The decision of CWAC Planning Committee to refuse the recent housing development at Tattenhall is worrying. It suggests the councillors involved simply do not understand the position the Borough is in regarding housing land supply. With a Government target of building over 1,900 houses per year CWAC have nothing like the 5 year land supply that would allow them to defend refusal of such a sustainable application at Appeal.
Ironically refusal of the application simply on the grounds of the proposed housing mix means the Committee accepted the principle that the site can reasonably be developed. Planning Officers, who recommended approval, are left defending refusal on the basis that there were not enough small houses proposed. But it is hard to see that a mix of 32 x 1 or 2 bedroom properties, 37 x 3 bedroom and 41 x 4 or 5 bedroom houses would be considered unbalanced by most people. The proposal clearly meets the policy requirement of 30% affordable houses.
The nature of the planning system is not one where councillors get to tell developers they must build exactly what councillors would prefer. Rather, the decision is simply whether or not the proposal put forward is “acceptable” in policy terms, with a presumption in favour of development. Arguably the developers, who have to sell or rent the houses, perhaps have a better idea of the market than councillors.
The Borough Planning Officer undoubtedly guided councillors through the issues at the meeting – urging them not to put forward reasons for refusal that were not supported by expert advice. But that left councillors – who seemed to want to reject the application – hanging their whole case on the “unacceptable” housing mix. The prospect of defending such a reason at appeal seems minimal – while the costs involved could be substantial if awarded against the Council.
In the early years of CWAC, with a similar lack of allocated housing land, the Council unsuccessfully spent about £2m defending similar decisions at appeal. Repeating this would be a serious waste of Council Tax Payers’ money. Councillors need to quickly learn lessons, before repeating the same process in the face of the wave of current housing applications. It’s great to be popular for a few months with the residents that want an application rejected, but if the decision is overturned and appeal costs awarded, it is a pyrrhic victory at the expense of the wider community.
Three other observations:
1. If when reading an application councillors think it should be refused, against officer advice, they should talk to the planning officers at about how that might be defended in Planning policy terms, and arrive at the meeting with a clear proposal – including reasons for refusal.
2. The length of Planning Committee reports is unsustainable – making the prospect that all councillors will fully read them, doubtful. Reports should be much shorter and more focused, with detailed information consigned to appendices, where it can be viewed if required.
3. CWAC need a Chair of Planning Committee who gives a lead, focuses other councillors on their obligations in assessing applications, and preferably votes either for or against a proposal.