Agenda item

Question and Answer Session for Members of the Public (if any)

Minutes:

Mr John Horne made asked the following question of the Chairman:

 

As Woodcut Farm has twice been refused by your Planning Committee colleagues, do you feel let down that Officers do not feel inclined to defend that position, despite their inadequate drafting on the grounds for refusal?

 

The Chairman responded that Officers had given professional advice to the Planning Committee both with respect to the original consideration of proposals for Woodcut farm and subsequently with respect to the appeal. The reason for refusal was based upon the discussion and grounds put forward by Members at the original Planning Committee meeting.

 

In addition Officers have ensured that the position concerning the reasons for refusal agreed by the Planning Committee had been properly reviewed given the change in circumstances arising from the Local Plan Examination. This was good practice.

 

Officers had continued to give their professional advice to Councillors at this Committee.

 

Consideration of the matter at the Planning Referrals Committee was in line with the Council’s agreed Constitutional procedure on such matters.

 

Mr Horne then asked the following supplementary question:

 

If the Committee decides to continue to defend the appeal tonight, will you mandate officers to strongly defend the appeal, despite the fact that the costs represented only 0.5% of the New Homes Bonus that is due to be received by this council from central government?

 

The Chairman responded that the Council would ask Officers to provide a robust defence of the appeal grounds if the Committee was minded to continue the defence of the appeal.

 

Mr Gary Thomas asked the following question of the Chairman:

 

As the Planning Inspector has not yet issued his final report on MBC’s Draft Local Plan, will it be reasonable for your Committee to be asked to assume that Woodcut Farm is firmly in the final Plan?

 

The Chairman responded that the Committee was considering the position in the context of the stage that the Local Plan had reached, decisions that Full Council and the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transport Committee had made and the outcomes of the Local Plan Examination.

 

The new Local Plan was at an advanced stage and the Council had prepared a comprehensive evidence base to underpin the Plan, which included an objective assessment of the amount and type of new employment land that will be required to 2031.

 

The Woodcut Farm allocation had been considered and agreed by Full Council.

 

Woodcut farm was by far the largest B class employment allocation in the Plan; it addressed the evidenced need for a strategically well-located employment site in the borough and was consistent with the Council’s Economic Development Strategy which was also agreed by Full Council.

 

The Local Plan’s approach to employment land, including the allocation of Woodcut Farm, was discussed at length and in detail during the Local Plan hearings.  Following this full debate, and as outlined at paragraph 5.16 of the main report, the advice from Officers was that the Inspector had endorsed the general principle of the Woodcut Farm employment allocation because it was necessary to meet identified need for employment development in the period to 2031.

 

Mr Thomas then asked the following supplementary question:

 

As the Council did not follow the principles in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the duty to co-operate when drafting the local plan, was it safe to assume that Woodcut Farm would be in the final Local Plan?

 

The Chairman responded that the need for employment land had been validated by the inspector and that officers had followed the National Planning Policy Framework when drafting the Local Plan.

 

Mrs Cheryl Taylor Maggio asked the following question of the Chairman:

 

Given the defined MBC constitutional procedure, is your Committee comfortable with being invoked on this matter at this time?

 

The Chairman responded that the Committee was set up specifically to deal with planning decisions which may have significant costs implications for the Council. It was appropriate for the Planning Committee to consider the impact on this case of the changed circumstances following the Local Plan Inspector’s report and the implications of costs at appeal. It was also appropriate to refer the decision of the Planning Committee to the Planning Referrals Committee for further consideration, as was allowed under the Constitution.

 

Mrs Taylor Maggio asked a supplementary question. However the Chairman judged that the supplementary question did not relate to the original question asked.

 

Mr Peter Coulling asked the following question of the Chairman:

 

As this is such a contentious, strategic matter, do you think it is right that you should be asked to put “costs” above the decision of the Planning Committee?

 

The Chairman responded that the costs regime was an integral part of the planning appeals system and if any of the parties failed to fully substantiate its case, then it would be open to an award of costs. The Council had an obligation to consider both whether it could substantiate its case and whether it was at risk of costs. Therefore Officers were simply advising on the costs risks due to the change in circumstances since the decision so Members could make an informed decision.

 

These costs could be very substantial in a complex case such as this, where it will be dealt with at a Public Inquiry lasting 2-3 weeks, with large numbers of expert witnesses and barristers representing each party. The Council had an obligation to consider both whether it could substantiate its case and whether it was at risk of costs.

 

Mr Coulling asked the following supplementary question:

 

As the potential costs of defending and subsequently losing the appeal are trivial - 0.5% in relation to the New Homes Bonus earned by the borough - do you think the Planning Committee have not already considered the merits in defending the appeal.

 

The Chairman asked The Director of Regeneration and Place to answer on her behalf. The Director of Regeneration and Place explained that the costs were not trivial, and that New Homes Bonus had been allocated to the Council’s capital programme. As the money had already been allocated to the Capital Programme, with specific projects and investments already identified, the Council would have to substantially change its spending plans if it lost an appeal on this application and had to pay costs.