Agenda item - Withdrawing the reason for refusal of Planning Application BH2015/01471, Astoria 10-14 Gloucester Place, Brighton for purposes of Appeal

Report of the Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture (copy attached).

42.1       The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment and Culture seeking the Committee’s agreement to withdraw the reason for refusal of the planning application BH2015/01471, Astoria, 10-14 Gloucester Place, Brighton for the purposes of appeal.

42.2       Agreement to withdraw the reason for refusal was being sought prior to the forthcoming public inquiry appeal which was due to commence on 13 December 2016 provided the Planning Inspectorate accepted the amended plans referred to in paragraph 3.2 of the report and to authorisation being given for the Planning Manager, Applications, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, to determine the amount of the affordable housing contribution which should be payable in the event that the appeal was successful together with any other s106 terms.

42.3       Councillor Littman sought clarification in respect of the process stating that he had not encountered this situation in relation to the Committees’ decision making previously, querying whether it was appropriate to revisit an application in this way in the absence of a new revised application being made. Councillor C Theobald concurred agreeing that she had not encountered this situation previously.

42.4       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, explained that although this situation was unusual it represented a fall back position in the event that the Planning Inspector decided to accept the appellant’s amended plans and a full Daylight/Sunlight Assessment; he was not obliged to do so and this matter was at his discretion. If he decided to accept this information it would materially alter the balance of considerations for this application. The Planning Inspectorate had yet to confirm whether or not they would consider this new information provided by the applicants.

42.5       Councillor Moonan considered it was regrettable that this situation had arisen and that the applicant had not provided this information with the original application.

42.6       The Chair, Councillor Cattell, sought confirmation in the response to queries by some Members whether it would be possible to defer consideration until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee pending a decision by the Planning Inspectorate on whether or not they would accept this information. It was explained that was not an option in the timeframe available.

42.7       Councillor Miller stated that as he understood it the recommendations set out in the report would only be actioned in the event that the Planning Inspectorate accepted the appellant’s submission. It was confirmed that was the case. He also noted that the affordable housing contribution remained under negotiation and that if there was failure to reach a policy compliant sum the reason for refusal set out in paragraph 8.12 of the report would be used.

42.7       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 with 5 abstentions the recommendations set out below were agreed.

42.8       RESOLVED – (1) That provided the Planning Inspectorate accept the amended plans referred to in paragraph 3.2 of the report as part of the appeal scheme the Planning Committee agrees to withdraw the reason for refusal as set out in paragraph 3.5 of the report;

              (2) That the Planning Committee authorises the Planning Manager, Applications, in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, to determine the affordable housing contribution which would be required by the local planning authority should the appeal be upheld together with any other s106 terms and the Committee further agrees that the s106 shall be completed on those terms as so determined; and

(3) In the event that the Planning Manager – Applications is unable to agree a policy compliant affordable housing contribution with the appellant the Committee agrees that the Council’s case in response to the appeal should be that the application should be refused for the reason set out in paragraph 3.12 of the report.