Agenda item

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Local Planning Authority does not intend to rely on reasons for refusal no. 2 and 4 and that a planning consultant be engaged in respect of reasons for refusal no. 1 and 3. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Councillor Neville Phillips, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The Development Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been refused by Members on 24 July 2013.  A report had then been considered by the Committee in September 2013, which had resolved the four reasons for refusal which were: lack of affordable housing; increase in volume of traffic; not making adequate provision for public open space, and a shortfall in the maximum parking standards.  The appeal had been submitted by the applicant but had been delayed to allow for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken.  It had now been reactivated and the Statement of Case by the Council and the applicant had to be submitted by 28^th January 2015.  The Development Manager explained that where a decision contrary to officer recommendation and the resultant appeal was to be considered by way of an Inquiry, it was current practice to engage consultants to act for the Authority.  Five consultancies with the relevant expertise to deal with such an appeal had been approached but none were either willing or able to take on the appeal, some did not feel that all four of the reasons for refusal were defendable.  The purpose of the report was to ask Members not to defend the reasons for refusal based on increase in volume of traffic and a shortfall in the maximum parking standards, both of which referred to highway safety concerns, as evidence could not be provided to counter the appellant’s case in relation to these matters. The Council should therefore proceed only with the remaining two reasons at the appeal.  The Development Manager reminded the Committee that if the Council could not produce evidence to substantiate a reason for refusal, the Council will be at risk of an award for costs against the Authority. 

A consultancy had been approached on the reasons of not providing 30% affordable housing and lack of adequate provision for public open space and they had agreed to act for the Council.  If the Committee accepted that only two reasons for refusal be put forward by the Council at the appeal, it did not prevent local residents attending the hearing to put their points across on the issue of road safety and highway issues.  The Development Manager said that Officers were not stating that Members had been incorrect in their consideration of the four reasons for refusal but as the case had developed there was now a need for a pragmatic approach to maintain reasons one and three and remove reasons two and four.  

                        Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He agreed with the recommendation of the officer and felt that in his view if evidence could not be provided for reasons two and four, then they should not be pursued.  Councillor Ian Dunbar concurred. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Hilary McGuill, felt that the principle involved here needed considering carefully, that if the Council could not provide evidence for the appeal reasons, then costs could be awarded against the Authority if they pursued those refusal reasons.  She raised concern about the timing (during the Christmas holiday period) of the request to the five consultancies to act on the Council’s behalf and the short amount of time that they had to determine whether evidence could be provided.  She did not think that enough effort had been put into finding evidence which she felt was available.  Councillor McGuill commented on the Sainsbury’s development near this site which had added to the traffic in the area and increased traffic problems.

            Councillor Chris Bithell highlighted paragraph 6.07 which reported that the developer had provided documentation to show that the raft of community benefits that had been requested was not viable and had instead made an offer of £212,000 to be disaggregated as the Council saw fit.  Members had not been prepared to accept any reduction in provision and reasons for refusal no’s 1 and 3 reflected this.  He referred to the commuted sum figure of £674,526 which had been requested based on 30% on site affordable housing provision and sought clarification on what the £212,000 payment offered by the applicant was intended to cover. 

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to the report to the meeting in July 2013 where it was reported that the District Valuer had said that the scheme was not viable.  He had obtained the comments from the District Valuer who had concluded that the amounts requested for the commuted sum were unreasonable.  Councillor Peers also referred to a report by Mullers which had detailed the levels that could be afforded to still allow a profit to be made by the developer.  He said that the report indicated that over £500,000 had been proposed for sales and marketing and concluded that this should be factored into the figures when the applicant was determining whether the site was viable or not.  Councillor Peers felt that the site was viable. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that removing reasons two and four was the correct decision.  He felt that there was no evidence for the second reason but he felt that there was merit in pursuing reason four as he disagreed with the use of maximum parking standards.  However, he agreed that the inclusion of the fourth reason could weaken the case for reasons one and three. 

            In response to the comments made by Councillor McGuill about the timescale involved, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) reiterated the earlier comments of the Development Manager that the appeal had been delayed for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken.  The appeal process had then recommenced on 17^th December 2014 with the Statement of Case information needing to be submitted by 28^th January 2015.  These were dates beyond the control of the Council but immediately on the recommencement of the process, the officer had contacted the five consultancies about proceeding with the appeal.  He reminded Members that officers were duty bound to report back to the Committee if they were unable to find a consultant to take the appeal forward which was why this report had been submitted to this meeting.  A consultancy had agreed to proceed with the appeal for reasons one and three and he reminded the Committee that the Local Member could attend the hearing to put forward her concerns about highway safety. 

            The Development Manager added that if the Council proceeded with the two reasons for refusal, it would be up to the Inspector to consider the viability aspect.  It had been reported in July 2013 that a commuted sum of £674,526 had been requested for 30% on site affordable housing provision but it had also been explained to Members that due to a combination of the depressed economic situation and land contamination and land drainage issues, the profits arising from the scheme would not reasonably allow for the full affordable housing provision to be met.  The applicant had therefore offered £212,000 in total for all of the identified community benefits. However, there was sound policy basis for the Council requiring more than this.

            Following the comments from Councillor McGuill that evidence could be found to pursue all of the reasons for refusal, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the evidence should already be in place, which in this case it was not.  Highways officers had advised that there was no evidence available to put forward on highway grounds.

            In summing up, Councillor Richard Jones said that the applicant should know whether the site was viable for the development proposed prior to submitting the application.  It would be difficult for the Council to defend reasons two and four and their inclusion could result in costs being awarded against the Council.  He added that the Local Member and other residents could attend the hearing to put forward their concerns.                   

            RESOLVED:

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Local Planning Authority does not intend to rely on reasons for refusal no. 2 and 4 and that a planning consultant be engaged in respect of reasons for refusal no. 1 and 3. 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Phillips returned to the meeting.