Can covid-19 knock a planning appeal off track? The short answer is that of course it can.
We already have a plethora of relaxed planning rules as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. We have also heard from the Planning Inspectorate’s head of operations that it is cancelling all forthcoming hearings and appeals.
One of those, which was supposed to be heard next month, was for the Moda Living scheme to build 800 flats for the Sackville Trading Estate and Hove Goods Yard.
Moda’s application went through the planning process at the second attempt earlier this month, on Wednesday 4 March, aided by Hove MP Peter Kyle leaning one way against many residents leaning the other way.
Curiously, at another Planning Committee meeting earlier this week, on Monday 23 March, the application went through again, this time in a simpler format.
Moda made some modest changes and effectively asked the Planning Committee to withdraw its reasons for refusing the first planning application from last year.
This is curious because this was the one that went to appeal, without the 10 per cent affordable housing provision.
We were informed that it had been replaced in the appeal process by the application that the Planning Committee approved on Wednesday 4 March.
If this sounds confusing, then that is because it is. Why ask a Planning Committee to withdraw its objection to an old application that is no longer the subject of an appeal?
Or so I thought until I noticed that the appeal notification that came through the letterbox had the old application’s reference number.
So, my reading of this is that Moda appealed after the Planning Committee rejected the original application last year (no 10 per cent affordable housing and more units/more studios) and secured a planning approval for the second application (10 per cent affordable housing and fewer units).
To put it simply, Moda appears to want to have its cake and eat it.
Before the meeting on Monday, my advice to fellow councillors would have been, “Don’t fall for it and certainly do not give up any little leverage you have after having your leverage eaten away by the MP for Hove.”
In policy terms, however you feel about our current policy and city plan, the old scheme was contrary to planning policies known as CP15, HE3, HE6 & HE10 (basically excessive height and impact on heritage assets).
The council also argued that the first scheme failed to deliver a balanced community (there were too many studio apartments) and did not offer sufficient employment space which we desperately need.
Why should the committee have stuck to its guns? Because we should have maintained our leverage as a local authority as firmly possible to secure a strong negotiating position while we agreed legal terms with Moda.
The appeal will now not be heard on Tuesday 21 April as planned so there was no rush to pass a decision to withdraw our reasons for refusal. This was foolish and weakened our bargaining position.
Council paperwork for the Planning Committee meeting on Monday (23 March) referred to the community infrastructure levy (CIL) regulations coming into effect on Monday 1 June as a factor. But this is not relevant as the Sackville Trading Estate is exempt from the CIL.
We should have held off withdrawing any reasons for refusing the first application until we had agreed with Moda the heads of terms for Moda’s “developer contribution” (also known as the “section 106” agreement) on the second application which we approved.
That would have been the correct decision to make for the city.
Samer Bagaeen is a professor of planning. He is also a Conservative councillor and represents Hove Park ward on Brighton and Hove City Council.
