Question
In view of the recent Court of Appeal case where WBC were refused the leave to appeal the High Court Decision made in 2018 against WBC in relation to Hare Hatch Sheeplands. The reason given was there were no grounds to accept the appeal.
Of particular concern is the way the Council pursued this case as reference to "Abuse of Process" by the Council has been made by the Judges. We are also concerned about the significant costs that have been incurred and the potential future costs on the Council.
Will the Leader of the Council agree to an Independent External Inquiry into how this situation has occurred?
Minutes:
Question
In view of the recent Court of Appeal case where WBC were refused the leave to appeal the High Court Decision made in 2018 against WBC in relation to Hare Hatch Sheeplands. The reason given was there were no grounds to accept the appeal.
Of particular concern is the way the Council pursued this case as reference to "Abuse of Process" by the Council has been made by the Judges. We are also concerned about the significant costs that have been incurred and the potential future costs on the Council.
Will the Leader of the Council agree to an Independent External Inquiry into how this situation has occurred?
Answer
WBC pursued this case in line with both internal and external legal advice and for the sound reason that the operator of Hare Hatch/Sheeplands had repeatedly flouted planning law for a significant period. We will not apologise for being vigilant in protecting the integrity of planning policies and, in particular, those applying to the Green Belt which you are very aware is the most highly protected land in the Borough. It is worth pointing out that, due to the Council’s perseverance, all of the illegal developments were eventually removed from the site and a high court injunction remains in place to ensure they are not re-built. You may not be aware but we have successfully adopted this approach in other cases elsewhere in the Borough involving blatant persistent breaches of planning and in these cases criminal convictions resulted. The court has ruled differently in this particular case so we will always review future cases such as this but are satisfied that an independent external enquiry is not required on this occasion.
Supplementary question
The reason why I wasn’t looking at Simon to reply was because Simon was the Executive Member who, I believe, approved to go to the appeal and the costs that are involved so I am just a bit wary of that.
I think we have a reputational issue here. I have not got a problem with the Council pursuing people who have abused the planning process, and I have told Sheeplands’ people about that, but when four high court judges have indicated that “there was abuse of process” and that the three had given the indication that were was no reason to appeal, this does hit the reputation of the Planning Department and the issues that have happened and I do think we need to learn from this and that is why I have asked for that. So if you are not going to do any external investigation I do think there does need to be somebody who has not been involved with this within the Council to look at this. So will you do an internal enquiry involving people and Officers who were not involved in this area because it is of grave concern that we could have significant costs in six, potentially seven figures, I don’t know, as we don’t know what the situation will be at a time when we are quite heavily financially strapped, and I would like to understand whether that would be pursued?
Supplementary answer
I think you raise a valid point. I think that you are aware that the original case started in 2011 and the Council first sought the high court injunction some considerable time prior to me becoming the Executive Member. I inherited the case and when I reviewed the case the Officers’ recommendation, and that of our QC, was that we should pursue the case to the appeal court because of the risk otherwise of indicating that there would be, if you like, a green light to people to continue to flout planning law with the knowledge that there is no specific penalty at the end of that.
I am happy to meet with you and the Head of Planning at the Council to consider what you have suggested and see if we can learn something from it. But my current position remains that if we faced a similar situation where there is repeated and blatant abuse of planning I would be very keen that we pursue that as we have done successfully in a number of other cases. We believe that this recent court case was inconsistent with previous decisions that we have received that have supported our course of action.
Councillor Ferris further stated:
Now that we have case law that pursuing through the planning process the proceeds of crime is now not a way to proceed and I think that is my understanding because one of the judges I believe was the Lord Chief Justice so these are very senior judges.
Councillor Weeks responded as follows:
One of the judges was not the Lord Chief Justice, it is rumoured she may become one. But I will also tell you that I understand that this decision has had significant repercussions with local authorities because to some extent it can reduce the ways they have of controlling inappropriate planning and in all areas I think most councils do want to have appropriate control of planning and in my experience residents want appropriate control of planning and cannot be selective that it is only applied to people they don’t like as opposed to operations they do like.