Agenda item - UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX PLANNING APPEAL

Joint report of the Executive Director for Environment, Development & Housing and the Monitoring Officer (copy attached).

By reason of the special circumstances, and in accordance with section 100B(4)(b) of the 1972 Act, the Chair of the meeting has been consulted and is of the opinion that this item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency for the following reason:

That the decision of the Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing that the Council’s objection to the University of Sussex’s planning appeal be withdrawn, and the reasons therefor, should be reported to Planning Committee at the earliest opportunity.

(1)          The Committee considered a joint report of the Executive Director Environment, Development & Housing and the Head of Legal and Democratic Services advising of the decision of the Executive Director, Environment, Development and Housing that the Council’s objection to the University of Sussex’s planning appeal be withdrawn.

(2)          The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward explained that it had become apparent during the first week of the inquiry that the evidence submitted in relation to the four reasons for refusal was not bearing up under cross-examination. This was partly due to evidence supplied by the University and updated government guidance, as well as the stance of the Inspector which appeared to that “layout” did not form part of “scale” and height in relation to reason for refusal 2. and which had serious implications for the Council’ case that the proposal represented  harmful  overdevelopment. Moreover the University had also brought forward evidence to show that even if the application was refused, its population would continue to grow. The impact of refusal on the City’s housing stock might well be greater than if permission were allowed. In view of these matters the Council’s barrister had advised that the Council faced a very real risk of an award of substantial costs. At the end of the first week of the Inquiry an offer had been received from the University to treat the layout of the scheme as a reserved matter, enabling the Council further to consider effects on heritage and landscaping at a reserved matters stage. In view of this the Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing had used his delegated urgency powers to agree to withdraw the Council’s objection to the appeal, the Chair had been consulted prior to making the decision and the report was being put to Committee to advise members of the position. Members were advised that the withdrawal of the Council’s objections did not necessarily mean that the appeal would be allowed as the Inspector would need to consider all remaining evidence before coming to a decision and that decision was expected in the next few weeks

(3)          Councillor C Theobald considered that it was unfortunate and that this decision had soured relations with the University to a degree. Whilst the University’s desire for growth was recognised, growth needed to be delivered in the context of the impact of that growth on the city as a whole and properly managed. The outcome was disappointing in view of the fact that with the exception of one member, the Committee had voted cross party that the application be refused and had given considerable thought to the reasons for refusal.

(4)          Councillor Hamilton concurred in that view and stated that he was concerned that such a large number of trees would be lost.

(5)          Councillor Littman concurred that it had been a difficult and frustrating experience.

(6)          Councillor Morris stated that he was very concerned that the Council had been forced to take this action and was very worried that fear of costs, could impact on the Committees’ future decision making. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward stated that the Council had not been “forced” into the decision taken; it had resulted from discussions with the barrister representing the Council following consideration of the Council’s position and in the knowledge that the University would make an application for costs; those costs could have been considerable, possibly in the order of £250,000. The Chair had been consulted and had approved the decision taken. Any reserved matters application would come back to the Committee for decision in due course. Councillor Morris stated that he still had concerns in respect of this matter and wished to place them on record.

(7)          Councillor Barradell asked whether an award of costs could still be made and it was confirmed that although the University had not applied for costs an Inspector had the power to award costs even if not applied for; however it was very unlikely an Inspector would do so.

(8)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that the University fell within his ward, he considered that residents would be disappointed that it appeared their concerns regarding a proliferation of student accommodation had been ignored.

(9)          Councillor Miller asked whether it had been unreasonable for the Inspector to consider changes which had had taken place following the original decision. The Legal Adviser to the Committee explained that an Inspector had to take account of the most up to date information. The Inspector’s view regarding layout was not unreasonable.

(10)       Councillor Barradell stated that it was important to consider any lessons that could be learned for the future although it might be too soon to do so at present. Councillor Littman concurred in that view, he was also of the view however that on another day with another Inspector the outcome could have been different. The Chair Councillor Cattell stated that this matter would be considered by the Member Working Group when it met the following week.

29. 2      RESOLVED – That the contents of the report be noted.