Good afternoon all,
Please see some recent updates below regarding the Council’s response to the Coronavirus outbreak.
Regards,
David
Facebook Live
I was on Facebook Live on Friday 27 March lunch-time to set out how NSDC is responding to ensure help and continued support for residents and businesses during the pandemic. I spoke about the District’s Humanitarian Assistance Response Team (Hart), support packages for businesses, and the measures being taken to ensure that essential Council services will continue for residents including critical waste (green/black bin) collections.
https://www.facebook.com/NSDCouncil/
NSDC Services – Recycling and Garden Waste Collections
It is with deep regret that, with effect from Monday 30th March, collections of recycling (silver bin) and garden (brown bin) waste will temporarily cease across Newark and Sherwood. This is to ensure that collections of the critical waste (green/black bin) and medical waste can be prioritised at this challenging time. We apologise sincerely for the inconvenience this will inevitably cause.
The reduction of any service for residents is unfortunate but unavoidable in this instance due to the necessary social distancing measures for waste crews. Our cabins are just over two metres wide and normally seat three operatives when driving between rounds. In order for our staff to keep a safe distance from each other and help to reduce the spread of Coronavirus (Covid-19), it has been necessary to reorganise our operating model. There has also been a notable increase in recent weeks of soiled tissues being placed in recycling bins which contaminates the whole bin. In the current climate, this is putting our staff and other residents at increased potential health risk.
By temporarily suspending collections of recycling and garden waste, NSDC can adhere to social distancing measures for its staff, help to keep them and residents safe, and still maintain the critical waste (green/black bin) collections. Waste crews are already going above and beyond in their duties and we all want to keep them as safe as possible.
Temporarily, people should place their recycling waste in with their critical waste (green/black bin). Any residents who have subscribed to the garden waste collection service by 1st April 2020, will receive a reduced rate if they choose to continue with this service in 2021-22.
We remain firmly committed to recycling efforts and to our Cleaner, Safer and Greener policy but, in theses unprecedented times, this action has been unavoidable. We will of course keep our operating model under review in line with social distancing measures and continue to explore alternative solutions where feasible. We will provide updates regularly and will take every measure we can to clear any backlogs of waste when the current advice is relaxed.
Residents should continue to put their critical waste (green/black bin) out for collection on their normal days by 6.00am.
I can see a lot of people have asked some questions, so let me try to cover these off to help you with enquiries:
- “Well if you’re not doing the grey bin can you not do the green bin every week?” Therein is the misunderstanding. We have to double the vehicles each week for distancing measures so unless we purchased another fleet, we cannot reinstate any weekly refuse collections – understandably, people will not know/realise that when we collect their bin, we are ordinarily somewhere else in the District collecting other bins. Clearly, we cannot purchase a second fleet and recruit another team.
- “I know other Councils have trained leisure centre staff to work on the bin rounds – why can’t you” In the first instance, this is highly unlikely. We already had flexibility between our grounds and refuse teams so trained staff are already deployed to the service. We could have as many staff as you like but we still need vehicles for them to ‘fill’ and we cannot acquire more of those. The measures are to ensure distancing measures for our team – they deserve the same protection as any other essential key workers.
- “Can’t they just follow the van in their own cars so they’re not together?” – we did look into this, it just wouldn’t work. You have two waste operatives (one each side of the road for the bins) and a driver. You can imagine the complexities, especially in rural areas, of jumping in and out of vehicles having completed each road, running back etc – it was modelled and predicted adding around 5 hours to each route which then means we are outside contracted and permissible hours for operatives.
- “Is it right to send recyclable waste to landfill” – well, no, it’s not. It might not be widely known but virtually no waste in our County goes to landfill, it is nearly all incinerated and, that includes rejected recycling collections – 20% of current content in green bins could have been recycled and on average, 18% of recyclable waste collections are contaminated and rejected. Thereafter, of course we would rather it was recycled but these are extraordinary times. We also wait to see whether the separation facilities continue if tissues etc are being put into recyclable waste, they too have a duty of care to staff.
- “This is an infestation risk” – recyclable waste is inert and should have been washed out so presents no health risk. Residents will need to prioritise filling their bins with food, nappies etc before using any remaining capacity for recyclable waste – a lot of which can also be squashed and compacted more than at present. Thereafter, as we do not know how long these measures will last but hope it is now 11 weeks, residents can try to store recycling waste. IF distancing measures are relaxed, we can look to do a ‘catch up’ round once silver bins are reinstated.
- “So if we bag it and leave it next to the bin if it is already full, will you collect it?”. No. The answer is no. It has to be otherwise we may as well suggest putting all the bins out on the same day and we cannot in anyway guarantee capacity in the vehicles. For Councillors only: clearly if we have two vehicles, there will be some more capacity and our waste operatives will apply common sense but we cannot encourage everyone to put additional waste out – nor do we want our colleagues having to pick up bags which increase health risks, can tear, increase runs to and from the lorry, and risking having to clear up where bags tear.
- “Will there be a reduction in Council Tax”. No
We have had a few well meaning residents worried about presenting waste arising from suspicion of having had the virus. As a general rule of thumb, it is assumed that the risk of transmission from objects is near nil after 72 hours. However, please ask such residents to double bag any such waste and, if they can, place is lower in the bin. If they wish, they can make a solution of bleach and water (roughly 1:10) and spray the waste then leave it 24 hours before double bagging.
Support for Business
NSDC is keen to support its business community and their employees in these unprecedented and challenging times. So far, we have already made relief payments to 314 local businesses with a total value of £5,735,000.
We are committed to being as flexible as possible in administering relief for qualifying businesses and people affected. The support packages available are:
- Astatutory sick pay relief package for SMEs
- Business Grants of between £10,000 and £25,000 have now started being paid to eligible businesses as follows:
- £10,000 grant per business in receipt of Small Business Rates Relief and Rural Rates Relief; or
- £10,000 grant per business in the Retail, Hospitality, and Leisure Sector with rateable value of £15k or less at 11 March 2020
Please note, if businesses fall within both categories 1 and 2 above, the maximum grant eligible will be £10,000
- £25,000 grant per business in the Retail, Hospitality, and Leisure Sector with a rateable value of more than £15k but less than £51k at 11 March 2020
Businesses who think they may qualify for one of the above grants should submit their details, including their bank account details, via our secure online form as soon as possible.
INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYERS MAKING REDUNDANCIES OR WITH RECRUITMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Information is available for all businesses and employers across Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire who are having to make changes to their workforce as a result of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.
REDUNDANCY INFORMATION:
If you have already made employees redundant or are about to make small numbers redundant (up to five), please refer those individuals for direct support to:
Email: NationalCareersServiceNCC@futuresforyou.com Phone: 0800 917 94 19
If you are planning to make larger-scale redundancies (five or more) additional support is also available for you as an employer and your employees. In these circumstances, please use the same contact details as above but ensure your contact includes:
- Notification of redundancies and scale
- Number and job roles affected
- Last day of work for affected individuals (if known)
For general guidance and links to further information on redundancy for both employers and employees, please visit: www.gov.uk/guidance/redundancy-help-finding-work-andclaiming-benefits
RECRUITMENT INFORMATION:
If you are seeking to fill urgent vacancies, short or long term, to meet changes to your business as a result of Covid-19, we can help connect you with immediately available individuals. Please register your vacancies with:
John Blankley Senior Employment Support Adviser Email: John.Blankley@futuresforyou.com Phone: 0115 876 4947 / 07570 671592
Please have the following information available when registering your vacancies:
- Nature of work • Number of vacancies (can be approximate) • Necessary or desirable skills requirement • Location of vacancies • Any current recruitment routes being used
Volunteering opportunities can also be registered via the above method.
Visit the new Newark and Sherwood District Council website www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk
…or scan me
Jonothan Friars
ADDRESS
CC Bathley Parish Council
Dear Jonothan
Flooding management Bathley Hill
In Bathley, over the past few years the incidence of unusually high rainfall events with incumbent flooding effects has been more frequent and of greater magnitude.
The situation has now reached the point where homes on Main Street and the surface of Main St are potentially at flooding risk from such events and I would like to explore the possibility of the installation of some drains to alleviate the effects of excess pluvial runoff from Bathley Hill. I have had a drainage engineer out to look at the situation and he has suggested that a potential solution lies in the installation of drain along the edge of your arable field that abutts the properties on northern Main Street. The drain would flow in a northerly direction to then tie in with drainage collection points on Main St.
It is important that any planned drainage changes in the northern part of the village do not then cause drainage issues elsewhere in Bathley. I have asked for this issue to be included as a discussion item at the next parish Council Meeting and I would very much appreciate it if you could attend the meeting on Wednesday 11th March 2020 in the Crown Pub to discuss potential drainage solutions in northern Bathley.
I am writing on behalf of residents at
Windyridge
Bramley House
Mole End
Bathley house
Glenby Cottage
Manor Farm Barn
Spring Cottage
Willow Cottage
Elizabeth House
The Mill
The forge
Redlands
The Homestead
Yours sincerely
Jane Southey
Mole End
09/03/020
Jonothan Friars
ADDRESS
CC Bathley Parish Council
Dear Jonothan
Flooding management Bathley Hill
In Bathley, over the past few years the incidence of unusually high rainfall events with incumbent flooding effects has been more frequent and of greater magnitude.
The situation has now reached the point where homes on Main Street and the surface of Main St are potentially at flooding risk from such events and I would like to explore the possibility of the installation of some drains to alleviate the effects of excess pluvial runoff from Bathley Hill. I have had a drainage engineer out to look at the situation and he has suggested that a potential solution lies in the installation of drain along the edge of your arable field that abutts the properties on northern Main Street. The drain would flow in a northerly direction to then tie in with drainage collection points on Main St.
It is important that any planned drainage changes in the northern part of the village do not then cause drainage issues elsewhere in Bathley. I have asked for this issue to be included as a discussion item at the next parish Council Meeting and I would very much appreciate it if you could attend the meeting on Wednesday 11th March 2020 in the Crown Pub to discuss potential drainage solutions in northern Bathley.
I am writing on behalf of residents at
Windyridge
Bramley House
Mole End
Bathley house
Glenby Cottage
Manor Farm Barn
Spring Cottage
Willow Cottage
Elizabeth House
The Mill
The forge
Redlands
The Homestead
Yours sincerely
Jane Southey
Mole End
The Local Government Ombudsman
PO Box 4771
Coventry
CV4 0EH
Dear Sir,
Re: Appeal regarding Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for one Gypsy family with 2 No. caravans (including no more than 1 No. static caravan/mobile home), laying out of hardstanding, construction of access and erection of ancillary utility building
I am writing to ask you to review the procedural failings of the above and dereliction of duty of Newark and Sherwood district council with regard to planning application and appeal APP/B3030/W/19/3225352 As a result of this the Appeal was won by the Appellant.
The site in question has previously had planning requests rejected for a number of reasons, namely the only access available is on a rise and bend where visibility is poor, the site is on the outskirts of a rural village, outside of the village envelope and is agricultural land surrounded by farming land and no utilities are connected. Please see letter from Boyer Planning. (Attachment 1)
The Highways agency had already rejected the application due to safety concerns, however an appeal was eventually lodged. Although Bathley council were informed by letter that there would be a hearing, we were subsequently informed verbally by NSDC that the hearing had been downgraded to an informal meeting and that NSDC would not be using their representative contrary to what the Parish Council had been told.
As a result of this we did not have a QC or legal representation of any type from NSDC. The last minute attendees did not have even basic knowledge of the case or location and were unable to answer the questions put forward by the appellant’s QC. In view of this a postponement should have been requested by NSDC. Following the appeal, we requested that the hearing be reheard but the planning inspectorate rejected this request.
A letter has been provided to the Secretary of State from Cllr Saddington and Bathley Parish Council which also acknowledges the catastrophic failings of the council and their failure to apply appropriate and commensurate procedures both prior to and during the course of the hearing. (Attachments 2 and 3) We have also been made aware of further residents complaints to the council and attach an example (Attachment 4)
The council have already admitted their failings and agreed that they were ill-prepared, lacking in knowledge of the case and unaware of material details (even basic details of the case). They did not provide appropriate legal representation and several of their members left during the course of the hearing.
Bathley parish council have complained to the NSDC and received extensive apologies from several parties (Attachments 5 and 6) However we consider their responses to be unsatisfactory as their failure to perform their duty appropriately has led to the overturning of a rejected planning application which had been rejected on SAFETY ISSUES. This is clearly a matter of great concern for the local residents – particularly young children and the elderly whose safety has been put at risk as a result of this negligence.
I therefore request that you review this case and I would be happy to provide any additional information that you might require.
The attached documents evidence the importance of review.
The appeal was upheld.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Sally Grogan
Attachments:
1) Letter of facts of case to Planning Inspectorate from Boyer Planning
2) Letter from Cllr Saddington to Secretary of State
3) Letter from Bathley Parish Council to Secretary of State
4) Letter from resident
5) Responses from NSDC
6) Responses from NSDC
From: John.Robinson@newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk [mailto:John.Robinson@newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk]
Sent: 24 September 2019 16:59
Subject: RE: Planning Appeal Hearing 19/00015/DEC Dated 17th September 2019
Good afternoon Sue
Thank you for your email. I was aware from Bruce that the appeal had been poorly handled and I’m really sorry about that. Matt Lamb is arranging for a letter of apology to be issued to the Parish Council and he will also be responding to you directly.
From the Planning Inspector’s perspective, the appeal is now closed, awaiting his decision. The scope to re-visit the appeal is therefore limited and I’m advised that the chances of re-running the appeal and/or asking for additional information to be taken into account are very limited. Nevertheless, we will make the request.
Best wishes
John
John Robinson
Chief Executive
Newark and Sherwood District Council
Castle House
Great North Road
Newark
From: Councillor Sue Saddington
Sent: 23 September 2019 13:09
Subject: RE: Planning Appeal Hearing 19/00015/DEC Dated 17th September 2019
Good morning all,
Today I have been contacted by the Clerk of Bathley Council, as have you, the email below encompasses what appears to have been a disgraceful appeal last Monday at Castle House.
I, as their District Councillor was unable to attend the appeal , but Cllr Bruce Laughton attended and was able to speak and indeed did so, to explain the situation as it is, the concern the residents of Bathley have and to correct the Officers who repeatedly gave incorrect information.
Bathley does not have a Church , a school and North Muskham does not have a shop.
The bus service is extremely limited, the roads are narrow and to pass large vehicles within the village can be difficult, hence one reason why there is an HGV weight limit. Had a correct transport survey been undertaken this fact would have been realised.
How can it be that when an Officer is asked for the figures and details of current gypsy sites the Officers were unable to comment ?
There was no Council representative present when Bathley PC had been informed there would be, there wasn’t even seating given to a representative from the Bathley Parish Council, the speaker didn’t work and they were given incorrect information regarding an informal meeting , rather than a formal appeal.
Not having been present at the appeal, but reading the email below and receiving a report from Cllr Bruce Laughton, I think the Planning department were ill informed , ill prepared and should be ashamed.
The whole appeal resembles a farce rather than a serious meeting to decide the fate of the residents of Bathley.
The Parish Council are clearly very unhappy and rightly so.
As their representative , I request this appeal is stopped with immediate effect.
There should without doubt be another hearing with a representative from the Council present .
The Planning Inspector requires the correct information, the speaker system must work, the Officers require the correct information.
Clearly more preparation must take place beforehand , correct information must be given to the Inspector and the appeal should take place with fairness and competence.
I am sure Cllr Bruce laughton will answer this email, but he had to correct the Officers many times.
I hope you will treat this complaint with the urgency it deserves, but above all, stop any further progress on this appeal.
Kind regards,
Sue
Councillor Sue Saddington
I attended this appeal meeting yesterday.
I am writing to express disappointment with the performance of the Planning Team representing the Council who , in my opinion, appeared not to be fully conversant with the case in hand .
Their bearing was in contrast with a very thorough and reasonable Chair and a highly knowledgeable and skilled Appellant’s representative.
The team at times were unable to respond to simple, relevant questions posed by the Chair resulting in embarrassment for all. Rather in the manner of an ill prepared student in an oral examination (I have experienced this myself ).
The case made by the Highways department was barely supported at all by their representative – seeming to not know the case in hand and to not have visited the relevant site. To my (lay) mind safety of ingress/ egress of the site is paramount in this application
In summary – apparently poor case knowledge, preparation and presentation by an NSDC Planning team which appeared to have little interest or will to properly defend the Appeal.
I deliberately contact you at this time before the outcome of the appeal is known to me.
In contrast , congratulations from me to the Council for much good work on behalf of we residents !
Mark Hunter
From: Councillor Sue Saddington
Sent: 23 September 2019 13:09
Subject: RE: Planning Appeal Hearing 19/00015/DEC Dated 17th September 2019
Good morning all,
Today I have been contacted by the Clerk of Bathley Council, as have you, the email below encompasses what appears to have been a disgraceful appeal last Monday at Castle House.
I, as their District Councillor was unable to attend the appeal , but Cllr Bruce Laughton attended and was able to speak and indeed did so, to explain the situation as it is, the concern the residents of Bathley have and to correct the Officers who repeatedly gave incorrect information.
Bathley does not have a Church , a school and North Muskham does not have a shop.
The bus service is extremely limited, the roads are narrow and to pass large vehicles within the village can be difficult, hence one reason why there is an HGV weight limit. Had a correct transport survey been undertaken this fact would have been realised.
How can it be that when an Officer is asked for the figures and details of current gypsy sites the Officers were unable to comment ?
There was no Council representative present when Bathley PC had been informed there would be, there wasn’t even seating given to a representative from the Bathley Parish Council, the speaker didn’t work and they were given incorrect information regarding an informal meeting , rather than a formal appeal.
Not having been present at the appeal, but reading the email below and receiving a report from Cllr Bruce Laughton, I think the Planning department were ill informed , ill prepared and should be ashamed.
The whole appeal resembles a farce rather than a serious meeting to decide the fate of the residents of Bathley.
The Parish Council are clearly very unhappy and rightly so.
As their representative , I request this appeal is stopped with immediate effect.
There should without doubt be another hearing with a representative from the Council present .
The Planning Inspector requires the correct information, the speaker system must work, the Officers require the correct information.
Clearly more preparation must take place beforehand , correct information must be given to the Inspector and the appeal should take place with fairness and competence.
I am sure Cllr Bruce laughton will answer this email, but he had to correct the Officers many times.
I hope you will treat this complaint with the urgency it deserves, but above all, stop any further progress on this appeal.
Kind regards,
Sue
Councillor Sue Saddington
From: Bathley Parish Council
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 7:47:39 PM
Subject: Planning Appeal Hearing 19/00015/DEC Dated 17th September 2019
Dear Sirs
I am writing on behalf of Bathley Parish Council (BPC) regarding the hearing conducted by members of the planning department and the information received by the council prior to the hearing. BPC would like to point out the following issues:
- Originally the Parish Council had been told that the hearing had been arranged for the 17th September and that the council were appointing their own representative to speak at the hearing. Subsequently, BPC was told that the hearing had been downgraded to an informal meeting so there would be no independent representation from the Council. At the next Parish Council meeting BPC was informed that there is no such thing as an informal meeting and the hearing was going ahead in any case without independent representation from the council. BPC conclude that there has been misrepresentation regarding this hearing.
- At the hearing there was a panel of members of the planning committee and a highways representative from the County Council constituting 4 people. Space was not made available for the BPC representative that had contacted the Planning Inspectorate prior to the hearing, so he should have had a place on the panel from which he could speak on our behalf. Also, the speaker system did not work in the room, consequently residents could not hear what the panel were saying. The Planning Inspector had to rearrange the seating in order for the attendees to hear the proceedings.
- Point 1 On the Agenda (which BPC were not given prior to the hearing)
Statement of Common Ground. There was a dispute that the council had not addressed or commented on so the statement had to be struck from the meeting and discussed at a later date.
- On the questioning by the Planning Inspector regarding various issues, ie facilities and services in Bathley, the panel were consistently not able to answer the questions put forward to them due to lack of preparation and lack of knowledge of the site in question. Namely: Regarding the facilities in Bathley and surrounding villages. The council were of the opinion that there is a church in Bathley. There is no church in Bathley. They wrongly stated that there is a shop in the neighbouring village of North Muskham. There is no shop in North Muskham it is now a hairdressing salon. What local transport ie buses are available in the area, the council were unable to answer as they did not have the relevant information to hand. What catchment schools and primary schools are available to the residents of Bathley – the council were unable to answer, what planning applications have been put forward in Bathley for new housing. The planning department failed to inform the Inspector that the new houses that have been built in Bathley were merely extensions of existing buildings and as such were not new buildings. This would have an effect on any decision the Planning Inspector reached and was not pointed out by the planning department. The planning department were unaware of previous planning applications on that particular parcel of land that had been rejected. This was brought up by one of the residents.
- The highways issue was not sufficiently dealt with as a suitable road traffic survey had not been made available. The panel were also not aware of any accidents or incidents relating to the site in question. This was brought up by one of the residents.
- Regarding the need for gypsy and traveller pitches – the council had no figures for available pitches at alternative sites ie Tolney Lane so were unable to comment. The council were also unable to comment on how many pitches are available to travellers in the East Midlands area.
Bathley Parish Council would like to report that it is not satisfied with the Council’s handling of this hearing and that BPC would like to request a further hearing so the Planning Inspector can have a broader view on the issue. BPC feels that it has not been fairly represented by the council due to lack of preparation for the meeting and lack of knowledge of the site, even in the highways department, as the Highways department representative was only briefed on the case the day before the meeting.
We welcome your comments on the above.
Yours faithfully
S Grogan
Clerk to Bathley Parish Council on behalf of Brian Cross, Chair of BPC
Hi Sue,
Thank you for copying me into your email. I will let Matt Lamb or another of our professional planners respond in detail. Though from a post-hearing briefing I have received, it is clear that there were a number of avoidable logistics issues and that some of the contributions were not as confident or informed as they should have been.
However, as an experienced former member of the Planning Committee, you will know that it is neither possible for the council to stop the Appeal or to ask the Planning Inspectorate for a new Hearing. Further, as the planning application was refused solely on highway grounds (following an objection from a statutory consultee, i.e. NCC), this becomes the one – and only – issue on which the Inspector must be satisfied if he is to dismiss the appeal. I am sure that Cllr Laughton will have shared his views with you, as he has with me, on how NCC defended their objection during the Hearing. I am equally sure that, in your role as a county councillor, you will be adding your voice to his back at County Hall.
I understand fully the anger of Bathley Parish Council and I share their concerns that events on the day could influence the Inspector in reaching his decision. However, let’s remember that, prior to the Hearing, the Inspector had received some 25 documents associated with this case and, whilst the day itself may not have gone as well as it should, he is charged with determining the application purely on planning grounds – or run the risk of a judicial review.
Kind regards,
Roger
Cllr R V Blaney
From: John.Robinson@newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk [mailto:John.Robinson@newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk]
Sent: 24 September 2019 16:59
Subject: RE: Planning Appeal Hearing 19/00015/DEC Dated 17th September 2019
Good afternoon Sue
Thank you for your email. I was aware from Bruce that the appeal had been poorly handled and I’m really sorry about that. Matt Lamb is arranging for a letter of apology to be issued to the Parish Council and he will also be responding to you directly.
From the Planning Inspector’s perspective, the appeal is now closed, awaiting his decision. The scope to re-visit the appeal is therefore limited and I’m advised that the chances of re-running the appeal and/or asking for additional information to be taken into account are very limited. Nevertheless, we will make the request.
Best wishes
John
John Robinson
Chief Executive
Newark and Sherwood District Council
Castle House
Great North Road
Newark
Dear Ms Grogan
Thank you for your email regarding the above appeal and patience in waiting for the response. I have responded below in the same order that your concerns have been raised.
- I have checked our records and can find 3 letters that have been emailed to you. The first was sent on the 25th July notifying you an appeal had been received. The next two were sent on the 1st and 2nd All of these letters advise that the appeal was to be heard by way of a Hearing, with the letter on the 1st August also advising that it was being heard on the 17th September. Hearings, up until recently were referred to as Informal Hearings and this was a description that was used to distinguish between the greater formality of a Public Inquiry, where evidence is given on oath and cross-examination of witnesses (similar to a court) takes place compared to a Hearing which is slightly more informal. Notwithstanding this, there has not been any change in the process of the appeal i.e. it was decided by the Planning Inspectorate to determine the appeal by way of a Hearing and this did not change. I am therefore unsure of where the confusion has arisen.
With all appeals, there would be a minimum of one representative on behalf of the Council. This might be an Officer employed by the Council or in certain instances might be someone employed specifically to deal with the appeal. This happens more frequently when a decision has been overturned by Planning Committee and Officers are professionally unable to defend the reason for refusal. If the latter is what you are referring to as ‘independent’ representation, this is an approach that isn’t used frequently due to the cost to the Council, and ultimately local tax payers.
- The panel of members of the planning committee, to which you refer, were officers of the Council and not Committee Members. The Planning Inspectorate is a separate body to the Council. Therefore, whilst you or any other party might have made the Inspector aware that you wished to speak, this would have been for the purpose of ensuring that the time made available for the Hearing was appropriate. If a significant number of people wish to partake and the appeal is complex, a Hearing might need to extend into 2 or more days. Notwithstanding this, space should be (and was) available within the room for anyone interested to be able to listen and partake. Once it was established that the microphones were not going to be fixed the Inspector rearranged the room to bring members of the public closer so that they could hear.
Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) – this is a document that is agreed between the appellant and local planning
- authority on statements of common and uncommon ground. The following web page provides further information It is therefore not a document that is agreed with third parties to an appeal. The matter that had not been clearly set out within the SOCG was ‘matters in dispute’. The Council’s and appellants view in drawing up the SOCG was by defining what was agreed, any other matter would be in dispute. However, it is acknowledged that this could have been made more clear and will form part of future SOCG’s.
- I have spoken to an officer who was present at the Hearing who advises that he tried to steer discussion back to our position – i.e. that it was not the availability of services and facilities in reasonable proximity to the site which was the issue. As articulated in the hearing, whilst the reliance on private motor transport was accepted – the distance and reliance on private modes of transport relative to what one may expect for G&T site was on balance fine. The issue was that the proposal had not demonstrated that the standard/safety of that access was acceptable.
In relation to housing consents in Bathley, the discussion was in connection to the argument the Agent made, around there being no embargo on housing development in the village. The officer advises they came back on this point strongly highlighting that Spatial Policy 3 allows for small–scale development in the village (previously within the main built-up area), so whilst there is no embargo it is still the case that SP3 provides a restrictive criteria based approach. The officer emphasised that it seeks small-scale residential development which reflects the Council’s Spatial Strategy and the infrastructure / sustainability issues which would make larger scale development inappropriate. Having done that, the officer underlined the differences – being that the appeal site is in the open countryside, so the comparison being made had no real basis. This was re-emphasised that the acceptability of the proposal had to be determined in accordance with Core Policy Whilst we did not have data around the extent of residential completions and commitments to hand it was not considered necessary in order to deal with this line of argument.
- The appellant undertook the transport survey at their own request as, due to the scale of the development, such a survey is not required. This only took account of the am peak, which the Highways Authority considered acceptable. The Highway Authority would only be aware of collisions or incidents on the highway if they had resulted in death or serious injury. Minor collisions are not reported to them. They would therefore not be aware of such matters.
- Lastly in relation to Gypsy and Traveller pitches, the Inspector asked if the Council could point to any alternative locations where the accommodation needs of the appellants could be met. It was confirmed that we had no site allocations, and whilst once finalised the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment will provide detailed analysis at the site-level (showing where there may be capacity) this was not available in draft form at the time of the hearing. With regards to availability of alternative locations in the East Midlands, officers tried to draw the Inspector’s attention to the extent of local connection being a desire to work across the East Midlands. As such the proposal reflected a desire to live in the District, rather than a ‘need’. On this basis, it was suggested that there must be numerous locations within this broader area which would be suitable in policy terms and from a technical perspective. With respect to sites beyond the District this was intended as general point to highlight to the Inspector that there could be the reasonable prospect of the appellant being able to find a more appropriate site elsewhere given the highways constraints, but it was not possible to provide the level of detail sought.
We have written to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant highlighting yours and others concerns regarding the handling of the appeal and particularly the problems with the acoustics and participation of the public. This, as a result, may have led to participants not being able to fully partake in the process. We are awaiting a response, but should the Inspectorate agree to re-open the appeal, we will notify yourselves as well as other interested parties.
For your information, I am aware that Nottinghamshire County Council Highways Department is also in receipt of your email as one of their Officers was in attendance in relation to highway matters.
I am sorry that you have felt cause to complain and hope that the above does provide some reassurance although it is acknowledged that there are lessons to be learnt from the handling of the Hearing. May I thank you for your comments.
Kind regards
Lisa Hughes
Business Manager – Planning Development
Newark and Sherwood District Council
Dear Ms Grogan
Further to my previous emails, I have been advised via Councillor Saddington that, understandably, you are dismayed at the decision of the Planning Inspectorate. As you will know, we sent a request to the Planning Inspectorate asking for the appeal to be re-run, but this was declined, and a copy of the Inspectorate’s letter was provided to you.
I am aware that you/Councillor Saddington have approached Mr Jenwick MP, and I understand that he has passed this to a Junior Minister within his department to review. I am unable to provide anything further regarding this, the outcome of which, I am sure, will be sent directly to the party who contacted him.
Regrettably, as the decision has been made, we as the Local Planning Authority (and Council) are unable to do anything further in respect to this. Nottinghamshire County Council is aware of your complaint and are also disappointed with the way the appeal went. Unfortunately, we are unable to do anything further and I can only, once again reiterate my apologies.
Kind regards
Lisa Hughes
Business Manager – Planning Development
Newark and Sherwood District Council
Dear Lisa
Following your email regarding the above appeal I write to inform you that Bathley Parish Council are not happy with the response from the Council so far and would like to take the matter further. I would be grateful if you could supply me with a copy of your complaints procedure and advise me on the next steps to take the matter further.
Yours sincerely
Sally Grogan
Clerk to Bathley Parish Council
Dear Ms Grogan
Thank you for your email. Please accept my apologies, I drafted this email but for some reason it was not sent and I have only just come across it in my drafts.
You haven’t included my response within your email below, but I anticipate you are referring to my response sent on the 18th October? I am sorry that you are not happy with the response provided. My response was provided following matters raised by Councillor Saddington, if there is any matter that I have omitted, please let me know as I would like to be able to respond.
Notwithstanding the above, details of the Council’s complaints procedure can be found via the following link
https://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/customerfeedback/
Kind regards
Lisa Hughes
Business Manager – Planning Development
Newark and Sherwood District Council
Local Government Ombudsman – Complaint Form Which body (council, authority or care provider) are you complaining about?
Newark and Sherwood District Council Have you complained to the body already? Usually, you should have completed all stages of the body’s complaints process before we can look at your complaint.
Yes
Please say when you complained to the body. (We will need to see the letter from the body that confirms you have completed their complaints procedure – you will have the opportunity to upload this at the end of the form.)
If you don’t have your letter and can’t remember when you complained, put ‘don’t know’
in the box
22nd September 2019
What do you think the body did wrong?
Please explain briefly what your complaint is about, including dates of any incidents and names of any officers or staff of the body complained about, if known. Please also explain why you are not happy with the response from the body concerned.
If your complaint involves a child it would be helpful if you could provide their full name and date of birth.
In the words of the County Councillor: ‘the Planning department were ill informed, ill prepared and should be ashamed.
The whole appeal resembles a farce rather than a serious meeting to decide the fate of the residents of Bathley.
How has this affected you?
Please explain briefly what impact the problems you’ve described above have had on you.
For example, has the body concerned failed to provide you with a service or a benefit you are entitled to?
Was there a delay before you got the service or benefit? Have you suffered a financial loss? Have you been put to a lot of trouble or inconvenience?
The residents of Bathley have been disenfranchised and will have to live with safety issues that will affect the whole village What do you think the body should do to put things right?
Have the hearing re held with correct information and input from the planning team More help
We are committed to making sure the way we work does not put anybody at a page 1 of 3
Local Government Ombudsman – Complaint Form disadvantage. If you need any help or support to use our service, please tell us your request in the box below and we will consider what changes we can make.
Please leave this box blank If you do not require help or support to use our service.
Contact Details (on Behalf)
Are you No
completing this
form on behalf of
someone else ?
We will need you to provide written consent from the other person, or documents to show you can act on their behalf. We tell you how to give us that consent once you have submitted the complaint.
Local Government Ombudsman – Complaint Form Name
Title Mrs
First Name Sally
Surname Grogan
Address
House number/name Bathley House Address Line 2 Main Street Address Line 3 Bathley
Town Notts
Post code NG23 6DJ
Telephone
Daytime Contact 07887244077
Phone Number
Mobile 07887244077
If you want to upload a file in support of your complaint you can do so below
This complaint form will only accept one attachment and we have a maximum file size of 8MB.
We allow the following file types: txt; pdf; doc; docx; ppt; xls; xlsx; wav; mp3; jpg; gif; tiff
If your file is larger than 8MB, please do not attempt to send it, as your complaint may not get through to us.
Please do not send any other documents at this stage. We will discuss with you what other documents we need to see.
File 1 Letter-from-Cllr-Saddington-to.docx How did you find out about the Local Government Ombudsman?
Councillor
