To consider a Notice of Motion concerning an urgent matter.

Council considered an urgent motion regarding the appeal against the rejection of the Ledbury viaduct planning application by the planning committee.

In moving the motion Councillor Liz Harvey made the following points:

·         The motion was intended to provide an opportunity for members of the planning committee and local ward members to express a view on the appeal of the Ledbury viaduct planning application and the monitoring officer’s decision as to whether the council would contest the appeal.

·         The planning committee had rejected the application, in part because it felt that a single access for the proposed site was inadequate. The developer had been asked to consider a second access under the viaduct but such a proposal had not been included in the report submitted to the planning committee in December.

·         In reaching its decision the planning committee had taken the views of the local community into account.

·         An appeal would be taking place and legal advice provided to the council from counsel stated that the appeal should not be contested. The legal advice considered that there were insufficient grounds to defend the decision of the planning committee and by not contesting the appeal the potential financial risk to the council would be reduced.

·         The legal advice of counsel undermined the decision of the planning committee. The motion was intended to collate the thoughts of members to assist the monitoring officer to decide whether to defend the appeal.  

Councillor Tony Johnson seconded the motion.

The following principal points were raised during the debate:

·         Developments of the size proposed at Ledbury viaduct generally had more than one access.

·         Ledbury Town Council would make representations at the inquiry that considered the appeal.

·         There was substantial evidence concerning the application that needed to be considered at inquiry including contradictory highways assessments.

·         The local community of Ledbury opposed development on the site where there was only a single access.

·         To contest the appeal could result in significant costs against the council.

·         Without the development of the viaduct site the council’s three and five year housing land supply targets were threatened.

·         The prospect of success in the appeal was queried. The monitoring officer explained that counsel advice indicated that there was not a good chance of success.

·         If the decision of the planning committed was consistent with planning policy the appeal should be defended.

·         It was noted that if the council defended the appeal it might become liable for the legal costs of the appellant.

·         It was confirmed that there was strong feeling against the application among the members of the planning committee however the single access had been considered adequate by officers.

·         It was acknowledged that the monitoring officer would need to assess the legal advice received in deciding whether to defend the appeal.

In closing the debate Councillor Harvey explained that it was a point of principle to defend the decision of the planning committee. To not defend the decision would run counter to localism and democracy.

The motion was put to the vote and carried by a simple majority of the Council.

RESOLVED: That this Council:

notes that the solicitor to the council is considering making an urgent decision regarding whether or not the Council is to actively defend the appeal commenced by Bloor Homes against the Planning Committee’s refusal of Bloor’s planning application at the strategic housing site adjacent to the viaduct in Ledbury;

recognises this sensitive decision is the responsibility of the solicitor to the council to make; and

requests that the solicitor to the council gives very careful consideration to the views expressed by its Planning Committee on 11 December 2019, and in this urgent debate, in arriving at her decision.