9.68
Object
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Representation ID: 24191
Received: 07/12/2018
Respondent: Cantelupe Community Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This was the third failed application attempting to develop the site. This statement is factually wrong and therefore misleading. The Judicial Review did not remit the decision back to the Council. The Judicial Review quashed the planning permission, due to "the mistake made by the officer in his report was, in its context and circumstances and in its possible consequence, sufficiently misleading to invalidate the committee's decision. It was "significantly" or "seriously" - misleading on a material matter, and it was left uncorrected before the decision was taken. In the context of the duty in section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act, the committee was misinformed on the consultation of a national amenity society.
Inclusion of the site in the DaSA Local Plan, contradicts policy EN5: Protecting Green Space.
This was the third failed application attempting to develop the site. This statement is factually wrong and therefore misleading. The Judicial Review did not remit the decision back to the Council. The Judicial Review quashed the planning permission, due to "the mistake made by the officer in his report was, in its context and circumstances and in its possible consequence, sufficiently misleading to invalidate the committee's decision. It was "significantly" or "seriously" - misleading on a material matter, and it was left uncorrected before the decision was taken. In the context of the duty in section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act, the committee was misinformed on the consultation of a national amenity society.
Inclusion of the site in the DaSA Local Plan, contradicts policy EN5: Protecting Green Space.