“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
“… there are multiple and significant conflicts with the Development plan resulting from this development and any benefits generated from this development are not considered to outweigh the harm identified. The development is therefore recommended for refusal.”
“A high level of harm is also caused to the setting, views and outlook of Park View and we are very concerned by this”
“Though we are not viability experts, we continue to be sceptical of the justification given by the applicant that the addition of TEN studio apartments is needed to essentially keep this well-placed pub as financially viable and to provide a community room. …. The loss of both the amenity of the garden and skittle alley, both of which contribute to the pub offering, should be weighed against the benefits of the development itself, of which we can see little other than developer financial gain, especially in that it does look likely that these units will either be holiday lets or student studios, given the compromised open living space.”
“- Retains the important local social asset of the public house, meeting facilities and skittle alley - provides much needed affordable accommodation in a highly sustainable location - The existing building is a total eyesore and something has to be done with it before it falls down. The proposal would bring it into line with its new surrounding and compliment both the listed to the Lower Bristol Road frontage and the new developments springing up in this part of our City. - No flooding issues - Development will enable improvement to the Belvoir and will secure important community facilities.”
“We believe the proposals to improve the pub’s facilities including the addition of a new community room, and accessible toilets, as well as a new skittle alley, will make the pub more user friendly, make it more appealing to new customers but will also enable the landlords to find new revenue streams to protect the Belvoir Castle’s future. We also agree with the inclusion of 10 one-bedroom apartments to the rear of the pub, which will help finance the improvements.”
“Residential dwellings are considered as a “more vulnerable” use and given the location of the site within Flood Zone 2 and 3, the development must be subject to the sequential and exception tests. The National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that the aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The FRA references the strategic level sequential test appraisal for Bath. It explains that it is reasonable to conclude that even if all sites with planning permission and allocation in Flood Zone 1 are developed, the identified need for housing in Bath would not be met. It is argued that there continues to be a clear need and rationale for future housing sites to be provided within Flood Zone 2 and 3a. However, the sequential test must be carried out in accordance with the advice within the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The test should include an audit of any alternative sites ….. The sequential test should conclude whether any of the alternative sites identified have a lower risk of flooding than the proposed site. The above has not been carried out and the development therefore fails the sequential test. As the sequential test has not been passed, it is not necessary to consider the exception test. The development is considered to be contrary toPlacemaking Plan (PMP) policy C5.” (My emphasis) (iv) Under the heading Highway Safety, the Officer noted that there was no parking provision and a significant concern that a car free development would result in overspill parking in an area with high levels of on street parking and the report reflected the concerns about highway safety. The Officer concluded that the development was unacceptable due to a failure to accord with adopted minimum parking standards and was contrary to PMP Policy ST7. (v) As to character and appearance and the listed buildings, the Report included the following: “… the overall scale of the development is considered to be excessive in this context harming the setting of the Belvoir Pub, and Park View, both designated heritage assets. The Design and Access Statement presents the application as managing a transition between the scale of Riverside [a larger scale development] and the Belvoir Castle/ Park View. …. This already small parcel of land provides a limited but critical buffer to the Riverside development for both the Belvoir Castle and Park View. Breaching the curtilage would inflict unacceptable harm on the character and setting of the listed building.” … The NPPF distinguishes between “substantial harm” and “less than substantial harm” when referring to the impact upon the significant of a heritage asset. Any harm to the listed building itself, the setting of the adjacent listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is considered to be less than substantial. When a proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This will be addressed in the Planning Balance section of this report.”
“5. The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 and 3a, and the development has not been subject to a satisfactory sequential test. It has not been demonstrated that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas of lower probability of flooding. The development is, therefore considered to be contrary to policy CP5 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan.”
“- To secure the retention of the pub as a community asset, meeting place and public amenity - The existing building is in need of improvement and the proposal will complement the listed buildings. - He did not think that the development would flood. - The site is in a highly sustainable location. - To improve the area - To provide housing - To secure important community facilities - The harm identified is considered to be less than substantial.” - The existing building is in need of improvement and the proposal will complement the listed buildings. - He did not think that the development would flood. - The site is in a highly sustainable location. - To improve the area - To provide housing - To secure important community facilities - The harm identified is considered to be less than substantial.”
“The mere fact that the officer and the committee part company is not a sufficient basis for saying that the latter decision is peculiar or aberrant so as to attract the duty to give reasons. Having said that, for reasons I develop below, the fact that the committee has departed from the officer’s report may in some contexts be a relevant factor supporting the conclusion that a common law duty to give reasons should be imposed.”
“Mr Simons [counsel for the appellant] relies upon two features of the decision in particular which,whilst not making this decision unique, distinguish it from most other planning determinations. First, the committee has departed from the officer’s very strong recommendation. Second, it did so in circumstances where the development constitutes a departure from the development plan and, more specifically, where it involves development in the Green Belt. Reasons should be given in order to explain why such interference is justified.”
“56. The decision under challenge has a number of distinct features relied upon by the appellant. Not only has the committee disagreed with the officer’s recommendation, but in addition it has done so in circumstanceswhere its decision is not consistent with the local development plan and involves development in the Green Belt. Prima facie that is inappropriate development and the planning committee is required to conclude that the adverse effects “by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm” are clearly outweighed by other considerations. ….. 58. An important objective of environmental policy is to protect and preserve special features of the landscape and certain important buildings . So, special status is given, for example, to areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Green Belt, and listed buildings. They have this status because it is considered that in general their preservation enriches the quality of life. These features are not to be preserved at all cost, but strong reasons, and sometimes very exceptional reasons, will be required to justify interfering with them. … There will obviously be situations where the benefits of a particular development outweigh the environmental disadvantages, and nobody can expect to live in a time capsule. But in my judgement the common law would be failing in its duty if it were to deny to parties who have a close and substantial interest in the decision the right to know why that decision has been taken. This is partly, but by no means only, for the instrumental reason might enable them to be satisfied the decision was lawfully made and to challenge it if they believe that it was not. It is also because as citizens they have a legitimate interest in knowing how important decisions affecting the quality of their lives have been reached. This is particularly so where they have made representations in the course of consultation. They cannot expect their detailed representations to be specifically and individually addressed, but as participants in the process, they can expect to be told in general terms what the committee perceived to be the advantages and disadvantages of a particular development, and why the former clearly outweigh the latter. 59. In a general sense, this may be considered an aspect of the duty of fairness which in this contrast requires that decisions are transparent. The right for affected third parties to be treated fairly arises because of the strong and continuing interest they have in the character of the environment in which they live.……In my judgment, these are powerful reasons for imposing a duty to give reasons, at least if the reasoning process is not otherwise sufficiently transparent. 60. The decision in this case involved a development in the Green Belt and was also in breach of the development plan. Public policy requires strong countervailing benefits before such development can be allowed, and affected members of the public should be told why the committee considers the development to be justified notwithstanding its adverse effect on the countryside. In my judgment, these consideration demand that reasons should be given. Even if there are some planning decisions which do not attract the duty to give reasons, there is in my judgment an overwhelming case for imposing the duty here. 61. That conclusion is in my judgment reinforced where the committee departs from the officer’s recommendation. The significance of that fact is not simply that it will often leave the reasoning obscure. In addition, the fact that the committee is disagreeing with a careful and clear recommendation from a highly experienced officer on a matter of such potential significance to very many people suggests that some explanation is required. As I have said I would not impose the duty to give reasons on the grounds that the committee’s decision appears to be aberrant …. but the dictates of good administration and the need for transparency are particularly strong here, and they reinforce the justification for imposing the common law duty.”
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any relevant issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issue falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission my impact upon future applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“57. Thus in Oakley the Court of Appeal were entitled in my view to hold that, in the special circumstances of that case, openness and fairness to objectors required the members’ reasons to be stated. Such circumstances were found in the widespread public controversy surrounding the proposal, and the departure from development plan and Green Belt policies; combined with the members’ disagreement with the officers’ recommendation, which made it impossible to infer the reasons from their report or other material available to the public. the same combination is found in the present case and, in my view, would of necessary have justified the imposition of a common law duty to provide reasons for the decision.”
“59. As to the charge of uncertainty, it would be wrong to be over-prescriptive, in a judgment on a single case and a single set of policies. However it should not be difficult for councils and their officers to identify cases which call for a formulated statement of reasons, beyond the statutory requirements. Typically they will be cases where, as in Oakley and the present case, permission has been granted in the face of substantial public opposition and against the advice of the officers, for projects which involve major departures from the development plan, or from other policies of recognised importance (such as specific policies identified in the NPPF – para [22] above). Such decisions call for public explanation, not just because of their immediate impact; but also because …. they are likely to have lasting relevance for the application of policy in future cases.”
“68. These points were not merely incidental, but fundamental to the officers’ support for the amended scheme. The committee’s failure to address such points raises a “substantial doubt”(in Lord Brown’s word) as to whether they had properly understood the key issues or reached “ a rational conclusion on them on relevant grounds”.”
“However I would observe that whilst reasons as to why planning permission has been granted may be brief in circumstances such as the present they will ordinarily be taken as the sole operative reasons for the decision. It will often be difficult to infer that matters not mentioned have been taken into account and weighed in any planning balance. In the present case this throws focus back on the limited positive aspects set out by the councillors. If, as I find, one falls away [and] then the extent to which the decision can be supported as rational also comes into play.”
“Many objectors have commented (on both the 2017 and the 2018 applications) that the aim to keep the pub open is unlikely to be met in this particular case (and some of the Committee members at the meeting thought so too), given that the studioapartments will NOT provide a revenue stream for the pub in the future. The pub is viable as it stands …..”
“No specific reasons were ever provided which set out clearly what material considerations outweighed these multiple and significant conflicts with the development plan.”