Agenda and minutes

The Committee noted that apologies had been received from Councillor Hatton.

None.

The Minutes of the Committee held on 25 July 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman after the following addition.  “A member made comment that that the feasibility study being undertaken by Network Rail is for either a bridge (as in the original application) or a tunnel, as proposed in this application”.

None.

Tom Clark, Solicitor to the Council advised that there would be no speakers as this item was ‘another matter’ and was not the determination of a planning application.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the meeting was to review the reasons the original application was refused on 29 November 2018.  He confirmed that all Committee Members had received the Agenda Update Sheet and the officers clarification notes on matters raised in emails.  He noted that any rulings by the Secretary of State (SoS) in respect of the Article 31 Direction  does not have any relevance to this Committee and therefore the Committee must make their decision independent of the outcome of the SOS ruling.    

Sally Blomfield, Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy confirmed that all Members had received a copy of correspondence from Cllr Dempsey, the Officer’s response to this and Cllr Dempsey’s further comments. Further to the final comments from the Councillor, the Divisional Leader clarified that although all three applications for the site had proposed the same housing numbers and parameter  plans, they were all different in one significant respect.  The first application did not propose a crossing over the railway line; the second application proposed a bridge as the means of crossing the Brighton Main Line; and the latest application proposed a tunnel.  She confirmed however that if the Planning Inspector, (appointed to consider the appeal into the second application) agrees to consider the request by Rydon Homes to amend the appeal proposal by replacing the bridge with the tunnel, then the proposals subject of appeal would be identical to the proposals in the third application. She reminded the Committee that the Council had resolved to grant permission for the third application at the Committee meeting in July 2019.   She advised that the Article 31 Holding Direction only provides the Secretary of State time to decide whether to call in the application and is not material to the consideration of the item before the Committee today

The Chairman confirmed that the Committee was looking at a review of the reasons for refusal of the application now subject to Appeal in the light of changing circumstances.  This approach is in line with best practice set out in the Planning Inspectorate’s Procedural Guidance on Planning Appeals which makes clear that Council’s must review changes in circumstances since the original decision on an application, must assess the implications of the change and in the light of the changes must not behave in an unreasonable way. The National Planning Policy Guidance on Appeals makes clear if local planning authorities behave in an unreasonable way this would justify an award of costs against them.  

He reminded the Committee that the first recommendation in this report was only if the Inspector agreed to amend the appeal scheme to make it identical to the approved application; the Local Planning Authority would only provide evidence at the appeal on the five year land supply. The second reason for refusal was no longer an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

None.