Agenda item

Further to the report, the Committee received and considered advice from the Head of Legal Services in that it was considered that the question to be put to Members was whether the reasons drafted by the Officers accurately reflected the reasons specified at the meeting of the Committee held on 17 December 2007 when the decision to refuse the application had been agreed with the reasons to be formally endorsed.

Members were advised that they were being asked to agree that the reasons reflected the sentiments of the earlier meeting.  It was explained that seeking to revoke an earlier decision might be challenged on the basis of irrationality in that nothing had changed.  The circumstances were the same and there was no new information.

One Member commented that the decision had been made in principle and that the Officers had failed to come back with adequate reasons.  He expressed surprise that the Committee was being advised not to reconsider the application.  He referred to the “six month rule” and questioned whether it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the application for reconsideration at a later date.

In response the Officers advised that the applicant could make an appeal for non determination and the Council might be liable for costs.

One Member commented that occasionally the Committee had decided against the Officers’ recommendations to approve applications.  In these instances the Committee agreed the reasons for refusal but asked that the Officers draft those reasons in a way which reflected the view of the Committee but were in robust wording which would stand up at appeal.  To his knowledge, on considering the reasons coming back the Committee had never re-debated the merits or otherwise of an application but had agreed that the wording of the reasons reflected the views of the Committee.  He drew Members’ attention to the suggested reason commenting that in his view the wording of the reason reflected the concerns of Members.  He reminded Members that they had been concerned regarding the possible inhibited access and the consequential flooding implications. He commented that if replicated this could be awful and cumulatively the impact of this and other similar proposals could be significant.  Furthermore, he commented that as this application was retrospective, it could be seen that the built development was not what was being sought in this application in that the decking was across the whole of the stream. 

For the avoidance of doubt the Officers read out the revised wording of the proposed reason for refusal.

One Member disagreed with the comments made regarding the Officers failing to come up with reasons.  He advised that when the Committee decided to refuse this application and any other application Members know of the sort of reasons that they would use as the basis for refusal.

One Member whilst not supporting refusal of the application, agreed that the proposed wording of the reasons for refusal of the application did reflect the sentiments of the Committee.  Other Members agreed with this view.

One Member commented that he was dissatisfied with the way in which this application had been dealt with.  He commented that in his view there had been a change of circumstances in that between the December meeting when the Committee had resolved to refuse the application and the February meeting of the Committee when Members had not agreed the reason for refusal, comments had been received from the Council’s drainage experts.  The experts had advised that they were unable to confirm that they perceived there to be any problems associated with this application. He reiterated that he could not support refusal of the application having regard to that expert advice and the views of the Officers in the first instance.  However, he suggested that if the Committee was minded to endorse the reason the word “and further up the stream” should be removed in that there was a grate with a smaller mesh further up the stream which would be worse and in addition further upstream there was another obstruction.

In response the Officers advised that any flooding problem associated with this application would be further up the stream and that in their view it was correct to keep those words in the reasons.  Furthermore, it was noted that the Parish Council was concerned that the flooding would be backed up.

By 10 votes to 3 with 1 abstention (Councillor Richard Farrell voted against and in accordance with Standing Order 29(4) asked that this be so recorded in the Minutes) it was

RESOLVED

that application HAR/1123/10 be refused for the following reason: -

“This is a retrospective application for the retention of decking across an existing watercourse to the rear of Bumble Barn.  In the opinion of the District Planning Authority the decking as constructed could inhibit access to the watercourse beneath for necessary maintenance and the clearance of blockages.  This could have consequential flooding implications within the vicinity of the site and further up the stream.  As such, the construction of the decking is contrary to Policy DC13 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011.