PREVIOUS DECISION LETTERS & PLANNING APPEALS

By
The Use of Inspectors' Decision Letters in Planning Appeals

Those involved in planning appeals often produce the decision letters of planning inspectors to bolster their cases. The argument being, of course, that the previous decision is similar to the one in front of the Inspector and should, therefore, be taken into account. However, the Inspector will often say “Each case on its merits” and place little weight on the decision letter which the party thought to clinch the deal. I many cases, this is because the person producing the decision letter has failed to do enough work. Had he done so, then the Inspector might have placed more weight on the cited decision letter.
Here is a quote from an Inspector in a recent decision letter:
“13. I acknowledge that the appellant has also referred to various successful appeal decisions where lawful development certificates for extended gardens have been granted.  However I have been provided with limited information regarding these cases, including how the scale of the sites compare with that of the present appeal site. “

Appeal Ref: APP/X1355/X/17/3181946 - Wood Cottage, Hesleden Road, Hesleden
The message is clear; namely, that the Inspector should be provided with evidence which shows the background to, and context of, the decision letter which we rely upon.
So what could have been supplied if one is relying on a previous decision letter ?  For a start, a small amount of research should provide copies of the location plans.  The decision rejected by the Inspector in the Wood Cottage appeal was in respect of a site in Clyst Hydon, Devon. A search of the LPA website came up with the location plan:

A tad more research produced an aerial photograph:


The production of these materials would have met the Inspector’s criticism and provided a fighting chance that he would give some weight to the previous decision.
My personal approach is that this exercise should be carried out on every occasion when a decision letter is put in evidence.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN AND PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

By
 Planning conditions and planning obligations relating to biodiversity are, nowadays, relatively common.  However, it will probably be the case that current development control practices will need to be reviewed when the somewhat delayed Environment Bill finally obtains the Royal assent.   So far as development control is concerned, one of the principal provisions in the Bill relates to a condition which will be attached to the grant of most planning permissions as a matter of law.   This statutory condition will provide that the development in question cannot be commenced unless an ‘biodiversity management plan’ is submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.   One of the statutory requirements for such a plan will be that it should show a net measurable gain in ‘biodiversity’ of 10% when measured against the pre-development biodiversity value of the development site. The metric to be used is the Biodiversity Metric 0.2 which is limited to producing calculations for
Read more

THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS CODE & THE 'SIX WEEK RULE'

By
I have found that many delegates from highway authorities are worried about the consequences of missing the six week deadline for the service of APC notices. This article considers that topic. The "advance payments code" The “advance payments code” (“APC”) means the code provided by sections 219 to 225 of the Highways Act 1980: Section 203(1).   The APC has effect for securing payment of the expenses of the execution of street works in private streets adjacent to new buildings: Section 204(2). The APC ensures that a sum equivalent to the likely costs of making up the private street is paid to the highway authority or secured before a new building is erected.   The objective of the exercise being to put the highway authority in the position of being able to step in and carry out the street works in the event that the developer fails to do so. A developer is not entitled to commence work (unless the works are exempted) on a building served by the st
Read more

SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES

By
Planning Authorities and the Avoidance of "Fleeceholding" Many section 106 agreements rely on private management companies to provide and maintain common infrastructure in development schemes, but this approach is not without its own problems It is sometimes proposed that the estate roads on a new development will not become highways maintainable at public expense; indeed, sometimes they will not become highways at all.   Likewise, it might be the case that public open spaces, on-site drainage and structural landscaping will not be adopted by any public authority. One of the matters which must then be considered by the local planning authority is that of the future maintenance of these common parts.   Given that the local highway authority will have statutory duties in respect of new roads, one would anticipate that they will engage a similar exercise. If it is proposed that common parts are to be privately maintained, then the arrangement chosen by the de
Read more