Agenda item

Public Question Time

To receive Questions from the Public, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

Minutes:

A public question had been received from Pearl Unsworth which was as followed:

 

I would like to ask if there is a fine and if so how much the fine is that OCC would have to pay if the outcome of an application does not agree with the Planning Inspectorates’ decision?

 

The following response was provided:

 

“Planning applications are submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and determination. 

 

Planning law requires that, to the extent that development plan policies are material to an application, the decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material planning considerations that indicate otherwise.  This is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 

 

If any planning application is refused by the Local Planning Authority the applicant has a right of appeal.  They can fulfil this right by submitting their appeal to the Planning Inspectorate who is independent of the Council.  As part of the appeal process an appellant may, if they consider that the Local Planning Authority has behaved unreasonably in arriving at its decision, apply for an award of costs. 

 

Unreasonable behaviour can take many forms but may include disregard to any known material planning considerations which were relevant to the planning application.  This could potentially include disregard of an appeal decision on the same site (or at another site where the planning issues are comparable).

 

Where an application is made for an award of costs the Planning Inspector must first determine whether this is allowed (either in part or in full).  If it is, the appellant would be invited to submit a claim to the Local Planning Authority for the reimbursement of any money spent or lost as a result of its unreasonable behaviour. 

 

The extent of any costs would depend upon how much unnecessary expense was incurred by the appellant in preparing for, submitting, and being involved in the appeal process.  Such costs may include examples such as consultancy fees, travel costs, and reimbursement for lost income, but would vary on a case-by-case basis.  In some cases the extent of costs can be significant, especially when an appeal is heard at a Public Inquiry where an appellant is more likely to have legal representation or be required to call upon expert witnesses to present evidence. 

 

However, it is important to clarify that an award of costs is different to a fine.  A fine is usually given as a penalty for breaking a law.”

 

A public question had been received from Pearl Unsworth which was as followed:

 

How much weight do OCC attach to the above whilst making recommendations?

 

The following response was provided:

 

“All appeal decisions must be afforded weight as material planning considerations when they are thought to be relevant in the assessment of any subsequent planning application.  This would especially be the case where the appeal decision relates to the same (or similar) development on the same site.   However, an appeal decision may still be considered relevant even where it relates to a proposed development at a different site but where the planning issues are clearly comparable. 

 

The weight given to such appeal decisions will depend on various factors on a case-by-case basis.  For example, how relevant the appeal decision is to the subject matter of any subsequent planning application, and how recently the appeal decision was made and whether site circumstances, planning policies, or national guidance, have materially changed since that appeal decision was made. 

 

The extent of the weight given to an appeal decision by the Local Planning Authority will form part of the overall ‘planning balance’ whereby the benefits and impacts of development are considered having regard to adopted policies and other material planning considerations.”

 

A public question had been received from Gary Boyle which was as followed:

 

Can I ask who scrutinises, or is responsible for photographs and drawing plans in planning applications to ensure they are a true physical representation of what is actually in place on any property concerned.

 

The following response was provided:

 

“An applicant is ultimately responsible for ensuring that any plans submitted with their application are accurate.  

 

The assessment of a planning application by the Local Planning Authority is based on the drawings submitted and not necessarily what might have been constructed on site. However, if, during the consideration of the application it becomes apparent that there are errors in the drawings or other information supplied, this would be raised with the applicant to address.   

 

Sometimes planning applications are made on a retrospective basis whereby they seek to retain existing development.  In such cases the plans must still reflect what has been constructed unless the application seeks permission to amend it in some way. 

 

In the event that planning permission is granted a condition would be attached listing the approved drawing numbers.  If there is any subsequent breach of planning controls whereby development on a site has deviated from any approved plans, and this has been brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority, this would be investigated as a planning enforcement complaint.”