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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. 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.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 no later than 5pm on Thursday 8^th November 2018, in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 12 November 2018. 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 Committee noted the rules on public participation.

Questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting and had been circulated as part of the agenda pack. The response to the questions were also published online as a supplement and copies were available at the meeting.

Questions and responses:

Submitted by Dr Claydon, were in relation to application 17/10079/FUL: Nightwood Farm, Lucewood Lane, West Grimstead, SP5 3RN, considered by Committee on 10 January 2018:

Q1. The responses given to my submitted questions on 20^th September were factually incorrect, misleading and showed a contempt for the due processes required of the LPA in regard to Nightwood Farm. Has the LPA reviewed what they said in the two replies?

Response: The LPA is satisfied with its responses and does not intend to review them.

Q2 Since I was given reassurances at the Planning Meeting of 20^th September in regard to the total failure of the LPA to manage the instruction of the Southern Area Planning Committee of the 10^th January nor to reject the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for Nightwood Farm registered 21^st June  I would request a clarification and an update in what is happening for the benefit of  the whole Planning Committee.

Response: After the application was refused the LPA liaised with the Environment Agency who were considering what action to take under their legislation.  On 21 February the Environment Agency informed the LPA that they did not intend to take any action.  On 1 June the LPA’s Enforcement Team served a requisition for information, the first stage in enforcement proceedings but on 31 May the certificate of lawfulness application was received and enforcement action was held in abeyance pending consideration of this application.  The CLE remains undetermined and legal advice is expected to be received by 20 November

Q3 What was the legal advice that was given to the LPA in regard to Nightwood Farm and what I consider to have been the incorrectly validated application for the Certificate of Lawfulness.?

Response: The Council is still waiting for the legal advice.  However, we do point out that Legal Privilege is a recognised exemption under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Environment Information Regulations and upon receipt of any such advice consideration as to whether such advice can or should be released or not can then be made.

Dr Claydon was then permitted to ask supplementary questions. He addressed the Committee with the following:

Supplementary question 1

The reply that the LPA has no intention of reviewing their reply to my September question is worrying because that reply showed that there is little appreciation by the LPA of the difference between a routine planning application and an application for a certificate of lawfulness. I am not aware, as the original response seems to be addressing, of it ever being suggested that the validation should have been refused because the site or development is contentious.

Q - Why have the LPA ignored the guideline for validation of a Certificate of Lawfulness application and treated it as a normal planning application?

The validation process required for a certificate of lawfulness is to check if there is any incorrect or false statement in the application. It is an offence to submit anything false or incorrect without any evidence to justify any such statement and the application cannot be validated. My position is that the LPA appears to have overlooked and ignored the specific part of Town and Country Planning Act (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 para 39 which is specifically in regard to Certificates of Lawfulness and treated the application as if it were a normal planning application. Para 39b requires there to be evidence verifying the information included in the application. The basis throughout the submission for the application is that the land upon which the bunds have been created is agricultural land with associated permitted development rights, when it is accepted and agreed by the LPA that the land is registered as Ancient Woodland. It cannot be treated as agricultural land for the purpose of planning and Ancient Woodland does not have any permitted development rights. There is no submitted evidence claiming that it is not Ancient woodland and indeed the words Ancient Woodland in relation to the land under the bunds is not as far as I can see, mentioned. The Planning Officer should not have validated the application based, as it is, on a false and incorrect assertion.

Furthermore, another false statement in the submission (para 2.2) is that the amount of asbestos in the bunds according to the EA is so negligible that it should be disregarded. This is completely the opposite of what EA actually said, which was that in their view, because of the buried asbestos present in the bunds, disturbing the bunds by removing them was potentially more hazardous than leaving them untouched.

Supplementary question 2

The LPA response is an interesting timeline that exposes the inactivity of the Enforcement Department and a failure to do what was required of them by this Committee on January 10^th 2018. On their own admission, for three months after the EA response, absolutely nothing was initiated by Enforcement. Your clear instructions were, it is now shown, apparently ignored for months until it was too late to proceed. I do not need to remind you of the feeling expressed here on January 10^th but, in spite of that, the very people who were tasked, I assume is to serve the wish of this Committee, did not act in an acceptable timeframe.

It had taken over two years to get the LPA to require the landowner to submit the retrospective planning application in the first place. There is something about this development site that provokes a reluctance for action by LPA, that does not seem right and I would hope in the interests of democracy will be addressed.

Q – Why did the Enforcement Department take no action for over three months, following the delay of over a month awaiting the reply from the EA, and then only act after the Certificate of Lawfulness application had been received, which effectively halted any enforcement action?

The Chairman noted that a written response would be provided to the supplementary questions.

Cllr Devine re-iterated the Committees previous request that an update on the matter be provide in due course.

Cllr Dean requested the name of the Officer whom had provided the response to the questions. This would be provided to him in writing after the meeting.