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:

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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.

 

Supporting documents: