8 C O N T E X T 9 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 5 This article deals with an important issue that often arises where planning authorities are determining applications for proposals that also raise other considerations – namely, how conservation issues are dealt with, and how the representations of specialist groups should be taken into account. The issue arose recently in connection with a decision by the London Borough of Enfield to grant listed building consent and planning permission for a change of use of Truro House in Enfield (a Grade II listed building on the English Heritage register of buildings at risk) to offices and a consulting room, and for the erection of a nursing home in its curtilage. The proposals for Truro House were submitted to the council in January 2003, and considered by the council’s conservation advisory group (CAG) in February. They were then due to be considered at a meeting of the planning committee, with an officer’s report recommending that the applications be refused. However, the applications were withdrawn before the meeting, and revised proposals submitted in May. In the meanwhile, there had been a council election, and the membership of the CAG and the planning committee changed. The new proposals were again considered by the CAG, later in May, and again by the planning committee, in June, but this time with a favourable officer’s report. The committee decided (albeit only by a majority of one) to grant listed building consent and planning permission. One of the objectors then challenged the council’s decision in the High Court, on the grounds that: v the council had failed to take into account points raised by officers regarding highways and access v the fact that some members of the CAG were also members of the planning committee gave rise to an appearance of bias v members of the committee were not adequately informed as to the need for the proposed development and its impact on existing services v they were not adequately informed about the responses to consultation. The outcome of the challenge is reported as Georgiou v Enfield LB [2005] JPL 62. The court considered first the second issue – the consequences of the CAG being involved. The CAG consisted of six council members and 19 representatives of the local community. Its remit was to consider and advise the planning committee on proposals referred to it that might affect conservation areas, listed buildings and their settings, and on the preservation and enhancement of historic buildings and areas. At the February meeting to consider the Truro House proposal, the committee concluded that it was encouraged by the proposals, which represented a good opportunity to restore the building, with a development sensitive to the history of the site. At that meeting, there were present two council members who were also to be members of the committee that took the final decision in June. When the revised proposals came to the newly constituted CAG in May, it continued to support them. There were then three councillors present who were also to be members of the committee in June, and a fourth who was a member of the CAG although not present at that meeting, and also present at the June meeting. Unsurprisingly, at that meeting, the three members of the planning committee who had also been present at the CAG in May voted in favour of them, although the absent member voted against. The problem was that the CAG perfectly properly considered proposals only in the context of conservation issues, rather than with reference to the wider planning issues that might be involved (such as traffic, noise, economic impact, and many others). However if ,as a result, the CAG simply voted ‘in favour of’ a proposal, and the proposal then proceeded to a meeting of the planning committee at which some members had been party to such a vote, it might appear that they would have a closed mind when they came to vote in the committee. Counsel for the local authority argued that the fact that the CAG considered only conservation issues meant that its ‘decision’ could not amount to a predetermination of the applications; and that those LEGAL BRIEFING Conservation issues in planning decisions Charles Mynors considers some of the issues that can arise when a specialist group and a council’s planning committee take opposing views of a development proposal.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=