Councillors seek relaxation on rules on planning referrals

PROCEDURAL change has been adopted that will make it easier for rejected planning applications to be reconsidered by elected representative.

The vast majority of decisions to approve or deny development proposals are made by unelected planning officers.

Generally speaking, only applications that are controversial or of major economic significance are brought to the council’s monthly Planning Committee meeting.

However third party councillors often seek committee hearings after being lobbied by a constituent - particularly over rejected plans for single countryside dwellings.

It was this ‘referral’ process that was the subject of debate when the Planning Committee met late last month.

Sinn Fein’s Dermott Nichol said concerns had been raised over the limiting of elected members choice to defer applications for democratic review.

Head of Planning Denise Dickson explained that “clear planning reasons” must be given when referrals are requested.

But, said Cllr Nicholl’s party colleague Kathleen McGurk, when referrals were rejected on those grounds, the applicant should be given an opportunity to respond.

In the end it was agreed that the Scheme of Delegation should be amended to allow elected members time to submit additional information when the suggested planning reasons were deemed insufficient.

The issue of councillors over-ruling planners is something that has caused quite a few raised eyebrows since planning powers were extended to councillors in 2015.

Particular focus has centred on their willingness to ignore Planning Policy Statement 21.

PPS21 was drawn up in 2010 amid growing concern over proliferation of single dwellings dotted around the countryside - often referred to as ‘bungalow blight.’

Its chief aim is to “strike a balance between the need to protect the countryside from unnecessary or inappropriate development, while supporting rural communities.”

Planning guidelines say elected representatives should only be involved in “the most significant or controversial” applications.

And, earlier this year, a judge issued a stern warning to councillors over their willingness to over-rule planning officials on much simpler applications for single countryside dwellings.

Mr Justice Scoffield’s “cautionary word” was contained in the ruling on a judicial review brought against Causeway Coast and Glens Council by an environmental campaigner.