Agenda item

The Head of Planning and Building Control submitted a report updating Members in relation to the current circumstances relating to the appeal in respect of planning application 3/12/1657/FP, and also to enable the position of the Council to be reassessed.

Members were advised that, since the application was determined at the December 2012 meeting of the Committee, an appeal had been submitted and this appeal process had started on the 13 May 2013.  The appeal would be addressed by means of a full public inquiry and this related to the 7 reasons for refusal imposed by the Committee.

The Director stated that the appellant had, since the determination of the application, sought to demonstrate that the reasons for refusal could be overcome and had submitted information to Officers on that basis.  Members were advised that a majority of the reasons for refusal had been addressed following the receipt of this additional information.

The Director advised that, at the time of formulation of the report, 2 fundamental issues remained, in particular, the issue of prematurity.  In relation to the second of these, impact on the highway, it appeared now that this was also resolved to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.

The Director stated that Officers felt that the prematurity reason should not be pursued at the forthcoming enquiry.

Members were requested to endorse the position that the Authority offers no evidence and does not pursue its case on the basis of reasons for refusal 1 (prematurity) and 2 (cemetery justification).

Members were also requested to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Management Committee and local ward Members, to further review the position of the Authority in relation to the remaining refusal reasons and to determine how the Authority’s case should be pursued.

In response to a number of queries from Councillor G Jones, the Director advised that the appellant had sought to demonstrate that the Authority’s reasons for refusing a planning application had been addressed and overcome.  The NPPF also sought to encourage a dynamic planning process that encouraged schemes to come forward for determination, in order to address issues of land supply and need.

The Director stressed that, setting aside the prematurity reason, Officers were asking Members for authority to continue a dialogue with the appellant, in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and local Members in relation to the remaining refusal reasons and to determine how the Authority’s case should be pursued at the forthcoming public inquiry.

Councillor M Newman stated that, for the Committee to be consistent in its decision making, the issue of prematurity should continue to be used.  He referred to the cumulative effect of planning applications in Buntingford and also to the emerging District Plan, which would identify land allocations for residential developments in the Buntingford area.

Members were reminded that, should a further planning application be submitted, then the public would have the opportunity to comment and the Committee would have to consider and determine that application in the usual way.

In response to a query from Councillor M Newman, the Director advised that the preferred approach in the event of an appeal in relation to significant development proposals was for the appellant and the Local Planning Authority to seek to identify areas where differences could be minimised.  The planning inspectorate expected this approach to be adopted and did not expect either side to adopt an entrenched position in the event of an appeal.

The Director advised Members that the previous report had reasons for refusal relating to the justification for the proposed cemetery, layout and design, the relationship between proposed and existing dwellings, children’s play provision and the impact on trees.  Members were further advised that, in relation to the cemetery issue, further information had been provided by the applicant and Officers considered that appropriate justification had been demonstrated for the proposed development in this respect.

Councillor G Jones proposed and Councillor A Burlton seconded, a motion that Members reject recommendation (A) as detailed in the report now submitted and Members endorse recommendation (B) as now detailed.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED – that, in respect of the current planning appeal process regarding application 3/12/1657/FP, the position that the Authority offers no evidence and does not pursue its case on the basis of reasons for refusal 1 (prematurity) and 2 (cemetery justification), be rejected; and

(B)   Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Chairman of the Development Management Committee and local ward Members, to further review the position of the Authority in relation to the refusal reasons and to determine how the Authority’s case should be pursued.