Regulatory Panel was heard on the 4th August 2005 here is the statement we Read. Here is the legislation.
We draw attention that the application 05/0197/OUT which has failed to meet certification under Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act which is a legal requirement. We advise that if the application is void and if honourable members procede with the recommendation on its present basis Councillors will remain party to an act of Unlawfulness We refer members to the the attached section 66 . The Local Authority Shall Not entertain……..
The application raises a number of questions Regarding The Recommendation and resolution of the minutes of Executive decision on 2 December 2004 requiring an Environmental Impact assessment on this and other sites . This has not been done.
The term "Possible" departure is ambiguous and misleading to honourable members . There either is or is not departure .We believe the latter to be the case on a number of counts.
The site is also the subject of a Village Green Determination and we move that determination of the Green takes precedence in law to that of Any Development which has not existed or does not exist in Right to the preclusion of 20 years continuous use by the community
We draw attention to the Scheduled Ancient Highway which has not been given material consideration as part of the planning process and can not be effectively dealt with at reserved matters .
We move that the application is voided and the applicant reapply meeting correctly the legalities of procedure and that determination at such time in the future is minded to the impending application for Registration of Village Green
OUTCOME
Approved. The chair and one member moved that the application was deferred in the light of concerns that could be further explored . The remaining honourable members chose to ignore the brief and where minded to approve we believe have comitted to an act of alleged Unlawfulnes . Should be move to prove the case then we would call for resignation of those members on the vbasis of memebers conduct .
IMPLICATIONS
The Government Office will be asked to rule on the application in regard to modification and or departure as a matter of course . We believe for them to engage in a ruling on such an application which is technically unlawful and therefore invalid would be alledgely complicit . We have pointed these facts out to a series of individuals Ranging from Planners to Agents to Executive Members Councillors and MP as early as Feb and March this year all parties included to ignore our concerns including definitive proof on title which should have been confirmed by the agent should any doubt arise. We believe thetest for alledgely, Unlawfulness. Intent and Complicity have considerable weight
A case officer addressed the point at panel by saying that certification was a matter for the applicant and his agent and that Enforcement was too late as a period of 6 months had elapsed
We correct the officer Issues of enforcement are distinct from the legal adherance requirement of the Town And Country planning Act
The Town And Country Planning Act See the Link to Crown Documents
Town and Country Planning Link 66.-(1) Without prejudice to section 65, a local planning authority shall not entertain any application for planning permission unless it is accompanied by one of the following certificates signed by or on behalf of the applicant-
(a) a certificate stating that, at the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the date of the application, no person (other than the applicant) was the owner of any of the land to which the application relates;
(b) a certificate stating that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to all the persons (other than himself) who at the beginning of that period were owners of any of the land to which the application relates, and setting out-
(i) the names of those persons,(ii) the addresses at which notice of the application was given to them respectively, and
(iii) the date of service of each such notice;
(c) a certificate stating-
(i) that the applicant is unable to issue a certificate in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b),(ii) that he has given the requisite notice of the application to such one or more of the persons mentioned in paragraph (b) as are specified in the certificate (setting out their names, the addresses at which notice of the application was given to them respectively, and the date of the service of each such notice), and
(iii) that he has taken such steps as are reasonably open to him (specifying them) to ascertain the names and addresses of the remainder of those persons but has been unable to do so;
(d) a certificate stating-
(i) that the applicant is unable to issue a certificate in accordance with paragraph (a), and(ii) that he has taken such steps as are reasonably open to him (specifying them) to ascertain the names and addresses of the persons mentioned in paragraph (b) but has been unable to do so.
(2) Any such certificate as is mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (1) must also contain a statement that the requisite notice of the application, as set out in the certificate, has on a date specified in the certificate been published in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land in question is situated.(3) The date specified in a certificate under subsection (2) must not be earlier than the beginning of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(4) In addition to any other matters required to be contained in a certificate issued for the purposes of this section, every such certificate must contain a statement -
(a) that none of the land to which the application relates constitutes or forms part of an agricultural holding; or
(b) that the applicant has given the requisite notice of the application to every person (other than himself) who, at the beginning of the period mentioned in subsection (1)(a), was a tenant of any agricultural holding any part of which was comprised in the land to which the application relates.
(5) Such a statement as is mentioned in subsection (4)(b) must set out-
(a) the name of each person to whom the applicant has given notice of the application,
(b) the address at which notice was given to him, and
(c) the date of service of that notice.
(6) Where an application for planning permission is accompanied by such a certificate as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b),(c) or (d), or by a certificate containing a statement in accordance with subsections (4)(b) and (5), the local planning authority shall not determine the application before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date appearing from the certificate to be the latest of the dates of service of notices as mentioned in the certificate, or, if later, the date of publication of a notice as mentioned in the certificate.(7) In this section-
"owner", in relation to any land, means a person who for the time being is-
(a) the estate owner in respect of the fee simple in the land, or(b) entitled to a tenancy of the land granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than seven years remain unexpired; and
"agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the [1986 c. 5.] Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
Links
Nothing in these links are implied or inferred but simply a reference to planning procedure and law. Click at your discretion
R. v Canterbury City Council ex parte Springimage (JPL 1993).
A decision is void if it is based on information put before a committee that is not correct or incomplete.
R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR)
Regarding local authority employees - the common law offence of misconduct in public office applies generally to every person who is appointed to discharge a public duty and who receives compensation in whatever form – salary, wage, expenses and the like.
R. v East Hertfordshire District Council ex parte Beckman ( EGCS 104 June 1997)
The decision of a planning committee to give a permission was set aside where the Court concluded that the Council must have taken into consideration a factor that was totally incorrect and irrelevant.
R. v Bassetlaw ex parte Oxby (Dec 1997)
The High Court declared as illegal and void a grant of planning consent tainted by actual or apparent bias. As to bias or apparent bias, that was properly the subject matter of proceedings for judicial review.
Davis v Wansdyke District Council (Nov 2001)
Out of Court settlement of £790,000. Where Bristol County Court ruled that planning officers had conducted themselves in a consistently unhelpful and obstructive fashion – unfavourable treatment.
General Principle: If a body stand by a decision they know to be wrong and should be accountable for, then that accountability may be the subject of review.
R v North Warwickshire Borough Council ex parte Jones & Howe (Sept 2000) ?
When giving planning permission to build on a village football ground, the Council failed to take into account there was an alternative site in the belief that it was bound to disregard that availability. Decision quashed. Council must therefore reconsider decision.
R. v Selby District Council ex parte Samuel Smith Old Brewery (CO/2561/99).Failure to consider other material considerations - imbalance. Council should not present bits of advocacy, but must give the members of the Council a balanced view and supporting information. The Selby Council decision was quashed.
Local Government Access to Information Act
If a Council refuses to give you a copy or sight of any document or recording, quote the relevant section of this Act. Normally, Councils only refuse documents (obstruction) when they know said documents will harm them. Don't forget the Article 6 of the Human Rights Act works with this Act to include detail. All too often officers do not want you to see how they became authorised by a committee or who complained - simply because the committees decision may have been based on misinformation - hence void, or a complaint was solicited or put in anonymously by the officers themselves.
Accounts
Don't forget to check your councils accounts to see if your letters and other enforcement, etc, show up. If they don't show up in the accounts; complain to the District Auditor - false accounting