
Nearly three-quarters of planning appeals against a Devon council have been dismissed, new data shows.
Of the 59 appeals submitted against East Devon District Council in a 12-month period, only 17 were allowed.
The Planning Inspectorate has rejected 71 per cent of appeals, which is around the national average of 69 per cent.
Out of those that were allowed in the last financial year, ten out of the 17 had been taken by planning officers and the planning committee chairman under ‘delegated powers’, while seven were taken by the planning committee. Four of those seven were refused despite council officers recommending their approval.
In terms of the dismissals, 36 decisions had been taken by officers and six by councillors.
The council had the least success with major developments, with just one of the four appeals linked to such schemes being dismissed and the others allowed.
“All four of the major applications were considered by the planning committee and two of the appeals allowed stemmed from decisions which were contrary to officer advice,” a report ahead of a planning committee meeting this week.
Most of the appeals lodged related to minor applications; of which 11 out of 46 were allowed.
Besides the 59 appeals, 34 others were lodged for smaller issues, such as developers appealing because planners hadn’t made a decision within the required time limit, or appeals against conditions imposed on approved schemes.
Organisations that win appeals can claim for costs to be reimbursed. Of four applications for full costs and one for partial costs, only one set of full costs was granted.
This was linked to an appeal against an enforcement notice served on a landowner who had changed their agricultural barn into a steel fabrication workshop.
The planning inspector considered that the council’s enforcement notice did’t comply well enough with regulations.
“The inspector concluded that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense had occurred and a full award of costs was therefore warranted in favour of the appellant,” East Devon’s report states.