Issue - meetings

The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a supplementary estimate to cover the costs associated with various pending and upcoming appeals and to further fund legislation required advertising costs.  The report sets out that the Service does not have sufficient budget to meet the costs being claimed.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Executive approves a supplementary estimate totalling £97,990 for the following costs:

·         £15,000 for planning application advertising fee overspend (statutory requirement) and

·         £82,990 for pending and forthcoming appeals costs.

The Executive RESOLVED to approve a Supplementary Estimate totalling £97,990 for the following costs:

·         £15,000 for planning application advertising fee overspend (statutory requirement) and

·         £82,990 for pending and forthcoming appeals costs.

Reason: Whilst the Planning Service budget includes sums for legal expenses, it does not have sufficient funds to meet the costs as shown above. It is therefore necessary to seek a supplementary estimate to pay the above amounts suggested.

[Overview & Scrutiny Committee – Services]

Cllr Liz Townsend, Portfolio Holder for Planning & Economic Development, introduced the report requesting a Supplementary Estimate to cover costs associated with various pending planning appeals and to fund statutory advertising costs. The additional costs would be met by releasing a planning reserve no longer required, and from general savings.

Cllr Hyman had registered to speak on this item, who claimed that the council could avoid these costs if it took a different approach at appeals with regard to the Appropriate Assessment of the mitigation of development on designated Special Protection Areas.

The Leader and Cllr Townsend noted that Cllr Hyman’s arguments had been tested, by Waverley’s counsel, and at many planning appeals, and had not been successful. The reason Waverley struggled to win appeals was because the council could not demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Land Supply, and therefore was subject to the Tilted Balance, which tilted the balance of the planning judgement in favour of the developers.

Cllr Merryweather added that the lack of a 5YHLS was not due to Waverley granting planning permissions but because developers were not building out the permissions that they held. He had asked the MP for Southwest Surrey, Jeremy Hunt, numerous times whether he supported the idea of borough councils having powers to penalise developers who did not build out planning permissions in a timely way, for example by levying Council Tax on unbuilt units.

Cllr MacLeod noted that the Leader had no authority to instruct officers to act against the council’s own legal advice, and suggested that Cllr Hyman should seek alternative and independent legal routes to obtain a definitive judgement on his position.

The Executive RESOLVED to approve a Supplementary Estimate totalling £97,990 for the following costs:

·         £15,000 for planning application advertising fee overspend (statutory requirement) and

·         £82,990 for pending and forthcoming appeals costs.

Reason: Whilst the Planning Service budget includes sums for legal expenses, it does not have sufficient funds to meet the costs as shown above. It is therefore necessary to seek a supplementary estimate to pay the above amounts suggested.