Agenda item

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications. Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda (acting on behalf of the Corporate Director) no later than 5pm on Wednesday 3 June 2015. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

The following written question and response was received and noted:

Question from Councillor Ernie Clark, Hilperton Division:

Re Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 1459 (Admin) - judgment handed down on 20 May 2015.

This seems to be a truly appalling decision by a High Court judge, and surely needs to be appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds of procedural error and error of law.

The old saying is that it is a woman's privilege to change her mind, but that cannot extend to a decision handed down by a High Court judge which has already finally determined an issue, viz. [74] of [2015] EWHC 1261 (Admin):-

"In the circumstances and, with a degree of reluctance, I find that I am unable to exercise my discretion not to quash the decision letter."

Furthermore, it is plainly inconsistent and wrong not to quash the decision letter in Appeal B on the basis that the decision would have been the same in spite of the Secretary of State's error of law, but to refuse to quash the decision letter in Appeal A because the decision would almost certainly have been different and hence would deprive the Developer Defendants of the benefits of that unlawful decision letter.

The consequences of such flawed reasoning must be that a Local Planning Authority can never overturn an Appeal Decision, however serious the unlawfulness of it may be.

The judge also seems totally to have ignored the fact that Wiltshire Council is the Local Planning Authority with a duty to the public at large to ensure that the integrity of the planning system in its area is maintained and in that respect it cannot be treated as on a par with developers.  There is no proper evaluation in the judgment of the harm to the public interest that will be caused by not quashing the decision letter.

I am advised that the proper approach to the exercise of the discretion, which is supposed to be exceptional, not to quash a decision that has been found to be unlawful is that of Mr Justice Gilbart on 19 February 2015 in Davies v Carmarthenshire County Council [2015] EWHC 230 (Admin), following Bateman v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 157, particularly Moore-Bick LJ at [31].

In the circumstances will Wiltshire Council be taking this decision to the Court of Appeal?  If not, why not?

Response

Officers can confirm that the Council is seeking permission from the Courts to appeal the Judge’s decision not to quash the decision letter issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the planning appeal at Devizes Road, Hilperton.

The following supplementary question and response was received and noted:

Question from Councillor Ernie Clark, Hilperton Division:

As both the decision letters from the Secretary of State were unlawful, will WC be appealing both decisions, A and B?

Response

The question would be circulated to the legal and planning officer to be answered at a later date.