UK could do well out of climate change
Wokingham Today of 23rd February and again on 2nd March reported that the SOLVE Hall Farm petition to stop significant housing development on land around Hall Farm, signed by over 1,800 people, had been denied a debate in council by WBC.
Apparently, a debate on a matter relating to ‘live planning issues’ would be against the Council’s constitution.
We are glad that the Council’s behaviour towards us in refusing to debate our petition is receiving publicity, but there is concern over the coverage of the story your report offered.
Unfortunately, neither your reporter nor the WBC spokesperson appeared to have consulted the Council’s constitution.
The relevant clause (3.5.1.2) doesn’t say we aren’t entitled to ‘have a debate’ on our petition. It says that a petition is not acceptable if it is on a ‘matter relating to a planning decision’. If that’s the case, our petition shouldn’t have been accepted at all. But in fact WBC has accepted petitions ‘relating to a planning decision’, in 2018 (South of Cutbush Lane, Shinfield), and again in 2022 (Rook’s Nest, Finchampstead).
The Council’s 2021 Local Plan Update consultation document refers to two further petitions accepted by the Council that related to a planning decision. It seems in this respect that WBC’s constitution is “more honoured in the breach than the observance”.
What’s more, neither the Council spokesperson nor your reporter seemed aware that in January 2019 a debate was held in council by WBC on ‘a petition relating to a planning decision’ (South of Cutbush Lane). In other words, the very thing took place that we were told was against the rules! So the Council has treated us inconsistently with its actual practice. We have protested about this unfairness to the Council Leader, but have yet to receive a proper explanation.
In rejecting the SOLVE Hall Farm petition debate, Wokingham Borough Council has got itself into something of a mess. It looks as if it has not only broken one of its own rules, it has imposed on us a rule that’s not stated in its constitution. Someone needs to sort this out.
Pat Phillipps, via email