Faraday Road flats appeal lodged
Important document not sent to councillors before decision to reject former NWN building plan
AN appeal has been lodged against West Berkshire Council’s failure to state its reasons for refusing a planning application for the former Newbury Weekly News offices.
The council’s Western Area Planning Committee refused plans to demolish Newspaper House in Faraday Road and replace it with flats.
The scheme was refused, but complaints have been made that an important document was not circulated to councillors before the meeting.
The meeting was held on February 5, but a decision notice detailing the council’s reason for turning down the scheme has still not been published.
Newspaper Holdings Ltd, a separate, unconnected company to NWN owner Newbury News and Media Ltd, has now filed an appeal against the refusal on the grounds of non-determination.
Tony Vickers (Lib Dem, Wash Common) has complained to the council and Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) over the “flawed” decision.
Mr Vickers said that the council was told on May 11, 13 weeks after the meeting, that Newspaper Holdings Ltd was going to appeal.
He said: “You’re not surprised that after 13 weeks, when they’ve not heard a dickie bird from the council, they go to appeal for non-determination, but I’ve still not had an explanation for why there was that period.
“I know we’re in the middle of a Covid crisis, so that’s a certain excuse, but it’s not a difficult thing to issue a decision notice.
“The only assumption one can make is that they’ve realised the decision was defective.”
Officers recommended that the plans be rejected over concerns about the potential for the site to flood, a conclusion they had come to based on a sequential test.
However, in a written opinion shared with the council in October 2019, the applicant’s QC
Robert Walton advised that the criticisms of the sequential test were “misconceived”.
However, this document was not circulated to councillors prior to the meeting, nor was it uploaded to the council’s planning portal – where members of the public can view applications.
Instead, the director of Pro Vision, Steven Smallman, acting on behalf of the applicant, sent an email to councillors making them aware of its existence.
After the meeting, Mr Vickers made a formal complaint to the council’s monitoring officer, questioning why councillors did not receive the information until the day before it was debated, even though it had been submitted months before.
Mr Vickers said the council’s response to his internal complaint “didn’t hold water” and had left him feeling insulted.
“It said that the officers considered it, but they didn’t think it was important,” he said.
“Yet the only reason for refusing the application was the one issue that the applicant had taken formal legal opinion on and given that document to the council.
“How could it have been so insignificant as not to have been made available to the members of the committee who were making the decision?
“It’s like saying ‘we’ve made up our minds and we’re not going to show you the other side of the argument’.”
A complaint has been passed on to the head of planning and countryside Gary Lugg, but Mr Vickers said the deadline for a response was nearing.
He said: “All I can think of is that after the meeting they realised they didn’t really have grounds for refusal, there was a defective decision effectively, so they better not issue the decision notice.
“Why didn’t they just set aside the decision and reconvene the committee or take it up to the district committee. I have never had an adequate explanation.”
The NWN vacated Newspaper House last year following the closure of its printing press, leaving the large building no longer suitable for what the company needed.
The NWN was bought by Newbury News and Media Ltd shortly afterwards.
The land is at the end of the London Road Industrial Estate, and opposite the former football ground, which the council has been seeking to redevelop.
Mr Vickers said his letter to the LGO mentioned the wider dimension of Newspaper Housing being right next to “a large and important council-owned site for which the council is developing its own proposals”.
You’re not surprised that after 13 weeks, when they’ve not heard a dickie bird from the council, they go to appeal for non-determination, but I’ve still not had an explanation for why there was that period