Re: Public Meeting Confirmed for 22nd April - Cats : Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:26 pm
Theboyem wrote:
Did the council actually do anything illegal by passing the Newcold application as a stand alone build? Or did they have no choice by law?
Firstly, illegal is a strong word and the words potentially unlawful are a better way of describing what might have happened, although that is only an opinion and would need to be tested in court.
So, in summary we cannot find anywhere in the publicaly available documentation for Newcold where it was said that it would not count towards the S106 agreement. The first time it is ever mentioned in any official documentation is in the agenda pack and planning officers report issued a week before the meeting! Meaning that the first time it became publicaly known is was outside the 106 is when it was too late to object and even then, we would argue that it is not made very clear in the report... I will post a link so you can make up your own mind!
Also, the council have not explained why the officer recommended the application for approval. Initial Cllr Peter Box said is was because they had taken legal advice and as it was a standalone application and not a resevered matters one under the original application, they could not enforce the 106. It did need to be a standalone application, as it was taller than 18m high, but we could not understand why it was still not caught by the 106. So we submitted a FOI request and asked the council what legal advice they asked for (the questioned they asked a lawyer being important), what the answer was and who gave (which lawyers) the advice. After much too'ing and frowing the council told us that they had in fact no record of any legal advice. They still have not explained why the officer recommended approval of the scheme outside of the S106 agreement?
So our informal legal advice would suggest that maybe (and only maybe) the council have acted unlawfully or outside their power, but equally that is still only a matter of opinion and would have to be tested in court.