A salutary tale for all those planning committee councillors, who continue to make ‘political’ decisions on planning applications.
It’s a lengthy article, but the lesson to be learned from it is a very simple one – there’s no place in the development control process for the Localism agenda.
It’s particularly disappointing to read the chairman of this council’s strategic planning committee comments. Assuming that’s this not the title of their committee for determining planning applications, he’s failed to acknowledge the completely different roles of these two committees.
The strategic planning committee is the one that produces the council’s Local Plan and the one charged with challenging job of balancing public opinion and national planning guidance and policies.
If the public wants to influence the planning process, then they need to do so during the plan making stage, which is what, is a slightly obscure fashion, the Localism agenda directs. Waiting until a planning application is submitted, to object to a major housing development, or to a proposal for a large industrial site, is far too late and unlikely to succeed, at least in principle, no matter how loud, or well organised the public outcry is. Yes, the planners will listen to concerns about the details, or even about the layout of the development,Mobutu if the land to be built on is identified in the council’s adopted Local Plan, then the game is almost certainly already lost.
As the article details, failing to apply the council’s planning policies will cost the local tax payer dearly and still not win councillors any votes.
Finally, the appeals process isn’t perfect, but is an essential element in the planning process, especially given the aberrant behaviour of some council planning committees.
Cornwall Council’s bill for costs rises as developers win more planning appeals. By West Briton | Posted: December 18, 2014
The number of successful appeals over refusal of planning permission, where costs have been awarded against Cornwall Council, is rising astronomically.
The figure for the amount the council must pay to cover the developers’ costs in fighting appeals against it is on target for an eight-fold increase this year, and the process has already cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds.
According to the chairman of the council’s strategic planning committee, Rob Nolan, the local authority is being penalised by the Government for turning down applications because it is going against national policies – the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was introduced in March 2012 to help speed up house-building.
“The Government has said it wants to build its way out of the recession, and the NPPF has been described as a developer’s charter,” he says.
“At the same time, the Government bangs on about localism, giving people the impression they have a say in local development.
“Yet when we listen to local views, and refuse planning permission on what we think are sound planning grounds, we find the (Government’s) planning inspector not only turns around our decision on appeal, but grants costs against us.
“Until recently costs were only awarded against the council where we had been cavalier in our decisions.
“But now it seems they’re being used to punish us.”
Between April 2013 and March 2014, costs were awarded against the council in only eight cases. In the past six months alone, costs have been awarded against the local authority after 16 appeals.
“This is a worrying trend,” he says. “We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place.
“We want to listen to local people, we want to do what is right for Cornwall, but we can’t keep paying out awards of costs to developers.”
According to the figures from Cornwall Council, released following a freedom of information request from the West Briton, the amount of costs awarded against it – which it must pay to the developers that appeal – in 2013/2014, was just £47,000.
In the first six months of this financial year alone, the appeal payout bill was £174,000.
The council has even been penalised financially in cases when the appellant was not successful.
Most appeals are dealt with in writing between the appellant, the council’s team and the Planning Inspectorate, a government agency in Bristol.
But some go to public inquiry, with a full hearing, which escalates costs drastically because of the fees of legal teams on both sides, which often includes a QC. These inquiries can be held locally and last up to two weeks.
One such public inquiry against the refusal of plans for 12 industrial units at Pool Fields in Falmouth landed the council with a £27,000 bill after it lost the appeal.
The planning consultant on this application was CSA Architects. Its managing director, Justin Dodge, said it has received £87,000 in costs awarded against the council from three appeals alone within the past year.
He adds that another planning consultancy was awaiting confirmation of a payout in the region of £200,000 from a successful appeal against the refusal of a development of 100 houses at Upper Chapel in Launceston earlier this year.
He says that, since the NPPF, and in the absence of the Cornwall Local Plan, which would set out guidelines for granting or refusing planning permission, consultants like CSA were winning more and more appeals. Costs were increasingly being awarded against the council – a trend which looks set to continue.
“We have not needed to appeal historically,” he says. “It has only been in the last 18 months, since the new cavalier planning committees were appointed, that we have needed to take more of our cases to appeal.
“They have a complete and utter disregard for policy. They are reckless and out of control.”
During the appeal process, the appellant’s argument is usually upheld when the council has acted unreasonably.
According to Mr Dodge, the reason for CSA’s success in recent cases is that the council failed to provide enough evidence to support its reasons for refusal – which is judged at appeal as unreasonable.
“It is particularly frustrating when the professional planning officer from Cornwall Council makes a recommendation which is completely disregarded and overturned by the (councillors on the) planning committee, without any compelling rationale,” he says.
“Sadly, this has become commonplace in the last 18 months, with most committee decisions being against officer recommendations and therefore we expect to pursue more planning appeals than ever before.”
But Mr Dodge adds that most of his clients spend, on average, £15,000 to £20,000 on submitting an application, and some can spend as much as £100,000 on launching an appeal against a refusal decision, spending heavily on legal teams and consultants.
“We know planning policy inside out,” he says. “This is our business. We don’t go into planning applications light-heartedly.
“But the true cost of a planning appeals can never be fully established, including the council’s own time and resources, as well as the time delays to the projects affected by the process.”
Since the NPPF was introduced, Cornwall Council has been developing the Cornwall Local Plan – a blueprint for the amount of development and where it should be located (see panel).
This policy document, which has received input from local town and parish councils, developers and members of the public, is due to be debated at full council next month, before being sent to the Government for approval.
No-one knows how long this process will take.
Until the plan is approved, says Councillor Neil Hatton, Cornwall Council member for Constantine, Budock and Mawnan, near Falmouth, it is “open season” for developers.
“The NPPF is there to support sustainable development,” he says.
“It has certainly encouraged a lot more people to put in applications and challenge the system through the appeals inspectorate – people are testing it out.
“A lot more appeals have been based on the sustainable argument because of the lack of the local plan – it is more difficult to refuse these.
“Cornwall’s weakness is the local plan [or lack of it].
“It has not been put to the Government for approval and, while it carries a little weight, it doesn’t carry a huge amount at the moment.
“It is open season for developers at the moment without the policies in place under the local plan.”
On Tuesday of last week Mr Hatton attended an appeal against Cornwall Council’s refusal of planning permission for 153 houses on Bickland Water Road. CSA was the planning consultant on the project. After a hearing in Truro and a site visit, the planning inspector’s decision is likely to be made next month.
Planning consultant Stephen Payne says the NPPF was designed to encourage “more positive decision-making” regarding rural and urban growth – to grant more planning applications – particularly with regard to housing.
“We didn’t find that quite to the extent that we expected,” he says.
“There was a change of attitude initially. But gradually they have fallen back into their old ways.
“We are seeing worse and worse decisions as we are going along.
“And it was disappointing that when we got to appeal they didn’t follow the Government’s lead.
“We would expect the planning inspectorate to toe the Government line.
“There are a lot of developments that should have been built that have not been.”
For Councillor Nolan, the whole system is flawed.
“I’m not sure that the appeal system does work well,” he says.
“Cornwall has a unique character and a delicate infrastructure – we cannot keep up with unlimited development, and an inspector who might be based in Swindon may apply judgements that work for Swindon, but not for St Ives.
“Essentially, inspectors are too remote, and not accountable for their decisions.”
Last month the council approved budget cuts of £196 million over the next four years. This, he says, only adds to the problem.
“Budget cutbacks are already causing problems,” he adds.
“Officers have a heavy caseload, and ironically it’s the developers that are complaining that it’s taking too long to process applications.”
He says that Mr Dodge’s comments would “ring hollow” with residents of Launceston, Gwinear, Goonhavern, Truro, Probus and many other communities who have fought, or are fighting what he calls “inappropriate developments driven by developers’ needs, rather than sensible planned growth”.
Neither Phil Mason, the council’s head of service for planning, housing and regeneration, nor Councillor Edwina Hannaford, Cabinet member for environment, heritage and planning, were available for comment.
Read more: http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Cornwall-Council-s-costs-rises-developers-win/story-25738782-detail/story.html#ixzz3NZgKfiD2
Follow us: @westbriton on Twitter | westbriton on Facebook