Disappointment as Gosford Forest Park housing plan gets green light after appeal

The PAC’s decision to side with the appellant Sam Marks, means that unless a judicial review is brought forward, a residential development of 11, 1.5 storey buildings made up of three detached, two semi-detached and six townhouses, private amenity space, parking and a landscape scheme that includes a walled garden maintenance plan will be built at lands immediately adjacent and to the west of Gosford Castle.

Councillor Peter Lavery, who seconded former councillor Sam Nicholson’s proposal to reject the application in January 2022, raised the issue at the most recent meeting of the committee and told the chamber he felt the PAC’s decision was “almost overriding a democratic act in this chamber”.

“In January 2022 this application went through a significant amount of debate in this chamber and, ultimately, this chamber decided to refuse the application unanimously,” he said.

“We were all in agreement given the number of concerns we had about Gosford Castle and the forest park. The developer appealed and the PAC has overturned the decision.

“Reading the report, it seems PAC has kind of ignored the debate that occurred in this chamber. We did consider everything that was in that report and we did decide there was no betterment argument so my concern is that it is almost overriding a democratic act.

“Is this the end of the road, does the PAC have the final say, there are a large number of objectors who might be upset it has come to this, do they have any third party right of appeal?

“It is disappointing, in my view, when we did consider all the facts and we took a decision that seems to have been thrown out straight away.”

Council’s head of planning Damian Mulligan noted that council’s planning officers had recommended the committee approved the application but following some “interrogation” from the committee, the decision to reject the application was reached.

“Officers defended that refusal very robustly at the appeal,” he said.

“The PAC will look very clearly at the planning merits of the case and the fact the planning committee has overturned an officer recommendation and reached a decision on that basis does not necessarily come into play.

“It is about the merits of the case and the PAC is an independent body who will focus on those issues. In this case, what they did was look at the fact there was a fall back position via an extant permission granted by the department a good few years ago.

“This allowed for the change of use of the castle and also for 23 garages on the site. That really did sway it, it seemed to sway it significantly for the PAC as it is saying 11 dwellings represent betterment over the fallback position of 23 garages.

“This decision is based on the fact there was reduced development on the site, restoration of the garden walls and a number of other factors which influenced their decision.”

He then explained that there is no third party right of appeal for this decision and said if there was to be a challenge, it would have to be through the High Court via a judicial review.

Alderman Gareth Wilson described it as “quite a unique situation” as the officer verdict was overturned by the committee but its decision has been overturned by the PAC.

“It is strange we are basically back where we started, much to the annoyance of many people, not least the users of the park but also those living close by” he said.

“Is it a reversion back to the original application as it stands and all that entails? The walled garden is contained within that submission and is what will be developed what we were presented with?

Mr Mulligan confirmed that was indeed the case but noted the PAC has imposed a number of conditions on the approval.

“The applicant will now be able to implement the scheme that came before committee, but subject to the conditions imposed by PAC,” he said.

“It actually imposed 12 conditions and amongst those is the removal of permitted development rights. The applicant cannot do anything beyond what they have permission for, any further work would have to come before planning for approval.

“There are fairly stringent conditions and details of those will have to be submitted for approval in some cases.

“The conditions will ensure the scheme that has been approved will be implement as seen, with no room for manoeuvre.”

Alderman Wilson then asked if, going forward, there would be any impact on the committee’s ability to assess a discharge of condition application, or similar, in relation to this case, given it originally rejected the application unanimously.

Mr Mulligan told the chamber it would be important to be “open minded” about any application brought before the committee and seeking to ensure the scheme is the best it can be.

“If anything like that does come before committee it is about approaching each application with an open mind,” he said.

“It will be about making sure that you take a decision that will ensure scheme is the best it can be. For example, making sure the management of the landscaping is acceptable and will ensure it will be maintained in perpetuity.

“Irrespective of the position you took on the original application, it is about approaching the application before you with an open mind. A similar point could have been made about officers trying to defend the appeal but when we are placed in that position we represent the council not ourselves.

“We are paid to work for the council and defend council’s position.”

Bringing the debate to a close, Councillor Peter Lavery thanked Mr Mulligan for his input, telling the chamber it was “very informative” but was ultimately “a disappointing decision the way this one turned out”.