The planning consultants who represent the developer of the Brookfield Waste Plant have applied for the decision to be deferred to allow them time to submit further information. They will be presenting their request for deferral at the planning meeting on 19th August 2014. I have formally opposed the request for deferral through the following email to all members of the Development Control Committee: Dear Colleagues, URGENT - Response to Letter from GP Planning Ltd - 13/00027/OUT I write in my capacity as Ward Councillor for Weldon & Gretton Ward. The purpose of this email is to respond to a letter addressed to all members of the Development Control Committee from GP Planning Ltd Environmental Consultants, who act as agent for Gretton Brook Estates Ltd in respect of a planning application to build a Resource Recovery Park on the Brookfield Plantation (13/00027/OUT). The letter from GP Planning Ltd asks members of the Development Control Committee to support its request to defer the decision on the planning application upon which members are due to vote on 19th August 2014. The reasons which GP Planning Ltd cites for its request are as follows: 1. Advice from DLA Piper Ltd states that information provided to Corby Borough Council to date is sufficient to allow Corby Borough Council to determine the Outline Planning Application. 2. It is difficult to be specific about the likely production processes, residues and emissions without knowing which occupiers will come to the site. 3. A formal request for further information was submitted 11th October 2013, which was 10 months after the application was submitted. 4. It was not made clear until 25th June 2014 about the level of detail that the Council regarded would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. 5. All of the issues were dealt with in the submission of 6th December 2013 and all requests for additional information have been responded to. The letter contains three enclosures, namely: (i) Letter from DLA Piper UK LLP dated 16th July 2014 (ii) Press Release from Gretton Brook Estates Limited dated 12th August 2014 (iii) Press Release from Drenl Ltd dated 12th August 2014 I strongly object to the request by GP Planning Ltd to defer the decision and I respectfully ask members of the Development Control Committee to decline the request. Each of the five reasons cited by GP Planning Ltd fails to stand up to scrutiny or provide sufficient grounds for deferral. I will address each above specified point in order. - 1. Advice from DLA Piper Ltd states that information provided to Corby Borough Council to date is sufficient to allow Corby Borough Council to determine the Outline Planning Application - The letter to the Council from DLA Piper Ltd, dated 16th July 2014, argues at paragraph 2 that GP Planning will require until September to submit a revised Environmental Statement. This appears initially to have been the reason for requesting further time and a deferral of the decision. The letter from GP Planning however contradicts this at paragraph 4. It states that DLA Pipers advice is that the information already provided is sufficient. As this is the more recent of the two letters it is rational to deduce that this is GP Plannings up to date position on the matter. As it is made clear in the letter from GP Planning that they believe the information already provided to be sufficient, there is nothing whatsoever to be achieved by providing them with an extension of time. This statement by GP Planning supports the conclusion reached by council officers that GP Planning is unwilling to provide further information, and refutes the suggestion in paragraph 8 of GP Plannings own letter in which it attempts to argue that it has not been unwilling to provide further information. Accordingly it is clear that GP Planning already considers itself to have provided ample information, that it is unwilling and unable to provide further information and that it will not use an extension of time to any constructive ends. - 2. It is difficult to be specific about the likely production processes, residues and emissions without knowing which occupiers will come to the site - This argument, which is at paragraph 5 of GP Plannings letter, is a clear and unambiguous admission that GP Planning is unable to provide the further information that the council requires due to it not knowing which occupiers will come to the site. This confirms the contention at paragraph 18 the councils Legal Departments briefing note to members that the sheer volume of possible combinations of potential industrial development is so high in number that it is absolutely impossible to determine the likely environmental impact. Accordingly, by GP Plannings own admission, neither the extension of time to September impliedly requested in the letter from DLA Piper nor any extension of time at all would serve to allow for an adequate Environmental Statement to be produced, due to the obvious impossibility of producing the same. Ergo there is nothing whatsoever that can be achieved through deferring the decision. - 3. A formal request for further information was submitted 11th October 2013, which was 10 months after the application was submitted. - At paragraph 6 of its letter, GP Planning argues that further information was not requested until 11th October 2013, which was 10 months after the planning application was submitted. The letter impliedly suggests that 10 months is a substantial period of time. Since the initial request for further information, 10 calendar months and 2 days has elapsed. Notwithstanding this substantial period of time having passed, GP Planning has still been unable to submit all of the requisite information. If the information cannot be obtained and submitted within the substantial 10 month timeframe, then it is unlikely that DLA Pipers proposed extension of time until September, which is less than one month in the future, will assist GP Planning in obtaining and submitting the information. Accordingly there is no purpose in deferring the decision. - 4. It was not made clear until 25th June 2014 about the level of detail that the Council regarded would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011. - The contention at paragraph 7 of GP Plannings letter that the level of detail required was not made clear until 25th June 2014 is completely undermined by the statement in paragraph 9 of the letter that All of the issues were dealt with in our submission of 6th December 2013. If GP Planning does in fact consider that the information provided on 6th December 2013 was sufficient, then its claim that the detail required was not clear until 25th June 2014 fails entirely. By its own admission, GP Planning was well aware of the information required at least as early as 6th December 2013 and it continues to aver that it had provided the necessary information by that date. It would thus be unsound reasoning to accept any argument that the requirements were not clear until a late stage. Furthermore, as GP Planning contends that it had already provided the necessary information by 6th December 2013, it has demonstrated a further unwillingness to provide additional information. This supports the statement in the Legal Advice section of officers report that the applicant has been unwilling to provide the requested information. There is therefore nothing to be achieved from delaying matters further and to no avail by deferring the decision. - 5. All of the issues were dealt with in the submission of 6th December 2013 and all requests for additional information have been responded to - This statement at paragraph 9 of the letter from GP Planning Ltd makes absolutely clear that the applicant considers itself already to have provided all necessary information and that it is unwilling to provide further information. This demonstrates very clearly that deferring the decision will not lead to the required information being submitted, as the applicant already believes that it has submitted all necessary information. This is further grounds to reject the request by GP Planning for the decision to be deferred. - Letter from DLA Piper UK LLP - The letter from DLA Piper UK LLP contains one substantive argument regarding the ability of DLA Pipers client to submit the further information required and a number of immaterial make-weight arguments regarding cost, efficiency and officers workload. As the latter arguments are not relevant procedural or planning considerations it is right and proper that they are duly disregarded. The substantive argument made by DLA Piper is starkly contradicted in the subsequent letter from GP Planning Ltd. Whilst DLA Piper contend that their client can provide the further information if the decision is deferred, GP Planning make clear in their letter that they cannot and that they do not intend to do so. As the letter from GP Planning is considerably more recent than that from DLA Piper, the GP Planning letter should be construed as representing the applicants up to date position. Furthermore, GP Planning are professional planning and environmental consultants who will be well aware of their inability to provide the further information, whereas DLA Piper are lawyers who self-evidently will not have this specialist knowledge of their clients inability to provide the further information. DLA Piper will thus have been able only to rely upon their clients instructions when constructing their argument. As their client has provided a subsequent and contradictory account of their instructions in the GP Planning letter, the substantive argument made by DLA Piper must accordingly be disregarded due to inaccuracy, out datedness or both. - Further Analysis - Whilst GP Planning seeks to rely upon legal advice provided to it by its own lawyers, this advice would self-evidently have been supplied with the applicants objectives being advanced. Conversely the environmental and legal advice provided to the council was not provided with the purpose of advancing the interests of either the applicant or the objectors in the matter, but with the purpose of ensuring procedural propriety and robust planning practice. Accordingly the advice upon which members must rely is that provided to the council by AMEC and No.5 Chambers. - Conclusion - I therefore strongly urge members of the Development Control Committee to decline the request made by GP Planning to defer the decision and to support officers recommendation to refuse the planning application on 19th August 2014. Kind Regards, Cllr Rob McKellar LLB(Hons) Barrister-at-Law GCILEx Borough Councillor Weldon & Gretton Ward Corby Borough Council
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:32:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015