Agenda item


To note appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision.


Officers made the following comments concerning this report:


·         There had been some backlogs in Planning Inspectorate decisions with some decisions having come through in the last few days

·         Items 13 and 14 – Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent – Clifton, 26 to 28 The Mall: Proposal to Create a Man Sized Roof for a Single Bedroom Flat – This had been refused due to its impact on its status as a listed building. However, the Inspector felt that the impact on the Listed Bulding Consent was acceptable and allowed the appeal. Listed Building consent was granted for that proposal

·         Items 16 and 17 – General Hospital Site – Permission was granted for the development and conversion of the site – Proposal to add in 2 further residential properties. BCC refused this application under delegated powers. The Inspector agreed and felt that the decision should be refused on the grounds out forward concerning harm to heritage assets and the resulting poor living conditions for existing residents and for the proposed occupiers of the units

·         Items 38 and 39 – Application to Replace Existing Telecommunications Equipment on Knowle Water Tower on Talbot Road – Request for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent – This was refused by the officer under delegated powers. The Inspector had to weigh up the public benefits of the telecommunications with the harm to heritage assets. The Inspector felt that the harm was not outweighed by the proposal and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, listed building consent was refused. Full details of this decision would be reported in the report for the next Development Control B Committee meeting

·         Various appeal decisions were listed from Item 58 onwards


In response to questions from Councillors, officers made the following comments:


·         If costs were applied for by the appellant, officers would always report the outcome – whether costs were awarded or not awarded

·         There is a fast track householder appeal process. These applications were always listed at the beginning of the report. A Public Inquiry was held first, then informal hearings including a Site Visit

·         The vast majority of appeals were dealt with through written representations with a tight timescale. The appellants were required to submit evidence under strict absolute deadlines

·         The Planning Inspectorate programmed in this work. Whilst sometimes this was turned around quickly, on other occasions it was not

·         Regular updates were provided on decisions. However, some were several months old.

·         In the case of written representations, the Inspectors always visited the site. They were often from another part of the country so that they can be perceived as neutral. They were usually only accompanied to the site to provide access to it and to take photos prior to making their decision

·         Appellants often suggested which route they wished to take – either a public Inquiry with a hearing or written representations


Officers stated that they would investigate the reason for the dismissal of Item Number 66 and e-mail Councillor Clive Stevens to advise him accordingly. Action: Gary Collins




Supporting documents: