Post by Julian Sutton

Another example to support the forthcoming national scheme of delegation! Having previously secured a change of use on appeal for our client, Chongie Entertainment Limited, we were required to submit a further application on a site as a result of the freeholder implementing an extant permission for redevelopment of the site (to include a commercial unit at ground floor). Against the backdrop of a recent successful appeal confirming the principle of the acceptability of the proposed use on site, officers supported the second application as did the Metropolitan Police DOCO (Designing Out Crime Officer) and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. A Ward Member (who also sat on the Planning Committee) called the application into Committee.  In the lead upto Committee, we were repeatedly advised that as the Ward Member had not registered to speak on the item (and as there were no other objectors speaking) that we were unable to speak at Committee. Despite questioning this several times the advice from the Committee Clerk remained.  At Committee (which we attended) the Member in question used their position as Committee Chair to make a lengthy speech in objection to the application (and appearing to us to be pre-determined) following which the application was refused contrary to officers’ recommendation. Alongside an appeal against this refusal we also submitted a costs claim. Consequently, the Inspector confirmed that the Council’s Standing Orders for Committee are unclear and vague and that the Applicant was prejudiced as we had no opportunity to speak when it was apparent that the Ward Member made a presentation against the application. However, the Inspector concluded that ultimately had we been allowed to speak it is very unlikely that it would have made any difference to the outcome (very true!). As well as allowing the appeal the Inspector concluded the Council's refusal was based on vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about the proposal’s impact, which were unsupported by objective analysis and as such the Council had failed to provide clear, evidence-based reasons for its refusal. The Inspector therefore made a full award of costs in favour of our client. I have not named the LPA, but if anyone needs the appeal decision to assist where they are facing a similar argument re speaking at Committee – please DM - as I am happy to send.