A petition calling on the Isle of Wight council to protect the future of Brown’s Golf Course and Cafe has been rejected by the Isle of Wight council’s Monitoring Officer.
Launched last September, the online petition attracted over 3,000 signatures (beyond the 2,500 needed for an IWC debate) and called for the council to:
“Acknowledge the unique heritage of Brown’s and guarantee the protection of this much-loved public asset, with all it has to offer, for future generations.”
Heading to full council
The petition, along with more than 300 comments from residents, was sent to the Isle of Wight council last week, in order to be included in the next full council meeting (24th Feb).
Cllr Julie Jones-Evans had agreed to present the petition on behalf of Paul Coueslant of Our Sandown and Sandown Hub and all those who signed it.
Rejected as ‘inappropriate’
However, Chris Potter, the council’s Monitoring Officer, told Mr Coueslant today (Monday) that the petition was rejected as being ‘inappropriate’.
Mr Potter stated,
“I have to inform you that, now having sought more information surrounding the intention behind the petition, the petition is rejected as being ‘inappropriate’ (Part 4C of the Council’s Constitution).
“The reason why the petition is ‘inappropriate’ is that the Council does not have the same freedom of action which private landowners have. The Council has to exercise its powers regarding land in accordance with the public law.
“No local authority can give such a unconditional guarantee as is urged upon the Council and so such a motion would be invalid in law. No local authority can lay down such an absolute rule from which it cannot depart regardless of the merits. One of the established public law principles is that a local authority cannot predetermine its decisions (i.e. cannot decide in advance without all the relevant considerations being known at the time when the decision properly stands to be determined).”
He went on to add,
“Moreover, local authorities must act in the wider public interest, and therefore no local authority can seek to limit its discretion (i.e. fetter its discretion) by binding itself or future councils in the manner sought. I have, therefore, had no alternative but to reject your petition in the particular circumstances as being inappropriate.”
Coueslant: Stamping on voice of more than 3,000 supporters
The petition organiser, Paul Coueslant, told News OnTheWight,
“I’m astounded that the Isle of Wight Council have decided to stamp on the voice of more than 3,000 supporters of this petition.
“The motion for debate was designed to reflect exactly what petition supporters had signed up to. If councillors didn’t agree, they could have proposed an amendment to the motion and voted for that. Instead, they’re allowing no debate on the petition at all.
“Their decision makes it clear the Council have no intention of having any public discussion of their plans for Dinosaur Isle and Brown’s. That’s what’s concerned us from the start, and why the petition was launched in the first place.
“Petition supporters will find the reasons put forward by the Council for not allowing the debate puzzling and unacceptable.”
Image: © The Common Space
