As readers will know Ive blogged a couple of times about “negativing conditions” in planning applications, firstly in relation to Arlington where Cllr Poole (now Deputy Council Leader) proposed an amendment to a condition which would have meant deliveries would be banned between 11pm and 7am, and secondly in relation to the China Gateway application, where he proposed a condition banning the use of HGVs on the site between 11pm and 7am. Both times, the motions were refused as they were deemed to be negativing ones, that they would be unreasonable to the applicant. Both times he made it clear he disagreed with the legal advice and felt that they were legitimate conditions to make.
I commented after the China Gateway meeting, held on the 16th November that Councillors should have been aware of the rules on this after the first time it came up or found out for themselves how things stood. Cllr Everitt, newly appointed Cabinet Member for Performance, made a point during debate of the China Gateway application that the advice should be sent out to Committee Members so that they know in advance how the rules apply. Strange, because they were sent the advice in June!
The Arlington application was deferred to the Secretary of State on the 15th June 2011 after Cllr Poole’s motion was declined. He objected to it strongly enough to write a letter of complaint about it the next day. The day after that (17th June) Cllr Poole received a letter from Harvey Patterson, Corporate & Regulatory Services Manager, which provided in some detail the reasons behind the decision not to proceed with the motion. Reading the letter, I recognise the reference to Circular 11/95, as I commented on that document when I blogged about the China Gateway application. On the bottom it shows the letter was cc’d to the Chair and Members of the Planning Committee, which would have included both Cllrs Everitt and Poole and indeed the new Council Leader Clive Hart.
The letter can be found here
Now, why did they make such a fuss at the 16th November Planning meeting when they had already been made aware of the legal basis for the refusal to proceed with negativing motions way back in June?