There has been a staggering increase in the number of refused planning applications being overturned at appeal: an average of 28%, according to PINS (Planning Inspectorate), and approaching 60% for those (typically larger) schemes that go to public inquiry. All too often, this is the result of pressure from local residents, leading to applications which were recommended for approval being rejected by planning committees. There is a certain irony that the very principle of democracy – in such cases, manifesting itself in the pressure on planning committee members to succumb to the demands of local residents – results in decisions being taken out of the control of the locally elected body and instead determined by the Planning Inspectorate.

In a recent example in Cambridge, a developer submitted a planning application for the comprehensive redevelopment of a large site, principally in office use, but also occupied by a popular local pub. Located on a major road, which connects the city to Addenbrookes Hospital to the south, the site was located within an area of major change in the City’s development plan, upon which local residents had been invited to comment. And yet the proposal attracted thousands of objections and consequently, despite a recommendation for approval, was refused by the planning committee.

Ultimately the applicant took the decision to appeal and, based on the fact that the proposal was supported by local and national planning policy, succeeded because of the substantial regeneration and employment benefits which attracted greater weight than the (relatively minor) single issue of the (possible) loss of a popular pub. This was in spite of allegations from objectors that to allow the appeal would have been tantamount to ‘trampling local democracy’.

This is one of the many instances in which those who shout the loudest have the power to reject a planning application. But is this how democracy should work?