Agenda item

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The Chairman invited Kenny Green, Development Management Team Leader, to update the Committee on any completed and pending appeals as per the appeals report included within the Agenda Pack.

It was confirmed that one appeal decision had been received for Application

19/08146/VAR, Land at Trowbridge Lodge Park, an appeal that related to six additional residential caravans being sited within the park.

It was explained that the appealed development had been refused by a substantive lack of detail submitted by the applicant and that three refusal reasons were cited within the refusal decision dated 8 April 2020. The decision outlined the lack of a tree constraints plan, tree survey and aboricultural impact assessment; all of which were considered essential to enable the Council to full assess the potential impact of the proposed additional six residential caravans on existing trees, the natural landscape and the ecological value, and potential impacts on protected species. In addition, the Council refused the full planning application as it was only supported by an indicative site plan that was not found to be acceptable by officers as it was not possible to fully assess the potential impacts that the six additional caravans would have on the living conditions of existing and future occupants in terms of outlook, privacy and visual amenity. There was also a lack of detail submitted in terms of parking provision.

An appeal was subsequently lodged by the applicant, but it was help up substantively by the COVID pandemic and the planning inspectorate did not issue an appeal start letter until 25 August 2021. Officers defended the appeal and maintained that insufficient information had been provided on the sitting of the additional caravans and the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the increased capacity would be implemented in such a way as to avoid further loss or damage to trees (natural habitat) and/or adversely impact on residential amenity. Through the appeal process, officers recommended that the appointed planning inspector seek Natural England’s advice on the effect of the development proposed on the bats, particularly those associated with the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and to secure a detailed site masterplan. Natural England provided the planning inspector with comments in early January 2022 and a detailed site plan submission was sent to the planning inspector which was then sent to the Council to provide comments.

The appeal was allowed with the appointed planning inspector being suitably informed by the late submission of the detailed site plan and imposed conditions to define the terms of the allowed appeal. Members were advised that applicants are expected to submit applications that are fully supported with plans and relevant supporting documents to illustrate what is proposed, and when they do not, that they should expect a refusal. It should be noted that the applicant had been asked numerous times to submit a detailed plan by the case officer whilst the application was with the Council, but they had refused to comply.

Members were advised by Kenny Green that as with any appeal, there was a cost incurred to the Council in defending the Council’s position through the dedicated time spent by the planning case officer to prepare a statement and for the Council’s planning appeals team in terms of time taken uploading documents and sending correspondence to interested parties and to the planning inspectorate. Kenny Green also informed the Committee that there was also a wider public cost beyond the Council, as Natural England had been required to provide expert advice to the planning inspector. Members expressed concern about this appeal and the dedicated resource that had to be given to a case that should have been properly supported when the application was lodged with the Council.

After seeking a legal view from Sarah Marshall, a Senior Solicitor within the Council, the Committee suggested that a letter carrying Parvis Khansari’s name should be written and sent to the Corporate Leadership Team and/or the Secretary of State outlining the costs incurred by the Council in defending appeals and to suggest a change to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to place a much heavier burden on applicants that do not submit the requisite level of detail with applications.

Following which, it was:

Resolved

The Committee noted the appeals report for the period 7 January 2022 to 4 February 2022.

The Committee requested that a letter be sent by Parvis Khansari to the Secretary of State highlighting the cost implications of defending the appeal for 19/08146/VAR (reference APP/Y3940/W/20/3260751).