Question
As evidence of the lessons which WBC have learned from both the judicial remarks about WBC’s conduct as well as the critical comments contained in the Lingard Report, will the Leader of the Council please provide a precise and detailed list of the changes to WBC procedures and organisational structure which have now been made and are being implemented as a result of the collapse, before Reading Crown Court and endorsed by the Court of Appeal, of the Breach of Enforcement case against Hare Hatch Sheeplands?
Minutes:
As evidence of the lessons which WBC have learned from both the judicial remarks about WBC’s conduct as well as the critical comments contained in the Lingard Report, will the Leader of the Council please provide a precise and detailed list of the changes to WBC procedures and organisational structure which have now been made and are being implemented as a result of the collapse, before Reading Crown Court and endorsed by the Court of Appeal, of the Breach of Enforcement case against Hare Hatch Sheeplands?
Answer
The primary issue before the court and addressed by the independent Lingard Review was not whether the Council should have enforced against the flagrant breaches of planning control at Hare Hatch Sheeplands but whether there was a legitimate reason why the owner of the site should not be prosecuted for this under criminal law.
The Council has been successful in all its actions against Hare Hatch Sheeplands to enforce against unlawful development in the greenbelt, including securing a high court injunction to force compliance with the enforcement notice.
The Council has adopted a robust approach to planning enforcement following the Silvester Review, which I understand was instigated partly in response to your prolonged criticism that Council was not forceful enough in addressing breaches of planning control. I understand that you were involved in this review and endorsed its recommendations which were that the Council should take a tougher stance against unlawful development in the Borough such as that at Harehatch Sheeplands.
Reading Crown Court, in considering the proceeds of crime application, found that WBC may have induced the site owner to withdraw the enforcement appeal, thereby acting to his prejudice in 2014. If this were the case, this would have constituted an abuse of process and, therefore, was a defence against prosecution.
This issue was the basis of the independent Lingard review, which disagreed with the judgement concluding that “the Council did not, either through its elected Members or its Officers induce Mr Scott (either by intentional design or default) to act to his detriment by withdrawing his appeal against an Enforcement Notice.”
The judge considered whether POCA had been used as a justification for prosecution proceedings. The Lingard Review considered that this was not the case.
Both the court judgments and the Lingard Review did highlight several lessons for the future, particularly the role of Members in planning matters.
Supplementary Question
Would the Leader please continue with what he was saying?
Supplementary Answer
We have established a new structure with what, we consider to be, the best legal brains and a considerable case management process.
This case highlights how this can leave the Council vulnerable to misrepresentation and misinterpretation. Several procedural issues were brought to light which have been addressed as follows:-
· An IT system to hold case records has been implemented;
· Additional training has been undertaken and further training is arranged to address POCA and Disclosure;
· Officer Advice Notes and report templates have been updated.
So we feel that we wouldn’t be in that situation again.