A motion by Cllr Chris Jarman (Alliance) calling for the West Acre Park planning application to be recalled to the Isle of Wight Council Planning Committee at a later date has been rejected by members.
In a named vote held during today’s Planning Committee meeting, six councillors voted against, and four councillors voted in favour of the motion which questioned the processes leading up to the decision to approve the application for 473 new homes on the site of Westridge Farm at the July 2021 Committee meeting, chaired by the vice-chairman, Cllr Geoff Brodie (Ind Lab).
As reported by News OnTheWight solicitors acting for those opposing the application made claims of bullying, ‘apparent bias’, legal errors and more in letter sent to Isle of Wight Council last December.
Chairman’s position questioned
At the start of the item, the Chairman’s position was questioned. Cllr Michael Lilley (Alliance) had already explained outside of the meeting that he would be abstaining from the vote.
Cllr Chris Quirk (Con) said he felt it was inappropriate that Cllr Lilley chair the meeting as he had previously stated he had a prejudicial interest in the item.
Cllr Lilley said he’d received legal advice and had taken the decision to continue to chair all the items of the meeting. He said the final advice had been clear-cut and was happy to share it outside the meeting.
Cllr Brodie requested a summary of the advice given from the Monitoring Officer, Chris Potter. Cllr Lilley said he had not seen any advice from Mr Potter, but had talked to the LGA and lawyers to reach his conclusion about chairing the meeting.
Cllr Brading asked what would happen if there was a vote tie. Cllr Lilley explained that although he would abstain from the main vote, if there was a 5-5 tie he would use his casting vote to break the tie. As the final vote was 6-4 he did not need to use the casting vote.
The motion and debate
Cllr Jarman gave a short introduction to his motion, saying that with the benefit of eight months between the decision being made and now, they are now much better informed. Read the rest of his speech below.
The first to speak, Cllr Quirk said he believed it was a “despicable motion” and would not support it. He said he believed the best course of action was to let it go to Judicial Review.
Cllr Matthew Price (Con), who accepted last summer that because he had left the site visit early it meant he was unable to speak to or vote on the application, explained how his main concern was ensuring the Island remained dairy self sufficient.
He told members that he respected the spirit of the motion, but had become less convinced about issues with the process.
Spink: We have a duty to take that opportunity
Cllr Peter Spink (Con) told members he was shocked and surprised by the amount of pressure that he felt the committee had been put under by planning officers and the acting chair (Cllr Brodie).
He explained that immediately after the Planning Committee meeting of 27th July 2021, where the West Acre Park application was considered, he wrote straight away to ask for the matter to be called back under a provision in the constitution for a cooling off. He said this was refused by the Monitoring Officer, Chris Potter.
“It seems to me that we should reconsider it [the application], therefore I support the motion. As a matter of law we have a right to reconsider, as set out in the CEO’s report. We have a duty to do so, if the decision to grant permission without recalling it is unlawful. My view is that there were material irregularities that are likely to be upheld in judicial review.
“We have a duty to take that opportunity. We have seen legal advice from solicitors who represent the parties for judicial review, various authorities, looks to me on three readings of the papers to be convincing. The problem is that the IWC has chosen not to disclose their legal advice, so we can’t weigh it up.”
He asked others to support the motion.
Drew: A certain amount of frenetic pressure
Cllr Warren Drew (Con) said he believed the case was about threshold, and he was “not entirely convinced” by the solicitors that the threshold was reached for a judicial review.
He added that there “was a certain amount of frenetic pressure in that [July 21] meeting”.
Brading: No pressure from officers or vice-chairman
Cllr Paul Brading (Con) said making a decision about the application was always going to be a difficult one and that whilst he was new to the planning committee last year, he’d watched many over the years, and approached his duty as being open minded and listened to all views.
He disagreed with those who claimed there was pressure from officers and vice-chairman.
Adams: I was pressured
Cllr David Adams (Alliance) said Cllr Brading did not know his personal situation and that pressure was applied to him from the developers’ solicitor, with pressure being applied before being voted in as a councillor.
He claimed the processes were not transparent and said, “we have a duty to put this right and we’re failing in our duty if we do not put it right”.
Oliver: Can’t understand why we’re looking at it
Cllr Martin Oliver (Con) said they spent four hours making the decision last July and that there wasn’t enough evidence to say no to the application.
He said he couldn’t understand why they were looking at the decision again eight months later and accused some of the language being used in support of the motion as appalling.
Brodie: The fallout has been frankly atrocious
Cllr Brodie, who chaired the Planning Committee meeting last July, told members that it had been “possibly the most difficult committee I’ve sat on”.
He said,
“The fallout has been frankly atrocious, I won’t go into implications for me and my partner, we’re robust people. By November last year I was beginning to have doubts. When I left the meeting I was certain we had done things properly. In November it was becoming evident how much anger there was around.”
He said this led to him leaving the Alliance Group administration.
Brodie: I think we need to put it to bed
Cllr Brodie went on to say,
“I took a view at one point that maybe we should have reconsideration. The CEO sought legal advice from a QC, all that legal advice was shared with the committee, and it’s clear on reading the documents that this was a safe decision, entirely defendable at judicial review.
“I will vote against the motion, I think we need to put it to bed. If objectors want to go to judicial review they need to get on with it”
Cllr Brodie went on to add,
“There’s a cancer at the heart of this council and we’re not going to start dealing with it, unless we deal with it tonight.”
Jarman: Motion does not seek to overturn that decision
In summing up, Cllr Jarman emphasised that the motion was not about the examination of the decision made in July 2021.
“It does not seek to overturn that decision, it is about the process leading up to that decision. I’m very focused here on the process, not the outcome. I’m not seeking to overturn that decision.
“If you can put your hand on your heart and state that the original advice you were given, the analysis on local plan, the guidance on attendance and the procedures that were followed were without fault, then you should reject this motion.
“If you cannot, then it’s implicit that there was failings with the process and you may conclude that the process itself was unsafe and you should allow this process to be rerun as I believe many of us know it should have been, and was we’ve been told is correct practice and procedure. And that you should therefore vote to do the right thing and support the motion.”
The named vote
The motion was seconded by Cllr John Medland (Alliance). Those voting in favour were:
- Cllr Adams
- Cllr Jarman
- Cllr Medland
- Cllr Spink
Those against were:
- Cllr Brading
- Cllr Brodie
- Cllr Drew
- Cllr Oliver
- Cllr Quirk
- Cllr Price
Cllr Michael Lilley (Chairman) abstained. The motion fell.
Council officers are now in a position to sign the Section 106 agreement with developers, Captiva Homes, and formally issue the planning permission.
You can watch the meeting by clicking on play below.
“This is a motion that recognises that none of us are perfect, that we make mistakes, that we can learn from them and in this one moment, have the chance to put them right.
“I believe that each of carries inside us serious concerns regarding the multiple and changing regulatory advice we were given. Issue pertaining to the site visit, directions on the validity of the current Local Plan, and on the exclusion of councillors. And taken in concert the correctness, fairness and legality of the whole process.
“We have admitted these concerns and recognised the wrongful advice and mis-directions in open meetings, to each other in person and in emails and we have shared our views with external resident groups, solicitors and in the media.
“You will have received briefings that suggest that many of these issues and failings can be justified, defended and ultimately signed away. Certainly the opportunity to defend the mistakes would be much easier through Judicial Review, where the bar is higher. Whilst it may be possible to ultimately defend the case, that should not be our primary concern, we have a duty to correctly follow practice and law and we’re advised by many including the LGA and planning advisory service that we did not.
“It is not sufficient to simply defend our mistakes and to leave the stain sitting on the reputation of the council and this planning committee. Doubts and allegations would persist in the belief of very many residents and would only be bolstered by such a defensive course of action.
“Amongst the many items we can include correction of the faulty direction regarding the validity of the Local Plan. We can correct the exclusion of the ward councillor. We can correct the exclusion of Cllr Price.
“We must bring this tainted matter back, correct the failings observed and resolve to do it right. It is our duty and the expectation of our residents and I formally move the motion as per the paper.
Article edit
10am 30th Mar 2022 – Video added
11am 30th Mar 2022 – CJ speech added, section about Chairman’s position being questioned added
