Council reaffirms adoption of development plan document despite judicial review threat

Mid Sussex Council has reaffirmed its decision to adopt a development plan document that could see the building of 1700 homes, despite a threat of judicial review by one of its own councillors, who argues the decision was procedurally flawed.

In June, the council formally adopted the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). However, shortly after making the decision, the local authority received a letter before claim from Cllr Robert Eggleston.

Cllr Eggleston’s letter suggested that the council failed to properly present an environmental report – and the responses to it – for consideration before voting on the plan. Cllr Eggleston is being supported by a group named South of Folders Lane Action Group (SOFLAG).

The council reconsidered its decision at Extraordinary Meeting of the council last week (10 August) and decided to reaffirm its decision to adopt the DPD.

At the meeting, Cllr Eggleston tabled an amendment to ask the council to write to the Secretary of State to revoke the plan, but members rejected the proposal.

Failure to adopt the DPD will place the council at significant risk of not having a five-year housing land supply.

The local authority said that an Independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State concluded that the Sites DPD was "legally compliant, sound, and capable of adoption".

According to the local authority, the council's legal advisor considers it was "clear that members had access to all the relevant documents via an electronic link on 29 June, however, to avoid unnecessary expense to the taxpayers and to expedite procedures should the matter be taken further by the claimant, the council met again on the 10 August to reaffirm its decision to adopt the plan".

Cllr Robert Salisbury, Cabinet Member for Planning, said it is "regrettable that Councillor Eggleston, acting with the South of Folders Lane Action Group, is threatening the Council with legal action over such a minor matter".

He added: "We were very disappointed that it was necessary to call the council back to the Chamber to consider a matter it discussed only a few weeks ago. It is additionally frustrating that Councillor Eggleston did not raise this minor technical matter when he spoke during the debate on the 29 June. Had he done so, this additional work and expense might have been avoided."

In an announcement reacting to the comments, a spokesperson for SOFLAG said: "The Site Allocations DPD will fundamentally change forever the landscape of the whole district, so we don't believe that presenting it to Councillors for a key vote without all the required papers being made properly available (and for the second time as this happened back in 2020 as well remember) is a 'minor technical matter'."

Councillor Jonathan Ash-Edwards, Leader of the Council, said revoking the entire plan "would be a completely disproportionate response".

He said: "It would leave Mid Sussex without a Plan, and remove the protections we have in place against speculative development, as the council would have to re-start all the work we have done over the last three years at great cost to the taxpayer.

"It is rarely the case that everyone agrees on every site in a Plan. But the only way to keep Mid Sussex special and avoid a developer led free for all is to have a Plan in place and to keep it updated."

Adam Carey