Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the Agent. Mr Hall stated that the officer’s report appears to sum up the proposal very well and it appears to be a fair report. He added that there are no objections from the County Council, Highways or Environmental Health and the site is in Flood Zone 1 in the middle of March.

Mr Hall stated that at 10.5 of the officer’s report it states that the overall width of the proposal is of a similar proportion to other properties in the road which maintains the uniformity that currently exists, and it is considered to be of a good quality design and utilises appropriate material ensuring it is sympathetic to the host dwelling. Mr Hall added that the officer’s report also states that there is no impact on the host property or recently constructed property, which was approved by the Planning Committee, to the rear by way of loss of light or privacy, with the report also stating that there is sufficient private amenity space for both dwellings and the Highways Authority have no objections. He added that at the end of the officer’s report it states that the officer recommendation for the proposal is one of refusal.

Mr Hall stated that what has not come out in the report is that the Planning Officer has been pro-active and worked with them on this application and after the application had been in a few weeks he e-mailed the planning officer and on 22 June he responded by e-mail to say that he had reviewed the application and he supports the scheme, there were 10 objections so the application would have to go to Planning Committee for a decision, with the earliest committee date being August and he would send the conditions for agreement and an extension of time closer to date, which they agreed to.  He advised that he did e-mail back the Planning Officer on 23 June and received in writing that the officer would be recommending approval, which he conveyed to the applicant, who is a local carpenter/builder, and he was very happy to receive this information and nothing further was heard for 6-7 weeks. He stated that he had these e-mails if committee wished to view them.

Mr Hall stated that on 12 September they received the committee notification with the recommendation of refusal and they had received no correspondence or warning that the recommendation had changed, with the applicant rightly contacting him asking what was going on and he did not know as there had been no warning at all, with the officer’s report being very fair and quite complementary. He questioned why it had changed as he does not know and reiterated that it has the support from March Town Council, Highways, Environmental Health and is located in Flood Zone 1 in the middle of March.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked for confirmation that all the way through the application was going to be approved and at the last moment it had changed to refusal? Mr Hall responded that this was correct, the officer kept them well informed and he has two e-mails from the officer, if members want to view them, in June saying he is going to recommend approval of the scheme, he agreed an extension of time based on this and then last Tuesday the committee notification was for refusal. He believes the Planning Officer was on holiday when this came out but something has changed but the application has not changed from their perspective so he cannot understand why it was now recommended for refusal.

·       Councillor Hicks asked if it was acceptable to look at these e-mails? The Chairman stated that it is acceptable, but all members need the opportunity to see them. Mr Hall provided the e-mails, which were circulated around members. Councillor Connor stated that whether these e-mails are of interest to members this does not affect the planning merits of this application.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Hicks asked why the Planning Officer had a change of heart, going from approval to a refusal? Nick Harding responded that he has not been privy to the e-mails so it appears, but he cannot confirm it, that the case officer has looked at the application and reported back to the agent that he is comfortable with the proposal but maybe he did not check his thoughts with his line manager before making his thoughts known to the agent, which is the approach that all officers are encouraged to take to avoid this situation whereby a case officer has a particular opinion on an application and they have missed an important factor in consideration of the case which the line manager has picked up on. He stated that with this type of development proposal there is an element of subjectivity to it, and you can understand why different people have different views on it but the line manager is clear that given the open nature of that junction area the application would compromise this. Nick Harding acknowledged that it was an unfortunate situation and apologised to both the agent and the applicant.

·       Councillor Connor questioned whether this would undermine the case officer’s opinion as the manager has overturned their decision? Nick Harding responded that it all depends where it is on the spectrum, if it was identified to the case officer that they had missed an important aspect of consideration of the proposal and the case officer reflects on this, it is entirely appropriate for the case officer to continue to write up the committee report. He added that if there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the case officer and the line manager on a key issue and a continuing difference of opinion then in those circumstances the case officer would be removed from dealing with the application as you cannot ask someone to write a report that they do not agree with. Nick Harding stated that in this case, as far as he knows, the case officer continued on so clearly the line manager pointed out the missed important component in consideration of the application.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that at the last committee meeting Gareth Edwards told the committee exactly the same thing that he had an application that was led all the way for approval and had e-mails to show this and then it was recommended for refusal. He made the point that the case officer for this application is a Senior Planning Officer, so it does not sit well with him for a senior officer to get something wrong and he feels there is one very subjective reason for refusal.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated it is concerning and asked for legal advice before the application is taken any further as there are clearly things in writing that state the application was going to be approved and does this carry any weight. Councillor Connor responded that the Legal Officer would have nothing to add, and the e-mails carry no weight on how the application is looked at, with the committee needing to take the merits of what is in front of them. Councillor Gerstner responded that there is evidence from the applicant, which is making him feel uncomfortable. Stephen Turnbull advised that members need to distinguish between the process that has occurred and the decision that needs to be taken today, which is on its planning merits should it be approved or refused so how it has been processed and advised to the applicant is of no relevance to the planning merits you have got to have an open mind today on what are the planning merits or dismerits in the light of the planning officer’s report.

·       Councillor Mrs French suggested to avoid this happening again that Nick has a word with the line manager and planning officers as it does not reflect very well on this Council. Councillor Connor stated that he is sure that Nick will be doing this and concurs with the comments of Councillor Gerstner that it does not sit comfortably.

·       Councillor Marks questioned that it seems the officer who has been dealing with it all the way along has missed something being the fundamental flaw, is this the flaw or would there be other things behind this decision to try to refuse? Nick Harding responded that he is not sure if it has been misunderstood what he said, he was asked the question about whether or not it was appropriate for the case officer to have written this report given the feedback they had given the agent and what he explained was if it was pointed out to the officer that they had missed something in the consideration of the application and they said yes, reflected on it and agreed that it was no longer appropriate to recommend approval then it is entirely appropriate for that case officer to remain the case officer and is what appears to him to be the situation here.

·       Councillor Benney stated that if he was a planning officer and went to a line manager and they said they did not agree with his recommendation and was going to be taken off the case, if this happened regularly he would not feel comfortable and would not be happy working like this because this is undermining, especially if you are taken off a case that you have put a lot of work into.

·       Councillor Hicks stated that surely there must be a process of checking somebody’s work before any correspondence is sent out in future so this does not happen again. Nick Harding made the point that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss workflows and processes and officers should not be proffering an opinion on the acceptability or otherwise of a development proposal to an agent unless they have the clearance of the line manager who will be signing of the decision.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he recalls a similar application in the same location which was on the same side of the road and was approved.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he recalls the application where the officer recommendation was to refuse the proposal. He added that the application was for a dwelling to be built in the garden of a house and former Councillor Cornwell spoke in favour of the application it was in the garden of a house and the application was approved against the officer’s recommendation.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he recalls approving a similar application and he referred to  LP16d which is subjective and to decide whether it is a good application. He added that he recalls the previous application where he voted in favour as he thought it made a positive contribution.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that the officer’s report states that the previous application was in the same property, and it was approved in 2020. He added that March Town Council also recommend the application to be approved.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that looking at the recommendation for refusal under LP16d in her opinion she does not believe that that the proposal does not accord with LP16d. She feels that the report is very good, and she was surprised to see the officer’s recommendation for refusal. Councillor Mrs French made the point that she interprets the policy differently to that of officers. 

·       Councillor Connor stated that he went to the application site, and he was very pleased to see the dwelling which was approved previously by the committee. He added that it looked very nice, it was white, clean and tidy and a credit to the developer. He added that he looked at the other side of the road at the sister corner plot and that is very overgrown. Councillor Connor stated that on planning balance he will be able to support the proposal before the committee as he does not think that it will affect the street scene at all and if it does it will be for the better. 

·       Councillor Hicks stated that he concurs with the views of Councillor Connor.

Proposed by Councillor Hicks, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be APPROVED against officer’s recommendation with conditions to be applied to the application in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee along with Councillor Hicks and Councillor Mrs French .

Members did not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal does make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and does not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

(Councillor Benney declared that he knows the agent for this application, he has undertaken work for him but he is not pre-determined and will approach the application with an open mind)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council, but takes no part in planning)