1.2 It is intended to provide ongoing updates for future quarters to the first available Development Control Committee after each quarter.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1.2 It is intended to provide ongoing updates for future quarters to the first available Development Control Committee after each quarter."

Stewart Hopkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 ITEM 9 Planning Appeals Record for Quarters 1 & Author: Jeremy Lee, Senior Planning Officer Jeremy.lee@milton-keynes.gov.uk Tel: Introduction 1.1 This report sets out the statistics relating to appeals against the Council s planning decisions for the first two quarters of the current Council year. The statistics cover the Council s record in defending its decisions, the costs incurred and some brief lessons learned from key appeal decisions which have implications for future cases. 1.2 It is intended to provide ongoing updates for future quarters to the first available Development Control Committee after each quarter. 2.0 Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the content of the report Quarter 1 1 April June 2017 % Dismissed Committee With Rec Allow 0 n/a Against Allow 0 n/a Rec Delegated Allow 3 70% Dismiss 7 Non Allow 0 100% Determination Dismiss 1 % Dismissed Overall (Target 70%) 72.8% Major Appeals allowed over a 2 year rolling period 4.1% as percentage of all Major applications (Target <9%)

2 3.2 Quarter 2 1 July September 2017 % Dismissed Committee With Rec Allow 0 n/a Against Allow 1 0% Rec Delegated Allow % Dismiss 2 Non Allow 0 n/a Determination % Dismissed Overall (Target 70%) 50% % Major Appeals dismissed over a 2 year rolling 3.65% period (Target < 9%) 4.0 Appeal Procedure 4.1 Quarter 1 1 April June 2017 Fast Track Written Reps Hearing Inquiry 5 7* % 59% 0% 0% *Includes 1 appeal Withdrawn before decision but following the production of the Council s case. 4.2 Quarter 2 1 July September Costs Fast Track Written Reps Hearing Inquiry % 50% 25% 0% 5.1 Quarter 1 1 April June 2017 Costs Awarded Against the Council 0 Inquiry Costs incurred by the Council 0 Quarter 2 1 July September 2017 Costs Awarded Against the Council 0 Inquiry Costs incurred by the Council 0

3 6.0 Lessons Learned 6.1 The appeals in both these quarters were relatively straightforward with little that was outside the normal range of cases that are considered. For the most part, the Council was successful in defending its decisions. However, there are clear lessons to be learned from the appeals that were allowed. 6.2 Quarter 1 In terms of the appeals that were allowed in Quarter 1, all three were dealt with under Officer Delegated powers. One related to refusal of a large extension to a building in the open countryside which was refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy S10 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan and the impact the extension would have upon the appearance of the area. 6.3 The Inspector concluded that the extension would not have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the area. However, the Inspector concluded that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) did not support such a restrictive approach to extensions as set out in policy S10. The Inspector concluded that the NPPF outweighed policy S10. The lesson here is that policy S10 will not be supported at appeal unless it can be demonstrated that the development would result in some specific harm. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is the primary consideration when considering planning applications. 6.4 The other two appeals that were allowed were related planning and Listed Building proposals for the conversion of a stables building to a residential annexe with a small extension to the building. The reason for refusing both applications was the impact of the proposal upon the architectural and historic interest of the Listed Building. The main concern was that the change to residential use would result in the loss of understanding of how the application building related to the main house. 6.5 The Inspector concluded that the Council was seeking to retain an unrealistic amount of the original internal features of the building and that sufficient external and internal features would be retained to allow the original relationship of the buildings to be retained. The lesson is that there is a need to consider the balance between the harm that may result from what is lost and the benefits from giving the building a new lease of life with a use that meets modern requirements. 6.6 Quarter 2 The appeal that was refused under Delegated powers related to an application to insert a roof light in the main roof of a property in the Wolverton Conservation Area. The reason for refusal was the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. 6.7 The Inspector noted that the Wolverton Conservation Area appraisal noted the general absence of dormer windows and rooflights from front roof slopes. However, the Inspector also noted that this particular street had

4 similar rooflights to that proposed on at least ten other properties. The Inspector concluded that on that basis, an additional rooflight would have little impact on the character and appearance of the area. The lesson is that policies cannot be blindly applied. It is necessary to consider the precise circumstances of each case and whether there would be demonstrable harm resulting from the proposal. 6.8 The appeal that resulted from the Panel overturn of an officer recommendation related to an application to remove a condition applied to an earlier planning permission. The earlier application related to the conversion of a commercial building to a community use at Wolverton Mill. The condition restricted the number of people on the premises at any one time to Officers had advised Development Control Panel when the condition was originally imposed that the condition was not enforceable and could not be defended at appeal. Nevertheless, Members felt that there was sufficient justification for imposing the condition when Panel approved the application. The reason the condition was imposed was To ensure control over the scale of the use in relation to the amenities of neighbouring residents and the availability of car parking In the report on the application to remove the condition it was noted that the property had sufficient car parking to serve the proposed use and that it would generate less parking demand than the previous office use. The report also noted that a noise assessment had shown that another condition imposed on the planning permission, requiring all windows to be fixed shut, would be sufficient to protect neighbours from noise disturbance. The report concluded that the condition was unnecessary and unenforceable. However, following consideration, Panel determined not to approve the removal of the condition The Inspector noted that there were conditions requiring the car parking spaces associated with the building to be available for parking, for the windows to be fixed shut and hours of operation of the use. The Inspector also noted that no evidence had been provided to demonstrate that without the condition in question, the use would result in a parking problem or harm local amenities (the Inspector referred to a noise assessment submitted with the application which showed that the use would not result in noise disturbance). The Inspector concluded that the condition was not necessary or reasonable In originally imposing the condition and then in resolving to retain it, Panel were clearly trying to allay fears of local residents. However, the lesson to be learned is that conditions will not be upheld if it cannot be demonstrated that it is necessary, in planning terms, and reasonable. 7.0 Conclusions 7.1 The results for Quarter 1 are encouraging. The results for Quarter 2 are of more concern. To some extent the failure to meet the target for appeals

5 successfully defended can be explained by the low number of appeals considered during the quarter. However, it is considered that both the appeal relating to the extension and the appeal relating to the condition resulted from decisions that the Council was always going to struggle to produce sufficient evidence to give itself a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the appeal. 7.2 There have been no awards of costs against the Council during either quarter. However, had the appellant s applied for an award of costs in relation to the extension or conditions appeals there is a significant probability that awards would have been made against the Council. This highlights that whether the decision is made by officers or Members, it is important that there is evidence to support that decision.

CHANGE OF USE FROM LAUNDERETTE (USE CLASS SUI GENERIS) TO RETAIL (USE CLASS A1) (RETROSPECTIVE)

Application Number: 08/01677/FUL CHANGE OF USE FROM LAUNDERETTE (USE CLASS SUI GENERIS) TO RETAIL (USE CLASS A1) (RETROSPECTIVE) AT 25 Farthing Grove, Netherfield, Milton Keynes FOR Multi Ecko 8/13 Week