Issue - meetings

The Sub Committee then proceeded to discuss the grounds of appeal in detail and with advice from Mr Oldham, QC.

Arising from its deliberations, the Sub Committee was of the view that on the point raised about the Corporation submitting no further written comments in relation to the grounds of the appeal, it understood that the appeal was not being conceded and the Sub Committee was being asked to take account of the written material that had been before the Hearing Sub Committee and its decision and sanction letters in deciding how to resolve the appeal. Members were advised by Mr Oldham, and accepted, that a lack of further written response from the Corporation and/or the Corporation’s non-attendance at the hearing were not grounds, under the adopted appeal procedure, for allowing the appeal.

Accordingly, Members proceeded to consider the written grounds of appeal.

(1) There was no DPI in the “matter” being considered on 29th January

The Sub Committee agreed that the delegation decision being considered on 29 January should not be conflated with any later determination of the planning application. Mr Oldham advised that whether Ms Pearson had a DPI in the delegation decision depended on if, in the Sub Committee’s view, and on the particular facts of the case, there was a sufficient material connection between the delegation decision and the substantive determination of the planning application which might follow.

The Sub Committee were in agreement there was sufficient material connection, noting that the matter of whether the Corporation or Islington was to determine the planning application was contentious.  The Sub Committee considered that members must have regarded the issue as having at least the potential to affect the outcome of the planning application and noted that, had the delegation been agreed at the 29 January meeting, that