Planners' decision-making criticised
PLANNING officers rejected an application to remove a roadside wall of a property in Upper St Jacques in part because they thought it was an attempt to create an extra parking space at the property.
The department's decision-making was heavily criticised for incorrect assumptions, lack of transparency and failure to use key information in its possession, in a ruling from a planning appeal tribunal.
The tribunal agreed the application should have been refused, but on very different grounds.
‘The basis for this incorrect assumption is difficult to pin down, bearing in mind that photographs taken when the case officer visited the site clearly show two cars parked on the forecourt,’ a planning appeal report by tribunal president Linda Wride stated.
‘The authority was invited to clarify this matter in written representations but the response does not give a satisfactory explanation, which is why the tribunal is flagging it up now.’
It was also under the microscope for not making it clear what assessment tools were being used to make a decision and how they were modified to reflect the local position.
‘This is fundamental to fair and transparent decision-making.’
The planning report simply briefly referenced ‘using the matrix in BS7913’.
This is a British Standard guide to the conservation of historic buildings.
Planners used a matrix that is intended to assess the impact of change in relation to the significance of a historic building, not necessarily one with statutory protection, as was the case in the application.
‘In our opinion, it is a rather blunt instrument to assess the effect of a development on the special character of a protected building and its setting as part of the development control process.
'There are other sources of relevant guidance to provide help should local guidance need to be supplemented.’
The appeals panel also said it appeared that the reasons why the property being assessed, Le Reve, was considered worthy of protection in 1989 were not in front of officers when they assessed the planning application even though it had the information in its files.
‘The 1989 description was only provided – along with the associated decisions made by the then Ancient Monuments Committee – in response to the tribunal’s request for this information as part of the appeal process.
‘These early records provide a potentially useful source of information about buildings which were given protected status prior to the current regime and, in our view, should be taken into account as part of the decision-making process, whether by the planning authority or the tribunal.
'The fact this only happened late in the day
in this appeal reinforces our concern about how the application was handled by the authority.’
