Letter: St Catherine’s Planning Issue Was Properly Dealt With Despite Error

Published on: 14 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 15 Sep, 2017

From Caroline Reeves

In response to: Letter: I am Considering A Complaint Over A Planning Issue

The case that Adele Potter refers to has been looked at and assessed in great detail by myself in conjunction with senior officers at Guildford Borough Council.

We have acknowledged that the decision notice for a planning application in Upper Guildown Road was issued three days too soon, before a site notice had expired and before Mrs Potter had the chance to comment, this was due to human error.

However, I am satisfied that the neighbour notification was correctly undertaken from the outset (five properties in total), and the requisite amount of time was given to this initial part of the process.

Mrs Potter was not notified at the outset due to the distance of her property from the site and by being on the opposite side of the road. This accords with the statutory requirements for neighbour notification where councils are only obliged to notify abutting properties.

Mrs Potter’s letter of objection has been assessed and her concerns carefully considered both in the office and on a detailed site visit. She has also received comprehensive responses from the Planning Development Manager on two occasions in respect of her concerns and received a written apology.

Whilst the human error associated with this case is unfortunate, I am satisfied that the council afforded Mrs Potter the opportunity to submit written representations; I am also satisfied with the delegated decision that was reached to approve the application, and have taken on board Adele Potter’s concerns in doing so.

None of the permission granted around the Voysey listed building “Littleholme”, were given without due care and consideration and involvement from our Conservation officers. The land to the east of 3 Littleholme has a long planning history which involved many conversations with officers in order to reach a more viable proposal.

The most recent approval on the site was application 13/P/01583 for the construction of a detached three bedroom dwelling. This was a revision to an earlier approval 07/P/01354. I asked for a site visit for application 13/P/01583 and it was subsequently approved by the Planning Committee on 30 July 2014. A later application 15/P/00631, for further amendments to the approved design, was refused planning permission on 27 May 2015.

Permission was granted in May 2015 for a new detached dwelling to the west of Croquet on a site below Weyview, the recent application referred to by Mrs Potter. This followed the submission of amended plans which were requested by the LPA (to secure improvements to the design and to reduce the impact on neighbours) not to mention a long pre-planning process. It was a delegated decision, following the seven-day process.

With regard to the hearing that took place on Monday, to be clear, I did not refuse to attend the hearing, it was agreed that it should go ahead even though I was not in the UK and therefore unable to attend. It was proving very difficult to find a date for all parties without making the whole situation go on for even longer than the 14 months to date.

The costs involved are those necessary to follow the process for a hearing as set out in the GBC constitution when there can be no agreement through private dialogue.

My complaint was not politically motivated and as I have said clearly in the papers it had nothing to do with the SHMA or the Local Plan, it was the principle of the fact that all councillors swear to uphold the Nolan Principles when they are sworn in after election, and I felt that this had been broken.

I firmly believe that in order to perform my duties as a councillor effectively, I and all other councillors must operate under a duty of confidence. If such confidence is broken then it hampers the ability of the council to operate and may lead down the path of minority rule. It is surely not acceptable for councillors to breach their duty of confidence?

I was at a GBC Working Group meeting with Cllr Reeve yesterday, and while we will never agree over the matter considered at the hearing, we are perfectly able to work together professionally on other council matters.

Responses to Letter: St Catherine’s Planning Issue Was Properly Dealt With Despite Error

Kes Heffer Reply

September 15, 2017 at 10:00 am

Cllr Caroline Reeves writes that “all councillors swear to uphold the Nolan Principles when they are sworn in after election, and I felt that this had been broken.”

I have had a quick look at the Nolan or Seven Principles of Public Life (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life).

I cannot see one of those seven that Cllr David Reeve has transgressed. In fact, of the councillors involved in this sorry affair, he is the one who has been the most faithful to number 5: “Openness. Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”

Note the logical conjunction implied by that last “and”. There may have been a lawful reason for withholding the minuscule piece of data released to the public by Councillor Reeve (the historical number of jobs in Guildford in 2013) but there was no clear reason to do so.

Which of the seven Nolan principles does Cllr Reeves think was broken by Cllr Reeve?
A Atkinson Reply

September 15, 2017 at 12:10 pm

None is the answer, another soundbite, perhaps that is why the monitoring officer described the complaint as “not quite on all fours” with the code of conduct.

With regards to Cllr Reeves comment, “The costs involved are those necessary to follow the process for a hearing as set out in the GBC constitution when there can be no agreement through private dialogue,” isn’t it on public record that Cllr Reeve wanted to meet up and discuss the allegations, face to face? It seems these offers were either refused or ignored. That private dialogue she quotes seems never to have been explored. It indicates to me that the cost was indeed unnecessary.
Adele Potter Reply

September 16, 2017 at 8:27 am

I am not satisfied that the correct notification was given because, although it is stated that five letters were sent:

1. I know of one letter that did not arrive. (Mrs Philip of Summershill). She has sent the council a letter confirming she never received the letter and secondly, that had she received it, she would have objected to the design of the build within the statutory time and, that now she is aware of it. she does object to it.

2. The records state that Littleholme and 1 Lilltholme were sent a letter. But what address is ‘Littleholme’?. The house is divided into three as well as a cottage that has ‘Littleholme’ in its address. Number 1 received a letter but I can confirm that number 2 and the cottage did not receive a letter? So where did the fifth letter go to?

3. I maintain that my ‘property’ includes ‘land and dwelling’. Therefore, given that part of my land covers 50% of the Weyview property frontage, with dormers facing my land, and that all the building works will take place less than four meters from my land, directly opposite my driveway, then I believe it is, of course, fair and reasonable that I should have been consulted by letter, regardless of the fact that my property does not abutt Weyview land.

Indeed, a letter was intended to be received by Summershill which is not abutting, even though it never arrived.

I believe that it is a gross error of judgement on behalf of the case officer/ admin team that I was not sent a letter. Whilst I understand the statutory minimum requirement there is an expectation that good judgement will be used. This, in my opinion, was not the case, indeed the junior case officer, when presenting her decision and report to be signed off by her senior, did not even realise that the building next door to Weyview was Grade II listed, requiring a whole set of considerations which were not initially taken into account.

I believe that Cllr Caroline Reeves is simply pushing this through to mitigate her, and the council’s, initial poor judgement. GBC Conservation team expressed concern about the scale of the build, as did 1 Littleholme.