Agenda item - Chair's Communications

123.1  Welcome everybody to another special meeting of Planning Committee, called to consider applications in relation to Toads Hole Valley. Although this is the second such meeting, in many ways we are in uncharted territory. In March, we were asked our opinion on the application currently under appeal due to non-determination. We concluded that, had we been presented with it earlier, we would have rejected it on two grounds, highways and air quality. Both grounds related to the fact neither National Highways or our own Highways Department had been able to give their considered views, as the traffic modelling had not yet gone through the final transport audit. We found that all other elements of this outline application were acceptable.

We are now faced with re-evaluating the application in the light of the submission of the transport audit and the resultant withdrawal of objections by both National Highways and our Highways Department. We are also being asked our opinion on an exact duplicate application.

As ever, we are required to exercise our Democratic rights to judge these applications on their merits. As ever, this needs to be done in terms of material planning considerations. As ever, as a Local Planning Authority, we must be both consistent and reasonable.

Here’s where it becomes more complicated. Since the first application we are hearing today is the subject of an ongoing appeal, our position on it will go straight to the appeal inquiry. Usually, if we as a committee overturn an Officer recommendation, Officers will then support us in making arguments in favour of our position. As I understand it, in this case, our Officers have already given their opinions to the ongoing appeal inquiry, so this cannot be the case this time. Were we to choose to refuse this application, at least one of us would need to be prepared to appear before the inquiry and defend our position, with supporting evidence. 

Also, since the second application we are going to hear today is an exact duplicate of the first, although we are Democratically allowed to consider it fully in the usual way, in the absence of any change in circumstances, any outcome other than that which we reach with the first application, would leave us open to accusations of inconsistency. This is a very unfortunate position for us to find ourselves in. We are always limited in how much we can pursue policy goals, either those of our political parties or those of the Council as a whole, due to the quasi-judicial nature of this Committee, and the fact we have to make decisions within the overarching national planning legislative framework. On this occasion, we may consider ourselves to be even more tightly bound due to the additional restrictions placed on us by the ongoing appeal inquiry.

Nonetheless, I am happy for debate to be as broad as usual. I think this is the best way for us to come to the possible outcome for the city. That is, as ever, our overriding goal.