This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
r
PLANNING APPEALS: REVISED SYSTEM (P.87/2013) – SECOND AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe on 27th August 2013 by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour
STATES GREFFE
2013 Price code: A P.87 Amd.(2)
PLANNING APPEALS: REVISED SYSTEM (P.87/2013) – SECOND AMENDMENT
PAGE 2, NEW PARAGRAPH –
After paragraph (a) insert a new paragraph as follows –
"(b) to agree that, notwithstanding the introduction of the new appeal
system, the current system of requests for reconsideration' shall also be continued for decisions made by planning officers under delegated powers, with the reconsideration of the application being undertaken by the Planning Applications Panel whose decision in these cases shall be final (subject always to the normal appeal process);"
and renumber the remaining paragraphs. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR
Page - 2
P.87/2013 Amd.(2)
REPORT
Introduction
Although I support a revised appeal system as set out in P.87/2013 Amd., I believe that the Planning Applications Panel should retain its role as the body which hears "appeals" from officers' delegated decisions. These are termed "Requests for Reconsideration" (RFRs).
It is a de facto system of appeal which is "free" to the applicant and is relatively uncomplicated. There is a strange quirk to the system in that if the Panel recommends that an officer's decision be overturned, the Department can choose to bring the matter to the Minister who, as the ultimately accountable person, can reject the Panel's recommendation. Again, this is an example of the attenuated decision-making process in Planning, and one that perplexes and frustrates applicants who thought they had
jumped over 2 major hurdles – officer and Panel. They then find that the Minister becomes involved as the third body or person. I am proposing that the RFR to the Panel remains, but that its decision is final, subject to the Appeals procedure under P.87/2013 Amd., which I support.
Financial and manpower implications
I believe the retention of the Panel as the RFR body could reduce the costs proposed in P.87/2013 Amd. as applicants, as now, will prefer the RFR route and, as now, accept that their applications are being subject to a fresh review.
In my view this retains the best of a relatively fast and uncomplicated review "appeal" process and could ensure that the independent Planning Appeals Tribunal is not overburdened with appeals and, therefore, may be less costly than anticipated.
Page - 3
P.87/2013 Amd.(2)