Agenda item

Webheath Planning Appeal

The Leader invited Clare Flanagan, Principal Solicitor, to brief all present about proposals for dealing with the forthcoming planning appeal concerning development at Pumphouse Lane, Redditch.  He had agreed that the briefing could be given as there was public interest in the appeal and to enable members’ views to be taken into account when a decision was made about the issue.  The Ward members had been invited to attend to hear the briefing.

The main elements of the briefing were:

·         In May 2013 the Planning Committee had refused an application for outline planning permission at Pumphouse Lane as it was considered to be unsustainable due to:

o   the resultant additional traffic on the local road network,

o   the lack of suitable infrastructure to support the development and

o   the lack of contribution towards the wider highway network infrastructure.

As such, it would cause harm to the safety and amenity of the residents of the Webheath area and the town of Redditch as a whole, contrary to Policies CS6 and CS7 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3. 

·         The applicants had appealed against this decision and the inquiry had been arranged for 6 days in January.

·         The decision had been made contrary to officer recommendation so a Planning Consultant had been engaged to defend the Appeal on behalf of the Council.  Counsel for the Borough Council (QC) had also been appointed.

·         The Council’s QC met relevant officers to discuss the statement explaining the Council’s case and how it would be defended at the Inquiry.  During this discussion, the Planning consultant had made it clear that, in her opinion, of the three strands of the refusal reason, two had no technical evidence from any source to support them and they were indefensible.  She had also been explicit in her unwillingness to defend these reasons at the Inquiry.

·         In the light of this, the QC’s advice was that the Borough Council should withdraw the “local” elements of the refusal reason or risk being exposed to substantial costs.

·         If the Council took this action, its case would rest entirely on the County highway reason.  The County Council had advocated refusal if the wider highway network contribution was not agreed.  It was possible that the County Council would reach agreement with the appellant.  If this happened, the County Council would not be involved with the Appeal.

If the Council continued to pursue the Appeal in spite of the advice of the Planning Consultant and QC, it could be exposed to costs in the region of £100,000.  The Chief Executive and Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services were of the view that the Council should no longer seek to defend the “local” elements of the refusal reason at Appeal.  By withdrawing from these elements now, the Council could reduce its costs liability.  This view was endorsed by the Council’s Section 151 Officer.

The deadline for preparing documents for the Appeal required them to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 20^th December.  As there would not be a Council meeting before this date, officers would seek an urgent decision on the matter to minimise the Council’s liability.

The Leader first called on the two local ward members to comment or ask questions on the report.  One of the ward members said that he supported the recommendation outlined in the paper and endorsed the action of the officers.

In response to questions, Officers explained that the QC would continue to represent the Council and would attend the opening of the Inquiry.  The Council would continue to accrue the costs of employing the Barrister to represent it as the Local Planning Authority.  The Officers’ advice addressed the risk of being liable for substantial costs incurred by the Appellant when no evidence could be offered to support two elements of the Council’s case.

The majority of the Executive Committee supported the officer’s proposal not to defend the element of the refusal reason relating to additional traffic on the local road network and the lack of suitable infrastructure to support the development.  It was noted that the decision required was a Council one because of the potential impact on its budget.  However, because of the timescale this would be made under its procedure for making an urgent decision between meetings.