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