Planning committee process - is this how it works?
Discussion
OK, I admit this is probably directed at Equus.
Elmbridge Planning Committee last night - planning permission for three six bed houses - one replacment house and two new houses in their garden. Planning officer has recommended grant of PP albeit with a long list of conditions. The plans had been referred to the full planning committee by a sub-committee.
There's various discussions about the merits, questions etc. and then a vote on granting permission. Motion is defeated with 8 against, 7 for and 2 absentions. At that point, I think the planning permission is denied......wrong! There's a bit of confusion and the chairperson asks the planning officer what happens now - the planning officer initially says that permission can't be granted. Then after a bit she says that she needs to know on what basis the planning will be denied. This seems a bit unexpected and the committee spend 10 minutes discussing which policies they are going to deny it on the basis of. The planning officer says a few times 'well, we disagree with you and think that will be overturned on appeal' but eventually they get to four points of refusal. A motion is then proposed and seconded to refuse permission, but this is also defeated, now 9 against the motion and 8 for it. Basically the two abstensions voted against refusal. More confusion, quick discussion with their legal advisor and the chairperson says 'I'm not going to allow any more debate on this, we are going to vote again on granting permission.' Vote is carried by 9 to 8 and permission granted.
It seemed really strange to me that a planning committee didn't know what to do when voting against granting permission in the first place - do committees only every overturn refusal recommendations, as overtuning a grant recommendation seemed to catch every one out?
I can see the logic in the process around the motions, but is this the right process to follow? At the time it seemed pretty farcical.
Charles
Elmbridge Planning Committee last night - planning permission for three six bed houses - one replacment house and two new houses in their garden. Planning officer has recommended grant of PP albeit with a long list of conditions. The plans had been referred to the full planning committee by a sub-committee.
There's various discussions about the merits, questions etc. and then a vote on granting permission. Motion is defeated with 8 against, 7 for and 2 absentions. At that point, I think the planning permission is denied......wrong! There's a bit of confusion and the chairperson asks the planning officer what happens now - the planning officer initially says that permission can't be granted. Then after a bit she says that she needs to know on what basis the planning will be denied. This seems a bit unexpected and the committee spend 10 minutes discussing which policies they are going to deny it on the basis of. The planning officer says a few times 'well, we disagree with you and think that will be overturned on appeal' but eventually they get to four points of refusal. A motion is then proposed and seconded to refuse permission, but this is also defeated, now 9 against the motion and 8 for it. Basically the two abstensions voted against refusal. More confusion, quick discussion with their legal advisor and the chairperson says 'I'm not going to allow any more debate on this, we are going to vote again on granting permission.' Vote is carried by 9 to 8 and permission granted.
It seemed really strange to me that a planning committee didn't know what to do when voting against granting permission in the first place - do committees only every overturn refusal recommendations, as overtuning a grant recommendation seemed to catch every one out?
I can see the logic in the process around the motions, but is this the right process to follow? At the time it seemed pretty farcical.
Charles
The legitimacy of the process may depend on the Council's constitution and adopted committee procedures. There should have been (and from your description was) a legal adviser in attendance to make sure the stick to the rules, but things can still go wrong and technically it might lay open to challenge at Judicial Review, if you had the resources and commitment to do so - you'd need to look at their rules in more detail.
I had a very similar one, a good few years ago (2006?) in Tewkesbury:
I'd submitted an application for a mixed use housing and office development that had gone through a long and tortuous process of assessment. The committee voted against it, at which point - extraordinarily - the Chief Planning Officer stood up and basically went apes
t at the Committee members. He told them in no uncertain terms that our application conformed to policy and had carefully addressed every issue; that we (major national housebuilder) would undoubtedly appeal with costs, that we would win, and that the Council had no money in its budget to pay those costs, so they damned well better take the vote again and think a bit harder about it that time.
The legals adviser just sat and looked at her hands...The vote was retaken, and the application permitted.
The Committee process - and as we've seen on this forum previously, some of the individuals involved - are frankly an embarrassment and not fit for purpose.
I had a very similar one, a good few years ago (2006?) in Tewkesbury:
I'd submitted an application for a mixed use housing and office development that had gone through a long and tortuous process of assessment. The committee voted against it, at which point - extraordinarily - the Chief Planning Officer stood up and basically went apes
t at the Committee members. He told them in no uncertain terms that our application conformed to policy and had carefully addressed every issue; that we (major national housebuilder) would undoubtedly appeal with costs, that we would win, and that the Council had no money in its budget to pay those costs, so they damned well better take the vote again and think a bit harder about it that time.The legals adviser just sat and looked at her hands...The vote was retaken, and the application permitted.
The Committee process - and as we've seen on this forum previously, some of the individuals involved - are frankly an embarrassment and not fit for purpose.
Thanks. Both the process seemed strange, as did the way it caught everyone unawares. Surely planning committees vote against grant recommendations a lot? Based on last night, it seemed like it was the first time.
I won't be persuing judicial review personally, although the wider neighbourhood might consider it. This planning has been going on for 5 years so they have probably got bored of it. And with the changed world, the development may not even add up financially anymore (or the developer is not prepared to risk the money).
I won't be persuing judicial review personally, although the wider neighbourhood might consider it. This planning has been going on for 5 years so they have probably got bored of it. And with the changed world, the development may not even add up financially anymore (or the developer is not prepared to risk the money).
Edited by CharlesElliott on Thursday 4th June 13:41
CharlesElliott said:
Surely planning committees vote against grant recommendations a lot?
Yes, of course they do - and for a variety of reasons.Sometimes the Planning balance isn't clear-cut, and it is genuinely reasonable for an elected body to take the decision for that reason.
Sometimes, Policy is only good for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools, and the Planners themselves (who are bound by the rules to adhere to Policy) actually want the committee to take a decision that goes against Policy (one springs to mind in Malvern a few years ago where the parents of a disabled child wanted to build an annex with specialist facilities; Policy said only minimal extension to dwellings allowed in Greenbelt - both Officers and Committee said 'stuff that!").
But they should always have one eye on whether the decision would be defensible at appeal or JR, and depending on who the opposition is (and their financial resources) might also influence them where they know that legal costs could be involved.
What is irregular is taking multiple votes on a single application. Their committee rules may allow them to do so if they follow certain procedure, or it may not.
I have had similar but permission was refused, but the next day i get a call from the chair or head of planning who said, we will take it back to the next committee and it will be approved. Lo and behold it was - happened twice in Solihull.
I had one refused in Warwick where they couldn't think of a reason for refusal, so refused on the grounds that the flats were open plan and the sound of a washing machine in the kitchen would mean that the occupiers wouldn't be able to hear the TV.
The Appeal cost them more than it cost me! They didn't win.
I had one refused in Warwick where they couldn't think of a reason for refusal, so refused on the grounds that the flats were open plan and the sound of a washing machine in the kitchen would mean that the occupiers wouldn't be able to hear the TV.
The Appeal cost them more than it cost me! They didn't win.
garyhun said:
That’s grim, but not surprising.
I once had a Member of a newly formed Committee (Redditch, I think it was) stick her hand up and ask the planner to explain what were buildings and what was the access road on a projection of the site plan when he was explaining a scheme.I was attending one with a family member, PP refused, which was the decision and fair enough - however one of the councillors reason for refusal was that they had too many complaints about the scheme and no elaboration offered. I didn't understand why they weren't told to pick a planning reason or a policy reason. It was almost as if they were saying 'the people who vote for me don't like it so i'll side with them'.
Equus said:
garyhun said:
That’s grim, but not surprising.
I once had a Member of a newly formed Committee (Redditch, I think it was) stick her hand up and ask the planner to explain what were buildings and what was the access road on a projection of the site plan when he was explaining a scheme.Equus said:
I had a very similar one, a good few years ago (2006?) in Tewkesbury:
I'd submitted an application for a mixed use housing and office development that had gone through a long and tortuous process of assessment. The committee voted against it, at which point - extraordinarily - the Chief Planning Officer stood up and basically went apest at the Committee members. He told them in no uncertain terms that our application conformed to policy and had carefully addressed every issue; that we (major national housebuilder) would undoubtedly appeal with costs, that we would win, and that the Council had no money in its budget to pay those costs, so they damned well better take the vote again and think a bit harder about it that time.
The legals adviser just sat and looked at her hands...The vote was retaken, and the application permitted.
I've had exactly this happen more than once at the same Committee. The Council had less than a 3 year land supply, out of date Local Plan and Members still kept refusing applications for major residential schemes contrary to officer recommendations to approve. By the time one of my applications got to Committee, the Council had lost several appeals and had spent £500k of taxpayers' money defending the Committee's ridiculous decisions and getting their pants pulled down at appeal.I'd submitted an application for a mixed use housing and office development that had gone through a long and tortuous process of assessment. The committee voted against it, at which point - extraordinarily - the Chief Planning Officer stood up and basically went apes
t at the Committee members. He told them in no uncertain terms that our application conformed to policy and had carefully addressed every issue; that we (major national housebuilder) would undoubtedly appeal with costs, that we would win, and that the Council had no money in its budget to pay those costs, so they damned well better take the vote again and think a bit harder about it that time.The legals adviser just sat and looked at her hands...The vote was retaken, and the application permitted.
By the time a second of my projects got to the same Committee, Members had come around to the fact that, through gritted teeth, they would have to approve the application (which happened to be a draft allocation in the forthcoming Local Plan and was the first major development this large village just two miles away from the biggest town in the District had seen in 50+ years). During the Members' deliberations, local NIMBYs started shouting abuse at the Committee and the Chair actually addressed one of them directly, which I'd never seen before, saying in no uncertain terms that 'it was a big sh*t sandwich and we've all got to take a bite and anyway, your village ain't so special, son'.
So many times I've seen the Members' debate just start off with 'we want to refuse this, but Officers, can you tell us what policies can we refuse it on?' only to be told that there aren't any that would stand up at appeal and then them start to grub around desperately.
But then again, seeing Jenrick's shenanigans around Westferry Printworks as the latest in a long list of biased decisions down the years, it's not exactly like a great example is being set by Government...
NPPF caught Tewkesbury off guard, the local plan and JCS were not in place and they have been hit with a rash of developments where they didn't really want them. 
I have done a couple of large developments in Tewkesbury district over the years (largest being Bredon road 220 units), and they have always been difficult because of the lack of a local plan. They messed about stalling CRE for years and years and just kept adding to Bishops Cleeve, road infrastructure there is now struggling big time at rush hour.
I have done a couple of large developments in Tewkesbury district over the years (largest being Bredon road 220 units), and they have always been difficult because of the lack of a local plan. They messed about stalling CRE for years and years and just kept adding to Bishops Cleeve, road infrastructure there is now struggling big time at rush hour.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff