Vale of Glamorgan Council planning chief Marcus Goldsworthy told Vale councillors that the council  had lost 42% the challenges made to its planning decisions

In the last 12 months the Labour-run Vale of Glamorgan Council has lost 42% of all the appeals made by members of the public against its planning decisions.

When the Vale of Glamorgan Council planning officers –  or its full 21-member planning committee – turn-down a planning application, homeowners or developers can challenge that decision by lodging an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.

The controversial development at 80 Victoria Road , Penarth was subject to a successful planning appeal which resulted in a defeat for the Vale Council planners

The Planning Inspectorate is an independent UK Government body which examines the way the council has come to a decision to refuse planning permission and on what basis it has done so.

Now the Vale Council’s planning officers and its Planning Committee  are finding themselves being over-ruled more often than ever before.

In his annual statistical report the Vale Council’s planning chief Marcus Goldsworthy has told councillors that in the last 12 months 42% of appeals against the council’s planning decisions have been upheld  – meaning that in the judgement of the Inspectorate the council has made the wrong decision.

Marcus Goldsworthy claimed that the 2016/17 statistics had been “skewed lightly” by an appeal over a housing development in Michaelstone-le-Pit  where there were 7 separate appeals lodged on “one issue”. In each of those  appeals –  the inspector had found against the council.

No overall total for legal costs which have been awarded against the council – and which have to be born by council-taxpayers – was quoted in the report to councillors.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Daft o dul says:

    Doesn’t this reflect on the competence of the planning team at the Vale. Either they are statistically incompetent at assessing applications and or incompetent in defending appeals.

  2. Peter Church says:

    This is the standard of (in)competency in the Labour Party throughout the country

    Have a listen to this interview given by the “Labour Shadow Home Secretary” and you will see what a grasp of figures they have. It makes Stephen Doughty understanding of a limited company look like a economics professor!

    Truly shocking that people actually vote for them.

  3. Penarth Girl says:

    Amazing interview and a bit OT but is does go to show the educational background of some of our politicians. At least have some briefing notes prepared and not sound like a fool on air.
    Maybe she went to the same Labour finishing school as Lis Burnett, all very slow deliberate speech patterns trying to sound sincere, but both talking utter nonsense.

  4. Frank Evans says:

    She has not got a clue. Bumbling from one stupid statement to the next. One bizarre policy desicion to the next. I feel so sorry for her.
    How has she still got any support within labour?
    As for Diane Abbott, she doesn’t have a clue either.😅

    • Jimbo says:

      She’s like a puppet with broken strings. Does she ever know what she is talking about?

  5. Zarian says:

    Some of the above comments seem to have strayed from the news item per se, but they are fair comment nevertheless. To put the Vale Council’s planning department’s performance into some sort of context, the success rate of appeals in the 1980s and 1990s, when I was involved, was remarkably consistent at about 30%. If that were still the case, the Council are getting quite a few of their decisions quite wrong. It is costing the ratepayers dearly because planning appeals can be a costly procedure, especially if they end with an award of costs against the Council. What is not clear from this report is whether these ‘wrong’ planning decisions are the responsibility of the officers or the planning committee. I can understand the officers not wanting to apportion blame, nor to quantify the costs, but Councillors should demand to know why those with the responsibility for planning decisions, be they the committee or professional planners, are performing so poorly and what this is costing.

    A final thought; the statistics relate only to those decisions that went to appeal. Underlying them is the thought that quite a few other decisions were ‘wrong’ but could never be righted because the unfortunate applicant could not afford the time or money to appeal.

  6. Arthur King says:

    Returning to the story. Perhaps the reason for losing so many appeals, and I know this will not be a popular thing to say, is that councillors didn’t listen to the advice of the professional planners on too many occasions.

  7. Mgg says:

    One way of not losing appeals would be to allow more applications through. I must say reading some of the articles ref rulings I really wouldn’t know which way to turn . I have seen vale say no on aesthetics , neighbours etc but as there are no listed building caveats they then lose. I wonder if the problem needs to be looked at from the other end. .?i.e. what frameworks are the appeals panel working to. ..? Remember highlands ? Didn’t PTC and vale try every avenue in terms of listing, special significance etc but none existed so they had to say ..we can’t refuse even though we think its a rubbish idea.

  8. Chris David says:

    Is Marcus Goldsworthy part of the problem? He and his team trying to steamroller developments? Anti social and unreasonable developments the public just don’t want like Northcliffe. Then when they lose coming back again and again regardless of community needs. Get rid of the planning team would be a good start to community friendly success.

Comments are closed.