GBC Refuses to Confirm Rumours About Station Planning Challenge

Published on: 23 Feb, 2018
Updated on: 23 Feb, 2018

Solum’s CGI of a redeveloped Guildford station.

Guildford Borough Council (GBC) is refusing to confirm rumours that it is to seek a judicial review (JR) of the planning appeal decision to grant planning permission to Solum for a large scale residential development at Guildford railway station.

While some close to the council believes a JR is unlikely, and unlikely to succeed, other well-placed sources have indicated that the council is intending to seek such a review. If it is to proceed it would have to do so within six weeks of the January 23 (2018) decision. This gives it to March 6.

And the chairman of the Guildford Society has commented that he believes there are grounds for a JR, “if the council is minded to apply for one.”

The council said shortly after the appeal decision that it was considering its options.

A judicial review cannot be used to review the merits of the decision, but only the lawfulness of the way in which the decision was made and compliance with the process. From 2014, judicial reviews of planning cases have been dealt with in a specialist planning court within the High Court.

The limited nature of challenges to planning decisions has been emphasised by the courts on previous occasions. Planning inspectors are usually considered best placed to resolve matters of planning judgement and courts are wary to interfere in challenges that are, in substance, complaints about the way in which the planning balance has been struck.

The main permissible grounds for judicial review are: illegality – ie the decision was not taken in accordance with the law and with respect for the policy and purpose of the legislation; procedural unfairness; irrationality (ie the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it); the inspector did not ensure he was informed of material considerations and take them into account; legitimate expectations were not met; mistake of fact; proportionality; duty to provide reasons.

Some observers are understood to feel that the proposed development by Solum would prevent construction of an additional platform, “Platform Zero” to increase the operational capacity of the railway station and that this was a “material consideration” not properly presented to the planning inspector or appreciated by him. But it is not known if this is GBC’s view.

Julian Lyon, chairman of the Guildford Society said today (February 23, 2018): “At the public inquiry the Guildford Society tabled an analysis of the site and floor plans (which does not appear on the council’s register of appeal documents) and demonstrated that there is no room for platform zero if the appeal scheme is developed in accordance with the plans listed in the inspector’s Decision Notice.

Julian Lyon, chairman of the Guildford Society, speaking at its public meeting “How High Can We Go?” held on Wednesday evening, February 21 (2018).

“Again, at our public meeting on Wednesday evening, we demonstrated this issue and it was considered to be very clear-cut that the scheme does not and cannot accommodate the development.

“There are two key points here: firstly, Network Rail wrote to the inspector to say that development of the site can accommodate platform zero – being careful not to say that the Appeal Scheme could; and secondly the need for a new application (the inspector approved only the appeal scheme) in order to accommodate platform zero would make it impossible for the scheme to deliver any new housing within five years – the critical period in planning terms.

“It is our view that, had the inspector taken proper account of the inability of the Appeal Scheme to deliver platform zero, the appeal would have been dismissed and we believe this would provide grounds for a Judicial Review if the council is minded to apply for one.”

Share This Post