Agenda item

APPEALS SECTION

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

Minutes:

      i.        The MPM relayed the Appeals report and invited questions from Members.

 

     ii.        Cllr K Kershaw asked why enforcement action had been quashed for North Walsham. The MPM advised this had been as a result of a technical issue, but that this would not prevent the Council from re-serving the notice in a slightly different way, which would address any deficiencies identified by the inspector. The DMTL advised that this matter had been discussed at the enforcement panel earlier in the week and that issue was with respect to an annex, which the developer had changed to dwelling after the notice had been served. Permission had been refused for an annex due to its size and impact on neighbours.

 

    iii.        The Local Member for the affected Ward in North Walsham; Cllr N Lloyd, expressed his disappointment that he had not been informed of this matter prior. The MPM commented that there were lessons to be learned and that the new enforcement manager would work to ensure such matters do not occur again, including consulting with members of the legal team.

 

   iv.        Cllr N Pearce asked for details about the Arcady Application. The MPM advised that the informal hearing had been postponed, and that this was due to additional information being received by the Council at the last minute. With limited time to study and consider the documents in full, the Planning Inspectorate agreed to defer the meeting. The revised date had not yet been set.

 

     v.        Cllr J Toye noted, with respect to the Arcady, that it was a huge amount of documentation submitted at the last minute. He was in communication with the Assistant Director of Planning as he was dissatisfied with the way in which the Planning Inspectorate had dealt with this matter, as members of the public had been told it was too late to submit information, and yet the applicant was permitted to do so. He acknowledged this had been a long running issue which he considered need to be concluded for the benefit of all.

 

   vi.        Cllr A Brown expressed his preference that the Council consider the application of costs, and was of the understanding that this was not the first time in which the applicant and their agent had submitted documents with late notice which had resulted in delays. He reflected that this matter had massively impacted officer time, and would continue to do so until resolved.

 

  vii.        Cllr V Holliday asked how long the whole process had been ongoing, noting that the UK Government states that the mean time for an enforcement appeal is 112 weeks. She enquired if this had been exceeded with respect of Arcady.

 

 viii.        The MPM advised, that whilst he did not know the exact number of weeks, he believed it was well beyond 112 weeks. This appeal was an exception to the norm with respect of its time-frame. He acknowledged that this was a challenging matter, as the Council could not challenge the Planning Inspectors decision and go to a higher authority other than going to the Secretary State, who would need to wait for the Planning Inspector to reach a conclusion on the decision. In such instance, the informal hearing would need to be first had before the Secretary of State was involved. The MPM advised, with respect of costs, this was a legal consideration and would need to be looked at outside of the development committee meeting.

 

   ix.        Cllr A Brown asked if information could be made available, clarifying that the delay was as a result of the Planning Inspector rather than NNDC as the Planning Authority. The MPM commented that he had spoken with the Appeal Officers and suggested that a message be shared through the appropriate channels, to notify the public of the delay to the informal hearing, particularly as individuals may have planned to attend the meeting.

 

     x.        Cllr J Toye stated that the Planning Inspector had reached their decision, in part, due to NNDCs comments that the volume of information came too late to determine. The volume of documents delivered on the last day to the planning inspector, were not received by the Council till the following week, would have been challenging to go through in the time afforded. He affirmed that Council did not request a delay, rather considered it unacceptable that it should consider the additional evidence in the time available.

 

Supporting documents: