We submitted requests to the Government Office given the very large ammounts of anomolies occuring on this site. We where greatly concerned by the public interface and assistance given at the customer service level.
WHAT WE DID
(1) LOCAL LEVEL
We flagged very considerable information on this sites including Acts and Omisions on the Planning Application Itself. We requested an article 14 Holding Order which we received no correspondence or communication on despite providing a very large evidence port folio
(2) UDP PROCEDURE
We reflected anomolies that where related to thei large site on the Citys UDP again the right to have objection recognised as part of due process was not acted on or indeed dealt with by the UDP Team
The Government Office have returned the application to the Local Authority to make a decision
We are greatly concerned given
(1) The site apparaisal was totally wrong inregard to the information supplied
(a) The site moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1 on the UDP on the basis of advice given by development planners in 2001 as having existing permission. The site never achieved perission to 2002 and was then directed retrospectfully. The information at given at Public Enquiry was misleading (s site never had planning permission only up to 2002 where conditions on reserved matter stated it should be resolved within 3 years . Such permission was given retrospectfully to 13rd June 1998 on the 8th February 2002 BUT did not exist as indicated on the UDP as a site WITH planning permission )
(b) The Inspector claimed that on the basis of the Information he was in position of that the site had no ecological value. Part of the site contained BWA 26 which was included on the basis of NE2 and NE13
(2) Our right to objection was prejudicised A piece of Green Belt was taken and the Council refused point blank to acknowledge our concern or indeed the boundary and excluded us from the right to object in an extended objection to modification period which had to be introduced for 3 other sites because Green Belt was take outside a due process .
The council have been minded to consider smaller site allocations of less than the required Greenfield Directive of 5 Ha as inconsequential , however they have nit been minded to consider the requirement in consequence of due process in the Judy Woods Case to allow fulminant process of objection under due process
(3) The site at the local planning level has not been committed to an EIA or a scoping process at the time of sub,ission for renewal ( Environmental Imapct Assessment) nor indeed no justification can be made of its movement to Phase 1 from Phase 2 given Bradford MDC has NOT comitted to an Urban Capacity Study, how can therefore the justification of use of finite Greenfield / Greenbelt be made if an audit of Brownfield availablity has not been arrived at
(4) Substantial errors. The part ownership of the site and yet again " errors" occurring under stock transfer meant that under Section 66 Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning Act Certification was not raised which is a legal requirement of the Act .We expressly flagged this at both Area and Regulatory Panel . We where minded to advise honourable members that if they proceded to approve the application in its current form it would be unlawful.
The consequences on legal challenge are far reaching for the Citys UDP if it is proven to be flawed at Judicial Review. We did tell the council by the way
We are also minded to believe that the secretary of state has been remiss in his duty to consider the Local Authorities flagrant disregard to Green Belt we move to make a National Example of the political mindedness that appears to be over ruling due process and regulation We move to challenge the Governement by Judicial Review and by way of consideration of European Directive
LINKS