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):
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
I think your 'perhaps' is justified, Martin.
ReplyDeleteThe Development Management Manager (whoever came up with that job title?) seems to be saying that all the Planning Officers will do before the deferred application comes back to Planning Committee is to tidy up the planning policy reasons that the members who voted against their recommendation gave for refusing the planning application.
I, and I'm sure many others, were watching, and what I saw was the Committee refusing the application, not just saying that they 'were minded to refuse' it.
If the Committee refused the application, that must mean that the application has been decided. That particular application is dealt with, that scheme is "dead", as far as the planning process is concerned.
So why is the DMM then saying: 'In some instances applicants do choose to make changes to schemes,' and 'the Council must accept changes to the scheme that do not result in the need for further consultation'?
If the applicant wants to try again with an amended scheme, then surely they must make a new application, subject to the full minimum 21 days consultation process where fresh objections can be made by anyone who feels they are appropriate.