WENTWORTH STREET CAR PARK SUPERSTORE APPLICATION 24TH APRIL 2014
My main concern is that the officers’ report leaves the Council wide open to judicial review, because they are so hopelessly biased.
For example, para. 6.28 of the officers’ report dismisses the findings of the inspector at the Livestock market Public Enquiry. I find this unbelieveable. All the inspector did was to accept the admissions made by the Council’s own consultant, when under cross-examination.
That admission was that there is only room for one new large food store in Ryedale, and that the most sequentially preferable site for this is the Livestock Market.
The Council also accepted these admissions in two ways:
Firstly they had to give a legally binding undertaking not to issue a consent for this site without first bringing the WSCP application back to committee. This is why we are here today.
Secondly, the Council had to agree to incorporate the LMS decision in the local plan– that is why the local plan says there is only room for one new large food store in Ryedale, and that the most sequentially preferred site is the LMS.
The applicants didn’t like to see this written into the local plan. So they brought a full team of experts with them to the second session of the local plans hearing, including leading counsel, and their planning consultants, Nathaniel Lichfield. And Parners.
The Fitzwiliam Estate were also there with a full team including consultants and leading counsel, Mr. Peter Village QC.
This Council was represented at the same hearing by leading counsel, Mr. Manley QC. The applicants asked the local plans inspector to consider some new evidence, including new figures and tables.
Mr. Manley on the Council’s behalf objected and the Council made it clear they wished to rely on the evidence which had been given at the LMS enquiry. On that basis the inspector refused to admit the applicant’s figures and only a few months ago the Council adopted the local plan.
So here we are today with yet another consultant, whose evidence has not been tested by cross-examination, saying that his opinion is better than:
- The views of the impartial inspector
- The admissions of the Council’s own consultants made under cross-examination;
- The Council’s own decision to incorporate the LMS decision into its local plan
I would remind members that this is déjà vue, the Council repeating its mistakes. You didn’t listen last time and the Council got a bill for £148,000.
Please do not make the same mistake again.
|
