We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
So there we have it . The full force of our democratic and legal system in operation.
Shambolic meeting produced an almost certain illegal outcome. Wiped out about half the value of the company at a stroke.
Investigation outcome: We fxxxxd it.
Remedy :Lets rerun it. Same people. Same prejudice.
Process:
Train the participants on how to use modern technology. Lets say 3/4 months (covid to blame )to get them all up
to speed.
Fix date when all are available. Oh hell xmas , new year break you know . Lets guess at late January 2021 .
Planning meeting for January cancelled ( no explanation ) . Rescheduled for late March.
Application rejected against legal advice. ( no personal liability) . Rate payers will stump up. No choice.
Company appeals say six months , September 2021 overturned.
Drilling commences January 2022.
Council elections ; We did our very best to stop it but you know better than most just how money talks.
All we then have to worry about is swampies. getting High Court injunction and police not enforcing the law
The members were told very clearly by counsel during the meeting that there were NO valid legal grounds to reject permission. That was the case then. That is the case now.
"The motion approved by the Committee to refuse the Application was not made on any valid planning grounds."
It was obvious at the time that the meeting was shambolic and that the decision would be overturned.
About to pop.....
*read
I need to stop editing before I post...
That's a very fair decision on the part of the Council - good!
That was a legal view on the decision making process though, not necessarily the outcome. I think members will stick to their guns to represent the local electorate, unfortunately. I cant see any of the members changing their views. However one change in favour of the officer's recommendation would leave it in the hands of the chair's vote. Fingers crossed it is quickly heard and that one of the members sees the light!
One of the most useful posts I've ever red in this forum, Xavier.
Thank you.
I confess to being extremely doubtful the council would adopt this outlook at all, despite it making more sense than their original decision.
:)
Let's hope that they now fast track the next meeting.!!
Concur
The substantive facts have not changed - the application will now be passed.....
This will surge....a 3x multi-bag here
I was just going to post the same myself Oggy ;-)
I think this is the statement that will carry the weight.
The motion approved by the Committee to refuse the Application was not made on any valid planning grounds.
All that will happen now is that the Planning WILL be approved.....failing to do so now, given this damning report, would validate a wrong decision to then be a right one....
...that would destroy the credibility of all involved, at a time of urgent economic need
Stand by for SP surge....going higher than the ISS
That's the right decision as the meeting represented a circus. All will happen now is the planning committee will sit again to rehear the item. I suspect most members will stick with their original votes but we'll see. I would rather have had a decision notice with a refusal so we can crack on with a written representations appeal and an apllication for costs
Part 3...... Because of all this, there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations set out above.
In addition, Counsel was of the view there are other issues raised by complainants that, whilst not necessarily fatal on their own, would not help the impression that would be received if the matter went to Court: For example, the lack of a summary of the salient points of the debate prior to the resolution. Furthermore, in addition to (and perhaps as a result of) the various technical glitches, there were occasions where other members of the household appeared on screen with Councillors, giving rise to a potential suspicion of inappropriate influence from persons not attending the meeting. Whilst it may well be the case that family members were simply assisting with the technology, there is the risk of a perception of unfairness. Allied to this are the concerns expressed about use of the private ‘chat’ function allowing Councillors and others to pass messages between each other during the meeting. This was notwithstanding that any such concerns could, if necessary, be allayed by examining the ‘chat’ log which clearly shows the anodyne nature of the messages that were sent.
In addition to the above points considered by Counsel, a number of complaints were raised in relation to specific Councillors with the suggestion that they had breached the Council’s Code of Conduct and/or the Council’s Planning Protocols. I have reviewed whether the alleged breached should be considered as breaches of the codes/protocols. I do not consider this to be the case. All issues raised were due to the meeting being undertaken remotely with members being at home in the proximity to other household members to assist in the use of IT equipment or due to technical errors with equipment. This was a new experience for members and it is appropriate that if members found themselves in a position where it could appear there were alleged breaches of the code/protocol, that these be addressed with further training in how remote meetings must be conducted rather than any formal investigation. Further training for the committee members and the use of equipment for remote meetings is being arranged.
In the circumstances the Council will in due course resubmit the Application to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to be redetermined afresh with full entitlement given to members of the public and the applicant to make or remake their statements orally and with full provision for debate by members.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Evans
Monitoring Officer
Part 2......Counsel’s view was that the most significant issues at the meeting were in relation to the question of whether councillors were “in attendance” given the committee meeting was held remotely. This was the first planning committee meeting the Council had held under the provisions of the Local Authorities and Police Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, (the “Regulations”) which set out the conditions when a councillor is “in attendance” at a meeting.
The issues included:
- the live stream dropping out from time to time. In most cases this was rectified immediately by the relevant speaker being asked to repeat his or her statement in full. However, a portion of a speech by one Councillor who was speaking in favour of the application, may be missing from the recording and so may have not been heard by the participants;
- at one point when a Councillor was speaking in favour of the application, there was a message on screen stating that a Councillor was ‘waiting in the lobby’. This may have indicated that at that point she could not hear what was being said.
- another councillor was not able to be heard at all at the meeting and had to use hand gestures and the private ‘chat’ function in order to register his votes. He also appeared to be away from his desk and screen at one point during the meeting;
In Counsel’s opinion, these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed. Under the Surrey Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures, a member should decline to vote unless he or she has been present throughout the consideration of the item. Under the relevant remote meeting regulations, a member will not be deemed to be present by virtue of a remote connection to a meeting unless he or she can both hear the other council members in attendance and be heard by the other council members in attendance. The effect of this is that there were times during the consideration of the Application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law. There was a further problem (at least as a matter of perception) that one Councillor may have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak (and possibly from asking questions that may have allayed his concerns) due to the problems with his technology. All three of these Councillors voted on the Application (although arguably one Councillor’s vote should not be counted given that, strictly speaking, he was not in attendance at the time), and, given the tight vote, it clearly could not be said that their votes made no difference to the outcome.
Because of all this, there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations set out above.
This just received from the Monitoring Officer SCC!
Dear Sir/Madam
I write further to the complaint you submitted regarding the decision and circumstances surrounding the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on the 29th June 2020 and consideration of the planning application on Land south of Dunsfold Road and east of High Loxley Road, Dunsfold (ref: WA/2019/0796).
I apologise that it has taken some time to respond, this was due to me seeking Counsel’s opinion on the issues raised in many complaints received by the Council.
In summary, on the basis of advice received from Counsel, there is a significant likelihood that the irregularities arising from the technical difficulties at the meeting on 29 June 2020 render the resolution to refuse invalid and would render any notice of refusal unlawful. The most appropriate and fairest course of action is to take the application back to committee. This is what the Council has decided to do.
In more detail, the complaints related to a number of issues including:
- A councillor made a presentation to the Committee in her role as member for the electoral ward but in addition made further contributions later during the Committee’s deliberations.
- A number of the members of the Committee who participated in the debate in respect of the Application did so with assistance from individuals who were not members of the Committee.
- The live feed of the meeting dropped out on a number of occasions. Web-cast viewers witnessed a Councillor attempting to verbalise his vote on the refusal motion but not being able to do so because of technical issues.
- On the basis of the numerous technical difficulties in the Committee meeting, it cannot be concluded that members and the wider general public were able to hear and understand all relevant arguments being made.
- some members of the Committee were engaging in electronic communications with non-Committee members during the debate on the Application.
- The procedure at Committee did not allow for a proper assessment of the material considerations. As a result, the planning balance performed by members was inaccurate and incomplete.
- The Council’s Code of Best Practice in Planning Procedures states that when a resolution is proposed which is contrary to an officer recommendation, “The Chairman will summarise, or cause to be summarised, the salient points of the debate, and ensure the text of the proposition is clearly understood before putting the matter to the vote”.
- The motion approved by the Committee to refuse the Application was not made on any valid planning grounds.
Counsel’s view was that the most significant issues at the meeting were in relation to the question of whether councillors were “in attendance” given the committee meeting was held remotely. This was the first planning committee meeting the Council had held under the provisions of the Local Authorities and Police Crime Panels (C