Issue - meetings

To advise the Sub Committee on Appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during December 2011 and January 2012.

The Committee considered the report on appeal decisions determined by the Department for Communities and Local Government during December 2011 and January 2012. It was noted that the proportion of appeals allowed during this period was higher than earlier in the year and impacted negatively on performance rates overall for the year.

In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Dorfman advised that no single reason had been identified for number of appeals allowed during the period. Increased resources were now available for management of appeals and an improved system was in place; performance had been positive for the rest of the year, and it was felt that this period represented an anomaly.

The Committee asked about the decision in respect of 30 Alexandra Park road, which had been allowed when other crossovers on the same road had been refused. It was reported that a decision would only be contested in the event that the Inspector had made a procedural or legal error – Mr Dorfman confirmed that he would look into the case to determine whether it was felt that there were grounds to challenge the decision, and would also consider whether it was felt that there was the risk of a precedent being set, and would write to the Committee regarding these issues. Malcolm Smith, Transportation, also agreed that he would look into this case in more detail.

The Committee questioned the win / loss approach to appeals, as it was most important that good planning decisions were being made for the benefit of the Borough. It was also suggested that it might be useful to have a summary of each decision included in the report. Mr Dorfman advised that it was expected nationally that a planning authority would lose around 30-40% of appeals; previous performance had demonstrated that Haringey had been supporting planning policy well and that decisions made had been robust. Each appeal report was up to 10 pages in length – Mr Dorfman agreed that he was happy to make these available to Committee Members if they wished, but that it might be cumbersome to incorporate them into the report. It was suggested that analysis of appeals performance could be considered at Regulatory Committee.

In response to a request from Cllr Schmitz, Mr Dorfman agreed to supply him with a copy of the Inspector’s report in respect of 155 Lordship Lane.

RESOLVED

That the content of the report be noted.