Rather confusing article regarding the withdrawal of the planning application for 265 houses by the Knowle Park Initiative was reported in last week’s Surrey Advertiser.
There is nothing ‘undemocratic’ in the way Waverley Borough Council’s Head of Planning, Matthew Evans has chosen to handle this application. After all planning is not a democratic process but a Quasi-Judicial one.
You can read the full article here on getsurrey.co.uk : http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/planning-application-cranleigh-homes-withdrawn-9639797
The Head of Planning is within his right to refuse a planning application within his delegated powers (to act on behalf of the Council) and not waste time and resources assessing it via a Joint Planning Committee, if he deems the application to be in conflict with the Council’s Policy.
See below an extract from Waverley Borough Council’s Scheme of Delegation to Officers April 2015:
This application still has an Environment Agency (statutory consultee) Objection against it on 2 grounds:-
Firstly that the Sequential Test information submitted with the application demonstrated that there are sites (plural) which are available and are less at risk of flooding that could accommodate 265 dwellings. For Sequential Test purposes, these dwellings do not have to be contained on one single site.
Secondly the EA has determined the following:
NPPF Point 103 referred to in the Environment Agency’s objection is copied below:
Waverley planners will be aware that if they brought this application to the Joint Planning Committee and it was granted permission against their recommendation to refuse, Cranleigh Residents could take the decision to a Judicial Review, and as the application fails on matters of both national and local policy, and a statutory consultee objection, it is highly likely that they would succeed in getting the decision overturned and Waverley would then be liable for the costs. It is the Officers’ responsibility to safeguard the council from such action.
Letters of support hold no weight when a planning application falls foul of matters of planning policy and the broader National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The “less popular applications” referred to in the article, which have been heard by the joint planning committee, were not deemed contrary to policy by Officers and did not hold the sustained objection from a statutory consultee.
The article goes on to explain that to bring this application to a Joint Planning Committee…
In this case the Ward Councillors who could potentially call this in are Brian Ellis or Patricia Ellis.
If a councillor does try to ‘call it in’ they would break with convention and would be acting against the advice of the Head of Planning and the Environment Agency. Both Brian and Patricia Ellis have been very vocal about maintaining the village feel of Cranleigh, protecting its green fields and flooding issues. They have a track record of objecting to large scale green field development to date (Amlet’s Lane, Berkeley Homes & Crest Nicholson). It would seem totally contrary to their actions to make such a dramatic gesture and call this application in on behalf of this developer against Officers’ advice.
You can add your support by emailing them to request them not to call this application in, but to align themselves with the Planning Officers’ recommendation and let it be handled and refused under delegated powers.
Brian Ellis brian.ellis@waverley.gov.uk
Patricia Ellis patrica.ellis@waverley.gov.uk
If the developer really believes that the Head of Planning at Waverley Borough Council is acting in an ‘undemocratic’ way in recommending this application for refusal they are totally within their right to take this further on to the Court of Appeal.
