Once again, CPRE has had to respond to an application to develop the land of Sutton Lane in Sutton in Craven.  Despite two appeals, dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, there appears to be a determined effort to keep on trying to develop this land.  Why do we object?  Firstly, Sutton-in-Craven has supported more than it's fair share of new development over the last few years, illustrating the local residents are objective and reasoned.  They certainly do not fall into the no building any where for any reason category or NIMBY's as developers like to call them.  CPRE have supported the campaign to protect this important site.  Development would degrade the natural gateway to this settlement set on the edge of North Yorkshire on the border with West Yorkshire.  Sutton in Craven is an excellent example of the historic links between mills and farming in Craven.  It's a thriving community with a wide demographic.  

We have commented on the use of the emerging local plan as rational to approve the application.  The site is known as SC040.  In the consultation in 2013, the site SC040 received the greatest number of objections received.  The local Parish Council objected to its inclusion as did CPRE.  

Planning Committees are constantly reminded of the risk of appeal and susequent costs should the appeal be upheld.  We have reminded the authority:

S38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says it is not necessary to find reasons to refuse an application that is contrary to the development plan ,  you have to determine it in accordance with the provisions of the plan. If you want to approve it, you have to demonstrate that there are material considerations to support approval. In plain terms, you have to find reasons for approving it.)

We submit that the planning committee and officers should not be led by the possibility of appeal but on material planning grounds only.  We accept that they will be the first to be vilified if costs are awarded against them and this places council’s in a damned if they do and damned if they don’t position.  However, the application must be judged on it’s merits or demerits not against the threat of appeal.

The application to develop most or part of this site has been refused on several occasions and appeals dismissed, it has already been  proven that refusal will ‘stand up to appeal’. 

We reiterate that reasons to approve are outweighed by the material considerations to refuse in this case.

At a recent meeting of the planning committee to discuss another application in the Craven area, it was obvious that fear of appeal was key in the decision making process.

www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/14420795.39_new_homes_in_Skipton_narrowly_approved/

‘But Cllr Robert Mason, although having concerns, asked if there were any reasonable grounds to refuse the application, and whether they were robust enough to stand up at a possible appeal.

Councillors were told, in officers' opinion, without the support of the highways authority and the environment agency, the council would be unlikely to win.’

It is NOT NECESSARY TO FIND REASONS TO REFUSE AN APPLICATION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (which one existing or emerging) If you want to approve an application you have to demonstrate material considerations to support.  Naturally, if the reasons to refuse  outweigh the reasons to approve then an application should not be approved regardless of fear of appeal.