| Topic: | Re:Re:Especially for Dawn | |
| Posted by: | Jon Hardy | |
| Date/Time: | 20/09/11 12:02:00 |
| Hi Dawn, I wasn't in the slightest bit miffed: Council procedures can seem byzantine unless one has had to learn all about them. I've always been grateful to those who took the time to explain things to me. Paul Fisher rightly declared an interest which would have cast doubts on his impartially and ability to make up his mind based on the evidence before him at the meeting: he had no choice but to recluse himself. The meeting of 4th March 2009 was a curious one in that the vote on this important matter was taken twice. the result of the first vote was: For - Councillors Cadbury and Cooper Against - Councillors Barwood, L. Bath, B. Fisher, Hardy, O’Reilly and Reid Abstain - Councillors Dakers and Oulds. (from the minutes) "Councillor Reid moved refusal of the proposals on the grounds that they would unduly prejudice the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that neighbouring residents were not yet safeguarded and more work needed to be done. She was not convinced that the odour would be lessened or controlled and felt that the proposed mitigation measures did not go far enough. Councillor B. Fisher seconded Councillor Reid’s proposal." That would normally have been the end of the debate and we would have moved to the next item however: "Councillor Cadbury raised concerns that, if the Committee refused the application, Thames Water would appeal and it would be determined by an independent inspector or the Secretary of State and the Council would lose its leverage in terms of the S.106 obligations; she felt that the obligations could be weakened if they were determined by the inspector. She stated that she opposed the proposal for refusal and felt that the application should be approved and the S.106 obligations strengthened. Councillor Cooper felt that, in an ideal world, they would not want the sewage works at all, but it was there and he felt that the application was the Council’s opportunity to have some control, which they would not have if it was refused. He felt that some of the S.106 contributions would be lost if the application went to appeal. Councillor L. Bath asked officer’s views about the application going to appeal. Benita Edwards advised that the proposed refusal would be referred to the Mayor. It was then up to the Mayor whether he wanted to determine the application himself because he had the power to step in as the planning authority and could decide what planning obligations, if any, would be required. If he did not call it in, the refusal would stand. The refusal decision could then be appealed. Ms Edwards advised that the decision notice could not be issued until it was known whether the Mayor or the Secretary of State had decided to call it in. An appeal on this particular scheme could be quite expensive to the Council if it went to a public inquiry. Councillor Oulds suggested that the applicant may wish to revise the application and resubmit it because that course of action would be quicker than going through a public inquiry. Benita Edwards advised that, if Members wanted the applicant to modify the application, they should defer rather than refuse. The appeal costs were not a material planning consideration, but she had a duty to give the Council the information so that the Committee was fully informed of the risks to the Council. She advised that the Committee must have sound planning reasons to refuse the application. Costs did not necessarily follow the event and there would only be costs to the Council if the Council was considered to have been acting unreasonably. Councillor Oulds felt that, if the application was deferred, it may give time to the applicant to consider covering the tanks. Ms Edwards advised that it would be useful for the Committee to give clear guidance to the applicant about what they wanted to see. She noted that the applicant could appeal if the time limit for determining the application had expired. Cathy Gallagher advised that the applicant could still appeal on non-determination. Thames Water had a start date in mind to meet their requirements for the works to begin and officers felt that the issue should be resolved as a question of expediency. She felt that deferral would only work if something could be achieved, for example, the covering of the storm water tanks, but this had been discussed with Thames Water and she did not feel that it could be done. Councillor Hardy proposed deferral. Mr Aylard advised that deferral would not help because Thames Water could agree to a reduction in the number of storm tanks events from seven to six, but would not be able to get the funding to cover the additional tanks because they could not go to Ofwat without a case for the customer paying for it." The debate continued for a while longer - (you can read the complete minutes at http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=40619 and I urge everyone to do so so no-one can say I have given a biased account) - before a second vote was taken: "Members voted on the officer’s recommendation and Councillor Cooper’s amendments, that the number of times the storm tanks were used was reduced from seven to six per year and a ring of H2S sensors be used around the digesters complex, rather than a single sensor, as follows: For - Councillors Barwood, L. Bath, Cadbury, Cooper, Dakers, B. Fisher, O’Reilly, Oulds and Reid. Against - Councillor Hardy Abstain - None." I expect everyone will draw their own conclusions bjut I hope people will ask questions too: Was the second vote legal? Although proper for Members to consider the consequences of voting against approval why does it seem that they took more notice of Richard Aylard from Thames Water than their own officers? If the reason that approval was given was to give the Council enforcement 'teeth' through the S106 agreement why is this not being used robustly? There may be good reasons for this but perhaps these might be explained here. |