ROCKETING numbers of planning appeals against decisions by East Hampshire district councillors are costing tax payers thousands of pounds.

And planning officers are facing difficulties defending decisions made by members against their advice.

Now new planning guidelines could be issued to district councillors to combat the growing problem.

Chairman of East Hampshire District CouncilÕs overview and scrutiny committee Dr Tony Ludlow asked for the special report to be put together.

The report, which was due to be discussed by the committee on Wednesday, proposes that extra guidance be given to clarify the way in which officers and councillors will work.

Dr Ludlow explained that questions have been raised after uncertainty surrounded the dilemma as to whether officers would be forced to argue against their own professional opinion if their recommendations are overturned by councillors.

ÒIt was promoted by an appeal lodged in Bordon where we were not sure how the planning officers were going to deal with it,Ó he told The Herald.

ÒThat raised some general questions as to how we handle appeals when the members overturn the the recommendation of the planning officers.

ÒThe first question which an inspector asks them at an appeal is Ôwhat was your recommendationÕ?

ÒWe thought that it would be a good idea to have a review so that members understood the predicament of the planning officers and are also able to make their decisions knowing more about the possible consequences.Ó

The report revealed that the council has a good record when an appeal is lodged over an enforcement notice, a tree protection order or a decision taken by officers exercising special powers delegated to them.

But the council is increasingly losing appeals over decisions taken by elected councillors at planning committees who do not have to accept an officerÕs professional opinion.

While appellantÕs success rate is against delegated refusals is around 30 per cent, it is increased to 40 per cent when committee members refuse applications following advice from officers.

And the figures show that appellants have a 60 per cent chance of winning permission when they appeal over a refusal when the committee has overturned the recommendation of planning officers.

The report highlights three major examples where inquiries have found against the decisions of the council to reject officersÕ views.

An independent planning inspector over turned the refusals over housing applications for the Lord Mayor Treloar Hospital in Alton in 2000 and the former King GeorgeÕs Hospital site in Liphook in 1994.

An inspector also overturned the permission granted, against advice, to Tesco in to build a supermarket in Bordon in 1999 when the application was called in by the Government Office for the South East for being against the councilÕs own policy.

These three major applications alone cost the council £113,000.

The most recent similar appeal over the redevelopment of Ludshott Manor in Bramshott, which the council also lost, cost the council £12,000.

Alarmingly the number of appeals lodged over council decisions has increased dramatically.

Between April and December last year a total of 124 appeals were lodged compared with 108 in the entire financial year 2001/02 Ð which could mean that by April this year the number of appeals against EHDCÕs planning decisions could have doubled in a year.

As a result of the recent increase, officers are hoping that a minor shake-up of procedure and new guidelines could prevent the situation from spiralling.

The report said: ÒReports and recommendations on applications within committee agendas represent the best professional advice of officers. Where members decide to overturn the recommendation there must be sound planning reasons for doing so.

ÒThe fact that the appellant has a higher success rate in such cases illustrates the need for careful consideration in each case.Ó

The report suggests a change in the way that officers deal with appeals and gives scope to bring rejected applications back to committee if officers are not convinced that the reasons given by councillors for refusing applications will stand up at an independent appeal.

Dr Ludlow told The Herald that, if the new guidelines are accepted, if will be the first time that councillors will have clear guidance on the issue of overturned recommendations and appeals.

He said: ÒI think that it is useful. It is a draft guidance and it is obviously going to go through the stages to be adopted.

ÒIt is the first time that we have thought that such a draft was necessary and it gives a structure for us to follow.

ÒThere is only one thing that I see as being possibly controversial with members and this is the idea that a member should not write or speak in support of the applicant and against the decision of the council.

ÒThere may be a time when a member feels that the corporate decision taken conflicts with with their role as an elected representative but I canÕt image that it will come up too often.Ó

Officers will take into consideration comments made at the committee and present a revised report to the full council for adoption later in the year.