Row over planning permission for 450 new homes in Newton Abbot
An independent review has been carried out by the national Planning Advisory Service
The granting of planning permission for 450 new homes for Newton Abbot was ‘properly handled’, according to an independent review by the national Planning Advisory Service.
Their report looking into the granting of permission back in January 2020 for the site at Langford Bridge concluded that the ‘planning decision was made properly, the officer’s report was good, and the correct issues were in play and balanced appropriately’.
It also concluded that many of the allegations made at the time were based on misunderstandings of the planning process.
But Newton Says No councillors, who had asked for the report to be provided following concerns that they raised, have said the whole report is a total waste of time, effort and resource as it does not investigate the concerns raised in any level of detail and is not fit for purpose.
And they said it was still unbelievable that the investigators had failed to watch the recording provided to them of the planning meeting that they had been asked to investigate.
The report’s authors – Ipswich Council’s deputy leader Cllr Bryony Rudkin, Dorset council’s head of business insight & corporate communications, Bridget Downton and planning advisory service’s peer challenge manager Richard Crawley – noted that relationships between some councillors and the rest of the council were extremely poor but concluded that ‘many of the allegations presented to us were based on misunderstandings and misinterpretations of how planning works in local government’.
They added: “In the view of the team the planning decision was made properly. The officer’s report was good. The correct issues were in play and balanced appropriately. The video made available to us was poor quality and the behaviours alleged of the chair were ones we did not accept as inappropriate.”
THE SIX ISSUES THE PAS HAD BEEN ASKED TO INVESTIGATE, AND THE CONCLUSION THEY DREW
1
ALLEGATION
A specific councillor’s conflict of interest. The councillor should have stood away from the decision because of an interest of some kind – stated to own a development company, but also linked via his son
RESPONSE
This is important but a standards issue and outside of our scope. We cannot comment on whether this has been adequately addressed.
2
ALLEGATION
The probity of chair of planning committee and that the chair should not steer the committee
RESPONSE
This appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the role of a chair of the planning committee. Good chairs should move the agenda forward and propose decisions. The suggestion that the chair is in some way in breach of PAS guidance seems to be a misunderstanding of the guidance.
3
ALLEGATION
The intimidation of a councillor who was advised by the monitoring officer not to vote on the basis of a pecuniary interest
RESPONSE
This is important but a standards issue and outside of our scope. We cannot comment on whether this has been adequately addressed
4
ALLEGATION
The “Ghost” objectors. The Wolborough Residents group were told spaces were full, but learned on the morning that the original objectors had both pulled out – giving them little time to prepare.
RESPONSE
Speaking arrangements should be improved with a flexible approach in place, particularly for contentious major planning applications. The concept of “ghost” objectors is unbelievable and is a consequence of poor management of speaking arrangements
5
ALLEGATION
The legal advice re “the Underhill ruling” which states that no planning applications can be issued until environmental issues are resolved beyond all scientific doubt.
RESPONSE
The Underhill judgement relates to bat protection. The issue is considered in the report and is a matter of planning judgement. The officer’s report considered all appropriate issues.
6
ALLEGATION
The purchase of strip of land on Kingskerswell Road in 2010 proves that the Council had predetermined the planning decision
RESPONSE
Councils buy/assemble land for lots of good reasons – this is not evidence of “predetermination”. Councils have to be able to give planning permission on land they own – that is why there is a differentiation between the local planning authority and the council.
The investigation had been asked for after questions were raised as to whether Cllr Phil Bullivant, the leader of the opposition Conservative group and the chairman of the overview and scrutiny committee, who spoke in favour of and seconded a recommendation for approval, should have declared an interest in the Langford Bridge application and therefore taken no part in the debate.
The concerns raised over the process included that when the NA3 Wolborough Barton application was discussed in February 2019, Cllr Bullivant declared an appendix A interest in the application by virtue of his son, Andrew Bullivant, having an interest in the application, and withdrew from the meeting.
When the Langford Bridge plans were discussed in January 2020, Cllr Bullivant did not declare an interest and voted in favour of the application.
Explaining why he believed there may have been a potential conflict of interest that should have been declared, Cllr Daws had outlined that Andrew Bullivant, the son of Cllr Bullivant, is one of the directors of Westmoreland SW Ltd, a company partly owned by Low Pressure Developments Ltd.
Companies House shows that this company is owned by David Seaton, who is also the planning agent for PCL Planning Ltd, who had submitted the application on behalf of landowners the Rew family for 1,210 to be built at Wolborough, which is the application for which Cllr Bullivant declared an interest in.
The Langford Bridge application, which Cllr Bullivant took part in the debate, was submitted by the CEG Group, who neither Andrew Bullivant nor David Seaton are involved with.
The investigation concluded that the decision was made properly and that Cllr Bullivant did not have an interest he failed to declare.
Cllr Bullivant said: “The independent inspectors found that the allegations made by NSN were without foundation and there was no breach of code or any conflict of interest by me in the decision made. The LGA team also found that due process had been followed in the decision making process.”
Teignbridge District Council’s head of place and commercial services Neil Blaney, after the report was published, said: “We are pleased that the independent report by the respected national planning advisory service concludes that our processes are robust and that this application was handled properly.
“We will discuss with councillors the recommendations made to boost understanding and simplify our processes so we can continue to ensure that our approach to dealing with planning applications is fair, effective and within the legal decision-making framework.”
But the Newton Says No councillors say that the issue isn’t going to go away and for the sake of the residents they represent, they have a duty to continue to get answers to the very serious concerns raised.
Cllr Liam Mullone, leader of the Newton Says No group, said: “The planning advisory service, which was paid a lot of money to produce an examination of the procedure that surrounded the decision on Langford Bridge, near Decoy, published its ‘findings’.
“You may recall that it failed even to watch the recording of the planning meeting it was being paid to investigate, and an appendix to the report lists and dismisses all of our many concerns. For example they find no problem that the Head of Planning should drive members to his own conclusion throughout the meeting.
“Our gravest concern was about the legitimacy of the ‘objectors’; two ‘citizens’ who were due to speak against the plan but ‘withdrew’ with minutes to go – denying those against the plan any chance of mounting a proper defence for Langford Bridge and Decoy.
“This investigation did not examine it, merely saying that it was ‘unbelievable’ there were not two actual, real people making genuine objections – unnamed and forever unknowable as they are.
“Yes, an ‘investigation’ set up to ‘reassure the public’ of the council’s ‘transparency’ on planning has point-blank refused to believe, less still investigate, the claims it was set up to examine. And it has drawn up conclusions on a meeting it hasn’t watched. And it has taken a year to do it.”
Cllr Richard Daws, deputy group leader of Newton Says No, added: “There are so many failings into the investigation that we called for. It was a review that failed to investigate the seven concerns we raised and rather tellingly failed to even watch the planning meeting itself.
“It almost defies belief that Teignbridge would release the findings as some sort of justification of the original planning decision on Langford Bridge. It remains the view of many that the council railroaded through the large scale planning decision on NA3 and now they are trying to cover that up with a report that fails to address the very real concerns raised.
“For the sake of the residents we have a duty to continue to get answers to the very serious concerns raised. This is not going away for Teignbridge District Council.
“In summary, the whole report is a total waste of time, effort and resource. It does not investigate the concerns raised in any level of detail and is not fit for purpose. It is a sham and Teignbridge releasing it before the council members have themselves given it any scrutiny, as recommended in the report the council needs to assure itself that they have all been adequately addressed, is another brash example of Teignbridge District Council failings.”