5th March 2007
Dear Ms Eakins,
REQUEST FOR SECRETARY OF STATE CALL IN
RE: WEST BERKSHIRE COUNCIL: PLANNING DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATION: 06/00960/FULMAJ: PROPOSED CIVIC AMENITY SITE
Newtown Parish Council wishes to object in the very strongest terms to a recent decision made by West Berkshire Council regarding the above planning application. The parish council objects for a number of reasons which relate to:
1. Non-conformity with the Local Plan
2. No Environmental Assessment as required by SI 1999/293 and the relevant EU Directive
3. The Berkshire Waste Local Plan (through the indirect effect of a connected planning application)
4. RPG 9 as amended June 2006 (through the indirect effect of a connected planning application)
5. The draft SE Regional Plan – Section D6: Waste and Minerals
6. West Berkshire Council’s Standing Orders not being complied with
7. The propriety of the West Berkshire Council waiving S106 contributions (that is public money) associated with a related proposed housing development, in return for the construction of a new Civic Amenity Site (and in the absence of testing the cost through competitive tendering or reference to the District Auditor for a valuation) that will be then transferred free of charge to West Berkshire Council.
Overall Objection – Natural Justice to be demonstrated
The Parish Council’s overall objection is that the non-conformity with the Local Plan and the other Development Plan documents relating to West Berkshire are so fundamental that a full public consultation should have taken place of the same magnitude as that which is required when determining the content of a Local Plan. The planning system in the UK is based on a plan led approach. This is made clear in all Government planning documents and the public website. Unless a fully open and transparent process is adopted and adhered to in determining planning applications where significant variations from the local plan are to take place, public confidence in the planning system is threatened.
Specific Objections
1. PROCESS - No public consultation on non-conformity with Local Plan
As indicated above the only public consultation that was undertaken by West Berkshire Council (WBC) was the posting of public notices and letters to parish councils. No public meetings were organised by the Council. Because of significant public concern two public protest meetings were organised by local parish councils at Greenham, the parish within which both the new and old sites are situated. Many points were raised by individuals in letters of objection to WBC and 10 minutes was allowed at the planning meeting for objections to be read out.
2. PROCESS – Objections disallowed as “not material considerations” to the application
Many of the objections are material to the planning application. However, it is clear from dealings objectors have had with WBC officers prior to the preparation of the report, that many of the reasons given by the applicant in justifying the application have been accepted at face value by the planning officers (and later by the Committee) and not tested objectively. On the other hand many objections and issues raised by objectors have been disallowed and ignored by both the planning officers and members of the Committee as not material.
An important issue in this respect is the parallel planning application for 64 dwellings on land at <streetw:ston>
However, based on case law it can be argued that the issues associated with the parallel planning application for 64 houses at <streetw:ston>
Material considerations
11. "In principle...any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being a planning consideration. Whether a particular consideration falling within that broad class is material in any given case will depend on the circumstances" (Stringer v MHLG 1971).
12. Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest. The considerations must also fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned (R v Westminster CC ex-parte Monahan 1989).
If the Parish Council is correct in its assertions about materiality, then all the objections made by the Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit (dated 21st April 2006 and subsequent correspondance – enclosures 1,2,3) relating to the Berkshire Waste Local Plan are material. These were supported by the Parish Council in its objection letter to WBC prior to the application being heard.
3. PROCESS - Decision process not in conformity with WBC Standing Orders and the Chair of the Committee misleading the Committee and not being correctly advised by the law officer of the Council and a subsequent faulty opinion by the Planning Manager not to refer the decision to the full Council
Following the vote by the planning committee to pass the application, 25% of the committee members present requested that the decision should be referenced up to the full Council, without further discussion, as allowed by WBC standing order 7.3.4. - extract below:
(a) a Committee is authorised to determine a matter under delegated powers and, immediately following a vote on the matter, one quarter of the members appointed to the Committee so request, the matter shall stand referred without further discussion to the full Council;
The Chair disallowed this by stating that the timetable for signing the Council’s waste management contract (PFI Contract - currently being negotiated with Veolia Environmental Services) did not permit such a delay.
This decision by the Chairman was not challenged by the law officer despite standing order 7.3.5 - Exceptions to Standing order 7.3.4 (quote)
7.3.5 Exceptions
Rule 7.3.4 (Referencing-up) shall not apply to any matter which:
- is being considered by an Urgency Sub-Committee, or by a special meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee which has been called because of the urgency of the matter; or
- is being considered by an ordinary meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee and in respect of which the Chairman of the meeting acting reasonably considers that delay in determining the matter would prejudice the Council's position; or
- concerns the appointment, discipline or dismissal of a member of staff; or involves the hearing of representations (except in connection with petitions and planning applications) from persons other than Members of the Council.
The Chairman in refusing the reference up used the reason that the Council’s position would be prejudiced. This statement is completely at odds with all assertions made by the Council and its officers that the application was developer led and the Council had no conflict of interest in determining the application.
Notwithstanding the decision of the Chair, the WBC Standing Order 7.1.1 states
7.1.1 Area Planning Committees
- Recommendations from Area Planning Committees deemed by the Development Control Manager to have a significant impact on the implementation of the policies and proposals in the Local Development Plan/Local Development Framework will be referred to Council.
Given the comments made above about the lack of public consultation for what is now being stated by WBC as a planning application where the WBC does have an interest, the Planning Manager should have referred the matter up to the full Council.
This issue is further reinforced by the table of delegations in the Council’s Standing Orders (quote):
3.1.3 Table 2 Responsibility for Council Functions (Schedule 1 of the Functions Regulations)
Extract from the table
Functions Committee Membership Delegation of Functions
Functions | Committee | Membership | Delegation of Functions |
Functions relating to Town and Country Planning and Development Control | Area Planning Committees | 12 Members | Functions are delegated to the appropriate Area Planning Committee (Eastern and Western). Where their recommendations are deemed by the Development Control Manager to have a significant impact on the implementation of the policies and proposals in the Local Development Plan/Local Development Framework, these will be referred to Council. Some matters will be decided by the Head of Planning in consultation with the Head of Legal and Electoral Services as set out in the Officer Delegation Rules |
