One of the members of the Strategic Planning Committee is challenging the Council's decision to revisit the planning application for a water sports and outdoor activity centre at the former Mere Farm sand quarry in Chelford.
Members of the Strategic Planning Committee voted to reject Cheshire Lakes' planning application at their meeting on Wednesday, 27th July, however due to an administrative error the scheme is to be reconsidered next month.
Sean Hannaby, Director of Planning & Sustainable Development, wrote to members of the Strategic Planning Committee to inform them "An email was sent out to him (Mr Tim Woodhead, the applicant for the Cheshire Lakes scheme) and his agent in error informing them that the application was to be deferred from yesterday's planning committee meeting. As a result they understandably did not attend and as a result were not there to speak on the item, which was refused.
"Therefore, as they were deprived of the opportunity to address the committee in person, in the interests of fairness, the decision notice will not be issued and this application will be referred back to the next meeting of the Strategic Planning Board on the 24th August where they will have an opportunity to address members before the application is re-determined."
Councillor Barry Burkhill, Leader of the Independent Group and ward councillor for Handforth, disagrees and feels the decision cannot be revisited.
He told wilmslow.co.uk "Whether the officers have sent off the decision notice or not is not relevant to what has occurred. There is an appeal system if the applicant cannot accept the lawful decision of the committee or he can put in another amended application but we cannot revisit the same application as a committee. That decision has been made and cannot be undone otherwise we would have chaos in the planning system and not only in CEC."
Councillor Barry Burkhill has written to Sean Hannaby, Director of Planning & Sustainable Development, saying "I believe you are likely to find that no matter what the unfortunate circumstances are concerning the attendance of the applicant, a lawful and definite decision was taken by the committee which cannot be changed.
"It might be embarrassing for the officers but the proper legal process of determining the application was followed whether the applicant was there or not. There may or may not be some legal pathway that the applicant can follow to have the result quashed but that is not a matter for this Council. We have played our part and due process has been followed. Whatever happens next is a matter for the applicant and not for us.
"We cannot revisit a decision, otherwise anyone could come along and say that they did not have chance to speak to us, which would cause the whole system to grind to a halt."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
I assume that Councillor Burkhill is one of the five who voted against and his statement appears to be either sour grapes or an attempt to distort due process.
There has been (by CE Councils own admission) an administrative error that has prevented proper representation being made. It is right that such representation should, if desired, be made and this should not (as he suggests) set any precedent.
Sean Hannaby and his team are true to form, a team of incompetents. Am I being too polite and too generous here?
The above story of misleading and misinformation follows on another recent tale of Sean's team deliberately foisting misinformation.
The planning department postulated an example of planning ruling that it said would be appropriate for the recent Royal London application. They cited the planning approval example of that given to the Brockworth application in Gloucestershire; this was seriously misleading the SPB. The Brockworth Site had been considered by the Local Plan Inspector, who supported it; Royal London has NOT been considered by the Inspector, and there are outstanding objections to it, and therefore very limited weight should be given to the Emerging Local Plan. This is the view of Inspectors at appeals.
However, Sean & his team refused to answer questions on Brockworth when questions were raised about the honesty of their Brockworth example at the recent SPB.
Chelford water park application is just one more example of this department's incompetence and probably more than that.
The councils own procedures are set out it its Constitution. On page 433 of the current constitution it states who is eligible to speak in favour or against and application when it comes before a committee.
See http://bit.ly/2av1bBu
It is quite clear to me that the council has not followed its own rules and hence broken its own constitution. This constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.
It's also clear to me that Councillor Barry Burkhill is correct, and that by proposing to revisit the application at the next SPB meeting CEC officers are proposing to breach the constitution again!
What a mess.
It sounds like it's Lyme Green happening all over again.
I am therefore going to make a formal complaint and I also suggest the applicant does too.
If so, then why bother giving the public a say when it is just a waste of time and gives them false hope?
If not, then the decision should be revisited as the application was harmed by the incompetence of the planning office and this is unfair to the party involved.
If the councillor thinks this is a waste of their time, then how about punishing the perpetrator of this fault rather than the victim.