Withdrawal between committee decision and decision issuance? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

A decison is not made until it is issued so yes, an application can be withdrawn between Committee resolving that it is minded to approve/refuse ... and the decison notice actually being issued. Sometimes many weeks (or even months) can elapse between the two events ... for example when a S106 is being concluded.

Ah, perfect. I never thought I would end up being grateful for all the S106 parties' solicitors taking so long to agree the text!

Thinking more, maybe it's not so good - is it not possible for a refusal decision to be issued without waiting for S106, citing the lack of a S106 as part of the reason for refusal?

If you refuse to sign the S106 (which is the thing that make the development acceptable) the application would be refused, presumably becuse it would then be contrary to policy ... but I thought you were going to withdraw it before it was refused?

Order of events is: Committee yesterday voted to refuse, the S106 is negotiated and agreed by all but one party (but not disputed, just delayed), and so is not available for signing for a week or so yet. Can Officers issue a Refusal today, and cite lack of competed S106 as part of the reasoning, even though none of the parties dispute it, and all will sign?

If it is being refused despite the willingness to enter into a S106 then presumably the proposal conflicts with policy, and the S106 cannot address the Council's concerns. They could therfore issue the refusal today ... but the reason couldn't (in my view) relate to the failure to conclude the S106, I would have thought that that would be challangeable as a reason if you were to appeal.

Oh yes, Members of course, contrived policy conflicts, the usual subjective ones. Isn't it ever thus? So to summarise: a refusal decision can indeed be issued while a S106 is "work in progress", i.e. before a S106 is either completed or rejected. Thanks.

It should only be refused for the reason(s) given by the committee at the meeting. If you watched it you should already know what those reasons are and whether they include the failure to make the necessary contribution (or whatever it is the S106 covers in this instance). It is fairly routine to take applications to committee asking for a resolution to approve subject to a S106 agreement. Presumably officers would not have put the application on the committee agenda if they considered that the S106 needed to be completed prior to the meeting.

If the application is refused on other grounds but, if it had been approved it would have required a s106 agreement, then the lack of a s106 agreement WOULD be an additional reason for refusal but should be accompanied by an informative that sets out that this could be overcome by the completion of a legal agreement in terms acceptable to the LPA. So if there was an appeal you'd only need to submit a UU that conformed to the previously agreed but unsigned s106 agreement to overcome this condition. I don't really understand why this additional reason for refusal would be of concern if it can be so easily overcome? I doubt there are many Council's who would refuse an application ONLY because of a lack of a s106 agreement, where there is a clear commitment by the applicant to provide it within a reasonable timeframe, because this could expose the LPA to a claim for costs at appeal. However your posts set out that the application is going to be refused anyway, so this isn't the issue in your case.