Agenda item - Public Questions

Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by 12 noon on 9 August 2018.

27.1       The Chair invited Mr Hall to ask his question:

“Councillors Vanessa Brown, Jayne Bennett, Peter Kyle MP, Park gardeners, tennis players, residents associations, neighbours, dog walkers, basketball players, rock climbers, no one other than some people frequenting the cafe knew about its demolition and the felling of three trees (1 elm) until it was too late.

“Publicising of planning applications to residents of Brighton and Hove may reach minimum statutory requirements but is not good enough.

“What are councillors going to do to ensure the planning department do more within the current spending constraints to ensure that the people they represent are better informed about planning applications?”

27.2       The Chair responded:

“The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 is the relevant legislation that prescribes how planning applications must be publicised.  The application for the Pavilion Tea Rooms, Hove Park was publicised in accordance with those statutory requirements. Although we do go further than some equivalent local authorities who have stopped sending letters to residents.

“Two site notices were displayed, one on Old Shoreham Road and one within the park close to the existing café building which is in accordance with the Development Management Procedure.

“It is considered that sufficient publicity is given to planning applications and was in the case of the café in Hove Park.  Statutory requirements are met and full details of all applications required can be found on the Council’s website, including a facility to view and be alerted by ward.

“The weekly list of applications was sent to the ward councillors in the normal way and every councillor has the right to call in a planning application within three weeks of advertising the application. We have no plans to extend this.”

27.3       Mr Hall stated that he felt the correct process had not been followed with regards to application BH2017/02805 as his Ward Councillors had informed him that they had not been aware of the application and because of this failure, three trees including an elm had been lost. He stated that the application referenced in his question was tied to application BH2018/01445 which was due to be considered by the Committee. He felt that it would be inappropriate for Members to determine this application while his complaint had not been formally resolved as this would essentially amount to dismissing his concerns as the matters were so closely linked. He reminded the Committee that the decision to grant planning permission was intractable and that they would not be able to change the decision if the ongoing investigation found fault with the Council’s process. He called on the Chair to defer consideration of BH2018/01445 until the issues relating to BH2017/02805 had been resolved.

27.4       The Chair responded that she was aware of Mr Hall’s complaint and that it had been escalated to stage 2. She stated that the Planning Committee had a duty to determine the applications before it and that she was not prepared to defer consideration of BH2018/01445 as it was completely separate from BH2017/02805.