared by M&E and acoustic consultants demonstrating that the proposals wouldn't cause any material harm to residential amenity.  At no time did the key consultee, Environmental Health, raise any objection.  When the application came to committee Officers directed Members not to refuse the application on highway grounds because there was no objection from the highways authority so a reason for refusal on highway grounds could never be defended on appeal.  Yet the Officers basically let Members refuse the applications on residential amenity grounds despite the absence of any Environmental Health objection, or indeed anything that undermined the content of all the surveys and reports we submitted.We went to appeal and went for costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour, and won on both counts with the Inspector issuing decision notices which were extremely damning regarding he conduct of the LPA and ordering it to pay my clients their entire costs for having to appeal. Basically the potential for costs being awarded should always be on the minds of Planning Committee members when making a decision (Cllr. Martin Elengorn who sits on LBRUT Planning Committee is very good in that regard) but it should not deter Members from refusing an application if they believe there are genuine reasons to do so which can be defended on appeal - unfortunately (and generally speaking) in my experience too often Members play to the public gallery.Of course some people would say that is precisely what they should do, as if the majority of their constituents don't want something then they should make decisions based on the wishes of their constituents, but planning doesn't work like that (if I ever became a Councillor I'd probably attract a handful of votes if I stood for re-election because my constituents would say that I'd betrayed them !).

Adam Beamish ● 920d