The
MPM introduced the Appeals report and provided an update on the
Arcady hearing (ENF/18/0164) which was expected to be heard in
January 2023, such delays were brought as a result of late
information received by the Appellant.
Cllr R Kershaw considered such actions as delay tactics, and
enquired if this matter had been taken with the Planning Inspectors
to ensure NNDC did not run out of time. The MPM advised that this
matter needed to be considered carefully and advised that the
Authority would engaged with the Planning Inspector on this matter,
adding that a resolution would be for everyone benefit.
Cllr N Pearce reflected that this had been a running issue, and
expressed his concerns for the delay tactics used by the Appellant.
He stated he was perplexed and disappointed with the continued
delays as result of late documentation, and asked if this may occur
again. The MPM commented that whilst he did not know the thought
process of the Appellant, he could not envisage a reason in which
additional documentation would be required. He contended that this
was a matter for the Planning Inspector to manage, and NNDC would
convey their wish that informal hearing be heard at the earliest
opportunity.
Cllr V Holliday acknowledged the concerns of the local community
caused by the delay, conjoining of the appeals, and complexity of
the case, and contended that strong pushback was required. She
added that community feedback had also been received regarding
Blakeney, the Pastures, Planning Application PF/21/0390, and the
way in which it had come through. The MPM noted issues with
PF/21/0390 and affirmed this was a matter for the Planning
Inspector to decide whether to grant appeal.
Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his frustration that valuable
Officers time was spent on appeals, some of which he considered to
be wasteful. The MPM stated that NNDC
had an exceptional record at appeal and with decision making. He
remarked that other authorities were also affected with time delays
by consequence of the appeals process, but that he didn’t
wish to see a situation in which appeals were dropped as this may
put the Authority at risk. He reflected that future performance
reports could include the data capture for the time undertaken by
Officers with appeals, noting that this would likely be a
considerable amount of time spent.
The
Chairman asked what the timeframe for appeals was and whether there
was a maximum permitted time. The MPM advised that under the
‘Planning guarantee’ 6 months was afforded to the
Authority to make there decision, and 6
months for the Planning Inspector, however, such timeframe was not
often met by the Planning Inspecting Service.
Cllr J Toye asked if the Authority had made representations when
it considered that the Planning Inspector had taken too long. The
MPM advised that yes, the Authority does have a dialogue with the
Planning Inspector and referenced the Kelling Application (PF/20/1056) on p.32 of the
Agenda Pack, and stated that NNDC had politely asked the Planning
Inspector for an update on their decision.
Cllr A Brown asked if costs may be
awarded to the Council due to the delays caused by the Appellant,
and whether this would be automatically granted. The MPM advised
that the decision as to whether to award costs was determined by
legislative guidance regarding unreasonable behaviour. This would
not have to be put to the Appellant at this stage, but could be put
to the Planning Inspector who would make a separate judgement to
the appeal. The matter of apportioning, and justifying costs was
challenging, with an agreement needing to be reached by both
sides.