Agenda item

To consider a covering report of the Chief Planning Officer on the forthcoming appeals against the refusal of the planning applications listed above.  Each appeal concerns outline planning applications for residential development on greenfield land designated as Protected Area of Search (PAS) in the Unitary Development Plan (Review) 2006 (UDP).  These planning applications were refused planning permission in August to October 2015

(report attached)

  The North East and East Area Planning Manager presented a report which set the context for the meeting, in that the agenda items related to outline planning permissions on land designated as Protected Area of Search (PAS), which had been refused by City Plans Panel in August to October 2014.  Appeals had since been lodged against these refusals.  Due to changes in the planning policy context, some of the reasons for refusal given at that time were now out of date as they referred to a historic policy context and some of the policies had since been superseded or deleted.  However, the principles that underpinned the reasons and their general intent closely followed that of the original reasons.  Members were being asked to consider revised reasons for refusal, where relevant, on which the Council would contest the appeals which were scheduled to take place in February and April 2016.  It was stressed that the applications were not for redetermination; that there were no opportunities to add new reasons for refusal, although it was possible to remove reasons and in one case, Breary Lane East, Bramhope, this was being proposed (minute 60 refers) and that Members were being asked to note the reports and endorse the updated reasons for refusal of each of these applications

  In respect of the reason in each case relating to the absence of a signed S106 Agreement, Members were informed that often at the appeal hearing the appellant would have sought to rectify this and present a near final draft S106 for both parties to agree.  As such, there was a strong likelihood that this reason would have been negotiated out by the time the appeals were considered

  Updated information was provided in relation to paragraph 2.9 of the submitted report, with Members being informed that the Planning Inspectorate had refused a request by the appellants for the East of Scholes and East Ardsley appeals for these two appeals to be postponed, pending the High Court Challenge concerning the Kirklees Knoll decision

  The Head of Planning Services informed the Panel that the judgement on Kirklees Knoll had been handed out earlier in the day and reminded Members of the history of this case.  Of the six grounds brought before the Judge by the appellant, only one ground was found in their favour, this being Ground B which related to the failure of the Secretary of State to understand and take into account the material consideration of the withdrawal of the Interim PAS Policy, which was agreed by Executive Board on 11^th February 2015.  It was reported that the Judge did not accept the appellant’s grounds of claim about the Council’s 5 year housing land supply and that policy N34 was out of date.

  In terms of Ground B, the Judge concluded that the failure to take into account the withdrawal of the Interim PAS Policy was not merely a factual error by the Secretary of State but was an error in law and so quashed the Secretary of State’s decision.  Members were informed that a further decision would now be awaited from the Secretary of State

  The Panel discussed the covering report and the information provided on the Kirklees Knoll decision, with the main issues being raised relating to:

·  the disparity in the time periods allowed for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to determine planning applications compared to the lengthy time periods being adopted by the Planning Inspectorate to deal with appeals

·  the impact which delays in the appeal process had on local communities

·  that as a major Planning Authority, whether pressure could be brought to bear to improve the current imbalance between the LPA, the Inspectorate and appellants.  The Head of Planning Services advised that whilst channels did exist for Officers to make representations on this, the greatest pressure would be through the political process

·  whether planning policy changes were conveyed to the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State to ensure they were aware of the LPAs latest policy position.  The Head of Planning Services outlined the processes which were in place and accepted that in respect of a recent appeal decision at Haigh Moor Road, this had fallen short of what had been required

·  the inability to introduce new reasons for refusal and that the process could be viewed by the public as being weighted towards the appellants.  The Head of Planning Serices advised that where there was a significant material change in circumstance, new reasons could be added but that was not the case here

·  the Council’s 5 year land supply.  The Panel’s Legal adviser stated that the Inspector on the Kirklees Knoll Inquiry had concluded that the Council had a 5 year land supply and since that time, the Council’s position had strengthened.  Members were also advised that there was no reason why the Secretary of State could not determine this matter quickly and that there was no reason to see how the Kirklees Knoll judgement changed the fundamentals of the reports being presented at this meeting

RESOLVED -  To note the report