Planning Officer explains next steps in Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning process

There have been raised eyebrows over the decision to defer the Sudbury Town Station Car Park planning application last night after a 4-3 majority voted against against it.

This exchange may help explain (perhaps):

Dear Mr Lorber,

I write in response to your e-mail to Carolyn Downs within which you have questioned the deferral of the Sudbury Town Car Park application.

Members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent and were minded to refuse planning permission due to impacts associated with the mix of housing (lack of Affordable Rent accommodation and family sized home), loss of station car parking and the impact on the surrounding streets.  Where members are minded to grant or refuse planning permission contrary to the recommendation, officers will often recommend that the application is deferred so that a report may be presented to the Planning Committee setting out the policy basis for their decision.  This is undertaken to ensure that any divergence from policy and the associated impacts of this have been clearly set out.  It strengthens the decision and is vital when defending the decision should the applicant choose to appeal or in the instance that a legal challenge is mounted (a Judicial Review).

The views of the relevant members were clear and a report clearly setting out the policy basis for these matters will be presented to the next Planning Committee meeting.  There was some discussion between members about applicants revising schemes to address concerns raised by members.  In some instances applicants do choose to make changes to schemes to address the concerns raised by members but whilst the Council must accept changes to the scheme that do not result in the need for further consultation, amendments will not be requested by officers.

Development Management Manager

Planning and Regeneration

Thank you for your email. I am aware of the arrangement.

My concern is that none of that was explained during the web screening.

A lay person watching would be confused at seeking the application being Refused after a 2 hour discussion only to find that there was then a 2nd vote to defer it.

They will be even more surprised (shocked) that when brought back with some minor cosmetic changes the Refusal decision may then be reversed and the plans approved.

I hope that if the applicants do make changes they resubmit so that a further consultation takes place which is subject to a site visit where the concerns raised will be easier to highlight and explain.

Regards

Paul Lorber