Councillors to chew over their decision to refuse takeaway
COUNCILLORS who refused permission for a McDonald’s drive-thru in Dewsbury have agreed to ‘refine’ their reasons for turning it down.
It followed advice from senior planning staff who said some reasons for refusal might be thrown out at an anticipated appeal into the decision.
There have now been calls for the appeal process to be reviewed.
Members of Kirklees Council’s Strategic Planning Committee (March 31) were asked to ‘consider the reasonableness’ of their reasons for rejecting plans for the restaurant off Owl Lane, at Chidswell, on January 27 on the grounds of noise, anti-social behaviour, and pressure on local roads.
They also said that building a fast-food takeaway in the area contradicted government guidelines on healthy eating for children.
The council’s head of planning, Mathias Franklin, said there was ‘a policy background’ to support refusal on public health grounds but ‘little evidence’ to support the three others.
The committee was warned of the likelihood of an appeal being upheld along with the award of costs, which the council would have to pay.
Mr Franklin said officers would defend the committee’s decision at any appeal but that they needed to be reasonable and appropriate.
He said: “If you want to stick with those four reasons – and I understand that you may – we’ll do our best for you at appeal but I just can’t give you a good advice that we will be able to defend those successfully.”
The committee was warned that a lengthy appeal that considered all the reasons for refusal – and whether they were substantiated – would rack up more potential costs.
Clr Nigel Patrick (Con, Holme Valley South) suggested that officers were capable of losing appeals based on their decisions, just as committees were. Clr Mohan Sokhal (Lab, Greenhead) spoke of a previous appeal that cost the council ‘nearly three-quarters of a million’ pounds.
Clr Donna Bellamy (Con, Colne Valley) said all reasons for refusal were valid and that being asked to reconsider was akin to being ‘held to ransom.’ Clr Carole Pattison (Lab, Greenhead) disagreed and said the committee should go with reasons that could be substantiated.
Mr Franklin said not having sufficient evidence to support refusal represented grounds for acting unreasonably.
The committee voted 5-2 to refine its refusal and to opt for the public health grounds reason. Speaking after the meeting Clr Patrick said the decision had damaged the planning process.
“We are already put under a lot of pressure by officers to support an officer recommendation and reminded about the cost of appeals when we seek a contrary position.
“It will be interesting to see how much pressure is brought on the committee the next time it goes against an officer recommendation.” He called on the Local Planning Authority to support planning committees and assist them in making relevant arguments, and to carry out a review of the appeals process.