Agenda item

To consider a report on the findings of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Report on the case, land at Mount House, Bryniau, Dyserth (copy enclosed).

A report was submitted on the findings of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Report on the case, land at Mount House, Bryniau, Dyserth.

 

Public Speaker –

 

Mr. Rhys Davies (on behalf of the applicant) – referred to the late representations submitted by the complainant and legal advice given to the committee to proceed with their determinations.  The complainant had submitted that compensation costs should not be considered as an issue but if planning permission was revoked the owner of the land would need to be compensated.

 

The Head of Planning and Public Protection briefly outlined events leading up to submission of the report and request for members to reconsider the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation in this case and whether to revoke the outline planning consent.  Planning Committee had initially considered the Ombudsman’s report in February 2016 and determined that it would not be appropriate to revoke the permission it had granted.  The complainant had since brought Judicial Review proceedings against that decision which were due to be heard in December 2016.  In accordance with legal advice the matter had been brought back before members to reconsider taking into account the basis of the claim in the Judicial Review and grounds of challenge.  If members were minded to reaffirm their decision not to revoke in line with officer recommendation the Council would be in a stronger position going into the Judicial Review.  If members were minded to seek formal revocation of the planning permission the Judicial Review would not proceed but the applicant would be entitled to compensation.  It was clarified that, if permission was revoked, the decision taken on the reserved matters would also fall.

 

The Team Leader – Places (SC) reiterated that there had been criticisms about the way the Council had dealt with the planning application which had been set out within the report.  She highlighted the legal test for revocation as set out under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and definition of ‘expedient’ within that context and whether it was appropriate in this case given all material considerations including the fact that if the application came before the Planning Committee today permission was unlikely to be granted, the Ombudsman’s findings on the Council’s handling of the application, and compensation considerations.

 

General Debate – Councillor Stuart Davies advised that no further material considerations had been put forward which changed his view.  In considering the statutory test for revocation Councillor Davies felt that the impact of a new single dwelling on the complainant’s properties would be minimal, particularly in light of the amendments made by the applicant in responding to the concerns raised, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s recommendations and compensation issues.  Having taken into account the legal position and representations submitted Councillor Davies proposed the officer recommendations detailed within the report.  The Chair advised that the recommendations would be voted upon individually.

 

Councillor Mark Young sought clarification that it would be appropriate for him to vote on the matter given that he had not been a member at the time the original outline planning consent had been approved.  The Team Leader – Places (SC) advised that, having completed the necessary planning training and as a member of the Planning Committee, it was appropriate for him to participate in the decision making process.

 

Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts highlighted that during training members had been advised of the need to consider each application on its own merits which was at odds with the Ombudsman’s view that members should have been made aware of two previous refusals at the same location in this case which could have had an impact on the decision.  Officers confirmed that they had not considered the historic refusals of planning permission to be a material consideration although the Ombudsman felt it was of relevance.  Having considered the Ombudsman’s view officers tried to include more historical background in planning application reports but still believed that the two refusals were not relevant in this case.  Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts stated that considering historical applications would ‘muddy the waters’ and as a Planning Committee members should consider the current application as submitted on its own merits.  Councillor Hilditch-Roberts asked that this point be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

 

In terms of compensation considerations, the Team Leader reported upon advice provided by the District Valuer with regard to potential compensation sums payable following the Planning Committee’s decision whether or not to revoke permission.

 

The Chair took the opportunity to thank the officers for their advice and wealth of information presented in order for the committee to make a fully informed decision.

 

Proposal (1) – Councillor Stuart Davies proposed officer recommendation (a) be accepted as detailed in the report, seconded by Councillor Mark Young.

 

VOTE:

FOR – 21

AGAINST – 0

ABSTAIN – 1

 

RESOLVED that members note and accept the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales recommendations a) to c) having regard to the measures agreed and implemented by officers.

 

Proposal (2) – Councillor Stuart Davies proposed officer recommendation (b) be accepted as detailed in the report, seconded by Councillor Dewi Owens.

 

VOTE:

FOR – 21

AGAINST – 0

ABSTAIN – 1

 

RESOLVED that after due consideration of the issues and advice of the report that the Council confirms it will not be seeking the formal revocation of the planning permission in accordance with officer recommendation and for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Proposal (3) – Councillor Stuart Davies proposed officer recommendation (c) be accepted as detailed in the report, seconded by Councillor Dewi Owens.

 

VOTE:

FOR – 21

AGAINST – 0

ABSTAIN – 1

 

RESOLVED that members agree to further instruct the District Valuer (DV) to assess the impact of any completed development (the subject of a reserved matters application linked to the outline consent) on the complaints properties, within one month of the completion of the development, and pay her an amount which equates to the difference in value before and after the development.