Sent:
05/03/2015
14:38
Subject:
Message
from Paul Lawrence re: update on DC056554 and to the north of Blackberry Lane,
Brinnington; Castle Hill School and Lapwing Centre, Lapwing Lane, Brinnington;
Land at Lapwing Lane, Brinnington; and Former Storage Area, Truro Avenue,
Brinnington
Dear Councillors
Further to Emma Curle’s email of 27th February, there are a number
of matters relating to the proposed development site in Brinnington which have
since been raised by both Members and the general public and which Members may
require clarification on.
Although Planning and Highways Regulation Committee resolved that planning
permission should be granted for the above development at the meeting of
8th January 2015, and the Secretary of State concluded that he did
not wish to ‘call-in’ the application, planning permission has not formally been
issued at present due to the need for the applicant to sign a legal agreement
for the development and officers drafting the decision notice.
Whilst on the 25th February 2015 the Council was advised that a
local resident had submitted to the High Court an application for Judicial
Review, planning permission has not yet been issued, and as such, the submission
to the Court may be premature. Officers are currently considering the grounds
of challenge and will respond accordingly within the prescribed period.
The two grounds are as follows:
Ground
1
Paragraphs 87
and 88 of
the National Planning Policy Framework published on
27th March 2012 provides that “87. As
with previous Green
Belt policy, inappropriate development is,
by definition, harmful to the
Green Belt and
should not be
approved except in
very special circumstances.
88. When considering any
planning application, local
planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is
given to any
harm to the
Green Belt. ‘Very
special circumstances’ will not exist
unless the potential harm
to the Green
Belt by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm,
is clearly outweighed by
other
considerations.”
No
adequate regard was
given to this
policy when the
planning permission was
granted.
Ground 2
In voting to grant the
application, the Defendant was advised that the Interested Party had “identified
with evidence the essential objective that the proposal is intended to meet…
and have demonstrated that this could not reasonably be met in a less harmful
way”. At no stage was the Defendant’s decision making committee told what that
evidence was. Accordingly it was unable to evaluate whether it met the
requirements of paragraphs 87 and 88 of the NPPF, as it was obliged to
do.
Prior to receiving the notification of Judicial Review, and on the
18th February 2015 the Council granted a license to Countryside
Properties to allow an ecological assessment and subsequent tree removal work to
be carried out on the land at Blackberry Lane. The work was timed to take place
prior to the bird nesting season and the licence was issued by the Council as
landowner and is not part of the planning process. Following the granting of the
licence Countryside Properties have undertaken some clearance works, however,
once the Council were served with the Judicial Review claim, it was decided that
it was no longer appropriate to permit Countryside Properties to proceed with
the felling of the trees pending the outcome of the application for Judicial
Review.
As such the developer has been instructed to put on hold the felling works.
The Council and Countryside Properties will now investigate alternative methods
of preventing birds nesting in the trees, such as netting, so that in the event
the Council are successful in defending the Judicial Review, then development
can progress on schedule.
Officers are continuing to draft the grounds of resistance to the Judicial
Review claim made against the Council. The timescale is controlled by the Court
but it may be of some assistance to members to provide an indicative timeline.
If the claim is determined to be ‘significant’ then the
application for permission to apply for Judicial Review should be determined
within three weeks of the Council filing response to the claim (known as
acknowledgement of service). If permission to apply for Judicial Review is
granted, then the hearing should take place within ten weeks, once detailed
grounds have been submitted by the parties.
An indicative timeline might look like this:
· Date claim form served – 25/02/15
· Deadline for filing of Acknowledgment of Service – 18/03/15
· Permission to apply determined within 3 weeks – 08/04/15
· Detailed grounds to be submitted within 35 days – 13/05/15
· Hearing held before – 22/07/15
I hope this update is helpful. Please do come back to me if you
have any further queries
Paul
Kristina
Makowska
PA to Paul Lawrence
Corporate Director, Place
Directorate
Stockport Metropolitan Borough
Council
( 0161 474 3501
+2nd Floor| Fred Perry House |
Piccadilly | STOCKPORT | SK1 3XE
