Planning Application 21280/010 - Decision under Delegated Powers [Your Ref: 32176]

The request was successful.

Stephen Whiteside

Dear East Hampshire District Council,

I sent the following email to the case officer [Mrs S Ralston] on 9 January:
"In response to an FOI request, the attached letter [see note below] was provided by Mr Murray. Unfortunately, Mr Murray failed to provide a copy of the draft report referred to, which 'sets out the representations that have been received and explains why it is proposed to grant permission'. I note that in the end, the application was refused.
Could you please provide me with a copy of the draft report as sent to Cllr Watts? It would also be helpful if you could provide copies of any correspondence between officers and Cllr Watts between the date of the letter [12 September 2014] and the date of the decision taken at the delegated meeting.
Full details of the relevant FOI request can be found at the following address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Note: ‘the attached letter’ can be found as ‘Cllr notification letter.pdf’ at the above address [16 December 2014].

I sent a follow-up email this morning [12 January] asking for confirmation of receipt of the first, adding:
“…Although I do not believe it warranted in this case, if you think it would be best that I submit my request formally under the Freedom of Information Act, please let me know as soon as possible.”

Unfortunately, rather than simply providing the information requested [and without ‘letting me know], the Council has chosen to treat my emails as a formal FOI request, giving it a reference of 32176. I would therefore be grateful if THIS could now be considered as that formal request [32176] and the Council’s response posted here, rather than sent to my private email address.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear East Hampshire District Council,

Just to clarify, this information could/should be held by officers AND/OR Cllr Watts and from what we have been told by Mr Murray it would most likely be held in emails.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

It comes as no surprise that the Council has chosen to respond to my private address, rather than posting a response here. On the plus side, at least I have the information which I can now share.

According to the information disclosed, on 12 September 2014 the case officer [Mrs S Ralston] sent an email to Cllr Watts simply saying “Please see attached letter and draft report”. As noted above, the ‘attached letter’ referred to can be found as ‘Cllr notification letter.pdf’ at the following address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/l...

Cllr Watts apparently replied on 16 September, as follows:
Hi Susie
You can go ahead and determine this, I will not ask for it to go to Committee. Please note under 4, that you refer to a Parish Council – not sure if you mean the Town Council – we don’t have a parish, only the town, and the Holybourne Village Association.
Many thanks – I know this has been difficult for everyone.
Regards
Glynis

The only significant difference between draft and ‘final’ reports relates to the ‘developers contributions’ requested by the HCC Highway Engineer. According to the draft sent to the Councillor, a contribution of £40,250 had 'been secured by way of a legal agreement’, but in the final version [online] the case officer states that ‘due to ownership issues, it has not been possible to secure the contributions by way of a legal agreement’.

That discrepancy notwithstanding, the officer’s ‘Conclusion’ is EXACTLY the same in both reports and reads as follows:
“The proposal would not harm the amenity of the neighbouring properties, or impact upon the character and appearance of the area, and would not have an adverse effect on the safety and function of the highway network and is in compliance with the relevant policies of the East Hampshire District Council: Joint Core Strategy and East Hampshire District Council Local Plan: Second Review”.

Still entirely positive then, but even so the officer’s recommendation then changes from ‘permission’ to ‘refusal’, apparently SOLELY because “… No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures …”. But why could this not be ‘conditioned’?

Compare what happened here with [for instance] the highly controversial applications 52501/001 [land north of Brislands Lane, Four Marks] and 25256/032 [Friars Oak, Medstead], where the applicants were given 6 and 2 months respectively in which to sign a legal agreement, following a conditional permission. It would be interesting to know why this applicant was apparently treated so differently and in a way which I have already suggested to Cllr Watts would appear to be unfair. Either that or those who HAVE been given the extra time to sign on the dotted line [and I suspect there are many] have for some reason received preferential treatment. The Councillor has so far declined to comment.

For information, according to the EHDC website, Cllr Watts made no ‘consultee’ comment at all regarding this application, and my initial contact with her was to ask whether that was correct. I made the Councillor aware that in response to another FOI request posted on the WDTK website [22160/005-Land rear of Gloucester Road, Four Marks-Missing Councillor comments and Planning Statement and Use of Delegated Powers], the Council's Development Management Manager [Julia Mansi] has told us that some comments that councillors may make as consultee are only made verbally, rather than in writing. It has become very clear that any such comment[s] may not [therefore] be included in the officer's report and/or considered when applications are determined. Again, the Councillor has so far declined to comment.