tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post3055428925570501040..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Reasons for granting planning permission (2)Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-22251927839952240712017-01-26T14:54:37.974+00:002017-01-26T14:54:37.974+00:00I agree that the reasoning given by the officer in...I agree that the reasoning given by the officer in this case was flawed and that this would have impacted on the decision.<br /><br />I believe most LPAs do provide a report with reasoning behind their delegated decisions, although I am aware 'PAS' have for some time (post 2014) been suggesting to LPAs that they put an end to this practice as an efficiency / resource saving.<br /><br />Presumably they will now stop suggesting this!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-71236816280501620362017-01-24T12:01:06.195+00:002017-01-24T12:01:06.195+00:00In reply to the anonymous query of 23 January, I c...In reply to the anonymous query of 23 January, I can understand the point that is being made. The wording of Reg. 7 refers not only to a decision whose effect is to grant a permission or licence, but also to one whose effect is to “<i>affect the rights of an individual</i>”. Arguably, therefore, a decision taken by an officer under delegated powers to serve an Enforcement Notice under section 172 must be duly recorded in compliance with Reg.7, and the reasons for that decision must also be recorded. However, these are likely to be the same as those stated in the notice itself, and so this would appear to be a purely technical point.<br /><br />The provisions of Reg 8 regarding production of background papers would also apply. However, I am reasonably certain that the exemption granted by section 100(1)of the 1972 Act would apply, and that paragraph 6 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Act can also be called in aid with regard to enforcement reports, and certainly as regards the information from complainants on which any such report is based.<br /><br />So I don’t think the <i>Shasha</i> judgment, which drew attention to the need to comply with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, makes any practical difference so far as Enforcement Notices are concerned. The only way that an Enforcement Notice can be challenged is by an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate under section 174, and it seems very unlikely that an Inspector would be influenced by an argument based on non-compliance with the 2014 Regs.<br /><br />Where there may be greater mileage in taking a point about non-compliance with the 2014 Regulations might be in a case where the LPA has served a Breach of Condition Notice under section 187A. However, even here, the claimant seeking to judicially review the issue of the BCN would have to satisfy the Court that they had been substantially prejudiced by the LPA’s failure to comply with the 2014 Regs, and that proper compliance with the regulations might reasonably have led to a different outcome (i.e. a decision not to issue the BCN). I suspect that a legal challenge might well founder on this point.<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-7342083236012393282017-01-23T20:45:58.807+00:002017-01-23T20:45:58.807+00:00Martin,
Thank you for highlighting this case.
Do...Martin,<br /><br />Thank you for highlighting this case.<br /><br />Do you think that the duty imposed under Regulation 7(1) would include delegated decisions to take (or not to take) enforcement action where quite often such a decision is likely to affect the rights of an individual? Or do you think such decisions would qualify as exempt information by virtue of s.100l(1)of the 1972 Act? <br /><br />I recall that in the days where all planning decisions were made by a committee, LPA's would often cite the exemption at paragraph 6 in Part I of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Act when it came to enforcement reports. I now note, however, that paragraph 10 of Part 2 of that Schedule requires some balancing of the public interest in disclosing versus maintaining the exemption to be carried out. What are your thoughts on this, please?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-78008953894264807802017-01-23T13:37:39.312+00:002017-01-23T13:37:39.312+00:00Martin
I have read your commentary with interest ...Martin<br /><br />I have read your commentary with interest and looked at the Officer's Delegated Report from the London Authority involved in the Judicial Review and those at Bristol and I don't think a delegated report is simply enough but you will need to provide a title in the delegated report stated reason rather than assessment etc. very much like the Planning Inspectorate do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-3874321826565839522017-01-23T10:47:21.209+00:002017-01-23T10:47:21.209+00:00This is a very useful commentary, and I hope counc...This is a very useful commentary, and I hope councils are reading it!<br /><br />I've always thought that it was a specious argument to say that recording reasons for decisions was an additional burden for council officers. If they've been through the thought process, they should have written it down. Not writing it down should be taken as evidence of not going through the proper thought process, potentially leaving the decision open to challenge, whether there is a legal requirement to state reasons or not.<br /><br />Challenges often occur when there is a "duty" to have regard to something - for example the desirability of protecting a listed building - that is not explicitly referred to in an officer's reasoning.<br /><br />This should also be seen as important where a decision is made to grant planning permission contrary to development plan policy. If a proposal is wholly in accordance with policy, it should be sufficient to say just that.<br /><br />In my view councils are under a duty to make decisions in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (blah blah blah), but frequently approve permissions contrary to local or neighbourhood plan policy without necessarily articulating exactly what the material considerations are that they have favoured, and why.Matt Thomsonhttp://www.cpre.org.uknoreply@blogger.com