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 January 22, proposes that extra guidance be given to clarify the way in which officers and councillors will work.

Mr 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 the appellantsÕ success rate against delegated refusals is around 30 per cent, it is increased to 40 per cent when committee 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 after the committee has overturned the recommendation of planning officers.

The report highlights three examples where inquiries have found against the decisions of the council to reject officersÕ views. An independent planning inspector overturned 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 to build a supermarket in Bordon in 1999. In this case 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 Decem-ber last year 124 appeals were lodged, compared with 108 which were lodged in the entire financial year 2001/02. This could mean that by April this year the number of appeals against EHDCÕs planning decisions could have doubled.

As a result of the 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 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.