Tandridge Rejects its Objectively Assessed Need

Further to my report on the GL Hearn Report recommending an almost quadrupling of its objectively assessed need in its plan review thanks to Village Developments for reporting to me what went on at the actual meeting.

 the report by GL Hearn was recommended to be approved by the steering group consisting of five councillors who sat the Planning Policy Committee . At Committee meeting , the Council changed the wording of the report from approving the report to accepting it,  that is to say not approving it . The meeting descended into farce when they voted not to accept report that they themselves commissioned . In the end they voted to receive a report . This report took 15 months to commission from a resolution to undertake an OAN in June 2012 .

The stupidity of cllrs sometimes knows no bounds.  What will they say now at appeals when asked by an inspector what their objectively assessed need is?   They cant rely on the adopted plan as it is out of date for relying on the RSS, especially after Hunston.  So what do officers say ‘well we have rejected one OAN but members have not voted to accept any other figure’ !  And on what basis, because you dont like the results, but that is a policy choice you make AFTER OBJECTIVELY assessing need.  I can’t see now on what rational basis they have for a plan review.

One thought on “Tandridge Rejects its Objectively Assessed Need

  1. Pingback: The Hastings Examination on DTC and When You can Undershoot Objectively Assessed Need – and Why it’s Different from Arun | Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s