Re-sent as requested by Bob Duxbury

 

 

Dear Mr Duxbury

 

Public Consultation on planning application 09/00909/REM – Land off Gavray Drive, Bicester

 

Thank you for sending through a copy of the public consultation strategy submitted by Gallaghers pursuant to Condition 7 of the outline permission for the above site.

 

I note that this strategy was approved without itself being subject to public consultation outside of CDC, although in response to my repeated requests to see the submission you did provide me with an earlier version about which I expressed serious concerns in e-mail correspondence dated 2^nd June 2009. My concerns related to the extent to which the submitted strategy did (or rather did not) conform both to the wording of condition 7 of the outline planning permission and the spirit of that condition, as made explicit by the comments of the Planning Inspector who drew it up.

 

In this context I am alarmed to note that very little change has been made to the strategy to address these concerns and (rather ironically) that the strategy has now been approved by Cherwell without any further external or public consultation.

 

This is very relevant to the latest reserved matters submission (09/00909/REM). This submission is for matters related to drainage and infrastructure which have related implications that are especially relevant to local residents (I stress I am not one). However the public consultation strategy submitted by Gallaghers and now approved by CDC is most careful to exclude drainage and infrastructure from the list of reserved matters upon which the public will be given a pre-submission opportunity to consider and comment upon.

 

To underline why this is unacceptable, I need do no more than return to the wording of condition 7 as imposed. This specifically states that the strategy for public consultation should include “details of the consultation process to be carried out whilst construction works are proposed, carried out and completed on the site including consultation on Design Codes, Master Plans, Ecological Construction Method Statement and reserved matter applications”.

 

The Condition, as worded, therefore makes no distinction between reserved matters applications for (e.g.) the external appearance of any buildings and those made in connection with drainage and infrastructure. No justification is given by the applicant in their consultation strategy as to why reserved matters on drainage and related infrastructure should be exempt from this public consultation process, and I conclude that any such exemption is in clear breach of Condition 7.

 

The applicant has sought, including in the text of the consultation strategy, to obfuscate and dilute the requirements of Condition 7 through exploiting a nuance in the wording which suggests that the consultation strategy need only be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. This is merely a diversionary tactic and to underline why it should be dismissed as such one need look no further than paragraph 122 of the Inspector’s report, which states:

 

“Although an unusually full and detailed level of public consultation has already been carried out by the appellants in connection with this application (and a duplicate one) it was common ground that the local community should continue to be involved in decisions on the details of the scheme. This would include in relation to the Master Plan, Design Codes and Ecological Construction Method Statement, in addition to reserved matters applications. The proposed condition (no.7) would ensure that a public consultation strategy is prepared and followed, consistent with the advice in PPS1 and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement”.    

 

There can be no doubt that the lack of any advanced public consultation on application 09/00909/REM is in clear breach of the Inspector’s recommendations, as endorsed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the Council’s prior approval of the Design Codes/Masterplan documents would also appear to have been in clear contravention of the Inspector’s intentions for public consultation as reflected in his imposition of Condition 7.

 

There seems no other solution to this failure to accord with the provisions of the outline planning consent than for the current submission 09/00909/REM to be withdrawn and only re-submitted after the provisions set out at section 3.3 of the approved consultation strategy have been followed. Withdrawing the application would also, of course, provide an opportunity for its inherent failings in respect of Condition 14, and about which I have written under separate cover, to also be addressed.

 

I would be grateful if you could advise me of Cherwell’s intended course of action in the light of the above.  

 

Best regards

 

 

Dominic Woodfield MIEEM CEnv
Director

Bioscan (UK) Ltd
The Old Parlour
Little Baldon Farm
Oxford
OX44 9PU

 

This email (and any attachment) is confidential and is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not copy, distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose it to anyone. Any confidentiality is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately by using the e-mail address or telephone +44 (0) 1865 341321 and permanently delete the original and any copy or print out of this e-mail. Whilst we try to ensure that messages and attachments are virus-free, we cannot accept responsibility where this is not the case. No responsibility is accepted by Bioscan (UK) Ltd for personal e-mails or those unconnected with our business.

 

Please consider the environment before printing this email