We report here a copy of the statement read at Area Panel Today and indicate any outstanding concerns facts or legalities which we think are outstanding
Honourable members
I put it to you that certification of notice has not been legally met on this application due to a series of ommisions. It is a legal requirement of the Town And Country planning Act to ensure certification by way of notification is made . Whilst we accept that planning permission is transferable to any subsequent owners which may have occurred interim Certification must be raised by such owners. We point out that the owner is NOT at that time and indeed NOW in part , the Council, but S BCHT.
We therefore put it to you that the application is deferred until notification has been made . We put it to you that progressing the application without certification would demonstrate intent. We move that the application is suspended to allow the developers agent to make notice for the 21 day period and be considerred on the next panel.
We raise key concerns as follows :
We point out outstanding modifications and departure Taking of Green Belt that must be legally addressed through the objection to modification procedures advertised currently , as such this site can not be designated until such objections are addressed through due process and would prejudice the case of the objectors until such times as due process is concluded
The council has a duty of care to consider and balance risk and ensure . ie: the Risk of being suited by developers versus those of Leukaemia Victims on the basis of increasing scientific evidence .We call for site visit in regard to gradient proximity from any proposed elevations arising from the hillslope site. We also highlight Road traffic routes opening onto the school footprint in the light of safety .
PPG3 places a requirement to consider the application in the light of any material condition ( EMF , Powerlines) or Valid Objections as occurs at the time of renewal of application . The site DOES NOT have existing Outline Permission it expired on 7th February 2005. The site was brought forward in the UDP by the behest of developement planners . There has been no validation of this land use or allocation on Greenfield/Greenbelt by Urban capacity Study and such a proposed development does not take into consider any Windfall sites that may or have become available nor does it have An Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) or Scoping process on file. The site is one of 4 cojoined sites,
We express concern regarding Contracted Inducement which is binding (2007) in the light of the Inspectors report
" This is not a modest stand alone greenfield developement but a large devlopement on the urban fringe with numerous inherent constraints which is also a large part of the Royds Community Development Regeneration Project. Hence it involves a complex matrix of interactive considerations. In my opinion the comples design framework necessary to ensure satisfactory developement cannot be defined ny planning conditions on an outline consent. Nor do I believe that all the objectives of the scheme could be adequately controlled by conditions . For these reasons I consider a planning brief and section 106 agreements concerning affordable housing and the provision and maintainance of recreation and open space to be prerequisites of granting outline planning permission "
RESPONSES THAT THE PROCEDURE DID NOT PERMIT
Mr xxx explained that the appraisal made by the inspector (see document) is superseded by revised UDP . This is not correct the large document is a Site Appraisal completed by a qualified inspector which in terms of overall material conditions has not alterred . Mr xxx reflects the Inspectors current view to the UDP which the council must reflect on in balance and in the light of such site appraisals They also must consider it in the light of PPG3 which relates to current matrerial objections .
We believe thay have not done that and cite numerous examples
Firstly planting conditions on the tree lined corridor for Bats can not be effectively made because of NGT planting restrictions under the Pylons
We also disclosed a previously unreported culvert pictutres enclosed which Mr Eaton was unaware this drains into the resevoir and must have consideration when in regard to contaminating the resevoir if any mercury oir arsenic remains on site
No consideration was given to proximity to EMF fields in regard to building elevation and storeys i n regard to the hill top site
Much of the precedent given to the panel was based on historical input and coments of the Inspector in 2002 /3 which is some time ago in terms of planning law and direction.
We are concerned that the chair progressed the application on the advice of the planner despite no certification on file we demonstrated adequately in good time and faith that the application had not met the Certification which is a legal criteria requiring the applicant to notify the owner by way of 21 days . This is what we did
We spoke to Mr xxxx the development planner and confirmed the source of error and misinformation given to the applicants agent Mr xxx
We advised the planner Mr xxxxon numerous occasions
We corresponded to the Chief executive to validate that we had done so
We spoke to the city solicitor Mr xxxxxx and requested titele registration
Check the facts yourself WYK
We even writ to Mr xxx and spoke to other councillors Mr xxxx Mrs xxxx who where minded and told this was council land
We confirmed the understanding with S BCHT in writing on a number of occasions
We therefore conclude it was the duty of the chair and the planning panel to either at best give the agent opportunity to submit notifcation via the next panel or more apropriately void it , out of time as no certifcication was raised and a resubmisison made
We believe we have demonstated intent and that our request should have been given fair consideration by the chair who ignored it.. We believe that such an error does not serve a fair system and accordingly the application should now be voided
We also expressed concern about the handling of the application during the course of the advertised objection to modification arising out of the executive meeting dealing with sites hat have outstanding modifications . We point out that such rights would be prejudiced and the site should have only been considerred when due process has concluded . Currently a piece of green belt has been included developement planners argue that no modification has occurred and therefore our right to objection has been precluded whilst the application is being pushed through giving the overall impression that we have had oppotunity to address our principle concern " that our right to object because of moodifications occurred outside public enquiry and the initial period of objection to modification was prejudicial to our case "
Clearly the interpretation of whether Modification has occurred is instrumental in determining whether this is a fait test . We therefore call upon the Governement Office to address these facts and make call in process to stop any undue process or bias occurring
We also felt concerned and intimidated by City Solicitors present at the meeting and it is our belief that legal advice was given to panel to regarding their decision which may have skewered judgement on Duty of care and other issues . We seek to confrim such. Planning panels should be simple and accesible. They should be set up on the basis that all fair tests have been met and legislations adhered to prior to honourable member s deciding the fatcs on the basis of their judgement.