The following correspondence and emails
are an account of how the Beacons National Park Authority drafted, approved and
then adopted the planning protocol by railroading it through committee stages,
plus avoiding public consultations.
On the 30th of January 2004
a full meeting of the Authority (not development control or planning) resolved
to adopt the planning protocol with immediate effect.
All the drafting and steering had been
conducted in closed sessions.
The public were not involved in anyway,
yet it affected them.
At some time after January the BBNPA
put an announcement on their website which was very misleading. They said the
planning protocol had been adopted when it had only been approved. This gave
the public the idea that it was done and dusted. However, they invited the
public to write into “public speaking” and make their comments. My emails
addressing issues concerning the protocol are laid out in items 1&2 below
the following letter.
The Chief Executive answered my emails
by return. Then when I asked the critical questions of whether the protocol was
approved or adopted or when the public consultations were due to end, there was
complete silence from the authority.
This was March 25th 2004
By chance on the Ist of April I saw the
BBNPA Agenda for the next days meeting. To speak at committee meetings the
public have to apply 48 hours in advance. The protocol did not appear as an
agenda item, but it was hidden in an enclosure amongst other items of records
of previous meetings to be approved. It slipped through unnoticed. It was
blatantly clear that the authority did not want myself or others discussing the
protocol, as it seems they went to a number of lengths to throw us off the
trail.
Therefore the meeting nodded through
the planning protocol and most members were not aware they had adopted it ,
until one member Cllr Alan Baynham asked if he could debate the protocol. He
was promptly told he could not because it had just been adopted. None the less
he spoke out about there being no public consultations. At this point, and as
the only member of the public present, I interrupted the proceedings with my
protest. The rest follows.
Niel Bally
Subject: PUBLIC
APOLOGY
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:28:27 +0100
To: <meirion.thomas@> (Chairman)
Dear Chairman,
May I offer my sincere apologies to you
and the members for my protest and disruption of the authority’s meeting last
Friday and causing you to adjourn the proceedings? I hope you understand the
mitigating circumstances, explained below, and my frustrations. In my opinion I
feel I witnessed legislation being adopted and railroaded through committee stages, without the public being
properly consulted or notified.
As you know there were a number of
e-mails exchanged between myself and Mr Gledhill, regarding the Planning
Protocol, starting on the 17th of March 2004.
As evidence these exchanges are set out below and you will notice the
e-mails were also sent to you. Under
items B you will see that Mr Gledhill immediately answered in person to my
e-mails addressed to “public speaking”. However, under Items A and in complete
contrast, you will discover 4 e-mails from of the 23- 25th of March 2004 asking
for straight forward public information about the protocol schedule and whether
it was adopted or not. Despite personally e-mailing “Public speaking”, Mr Gledhill, Yourself, Mr Bowles, and Angela
Magee for these facts, there was never a single reply, and the protocol
slipped through to adoption last Friday, when I was told by the Chief Executive
that the authority was not obliged to answer emails in under 20 days. The web site published the protocol as
"adopted", but this turned out to be totally misleading. In addition
to this Lisa Francis AM (Mid and West Wales) tabled five questions to the
Minister Carwyn Jones concerning the timetable of the protocol and what stage/
status it was at. Copies were also sent to you.
Whilst I appreciate the Chief
Executives prompt and substantial replies to my first two e-mails, I fail to
understand why your authority declined to inform myself and others about the
Protocol schedule and that it was being adopted last Friday on the April 2nd
2004. Your authority had obviously planned this well in advance, and they did
not even publish this public information or the agenda on their web site.
Surely this can all be perceived as a wilful withholding of public information?
I am sure others will now read into
this episode on a number of serious levels. My main concerns are about your
authority's seeming lack of (if not
proven) transparency, access to information and the public not being consulted
on important matters such as legal/ legislation. Unfortunately, it seems as if
your authority is openly displaying fears about engaging with its public. I
know I am not alone, and I only hope your authority will see itself as going
forwards into the new climate, rather than backwards.
My sincere apologies again for the
disruption.
Yours faithfully
Niel Bally
Cc: Chief Executive , BBNPA Members, AMs etc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEMS A:
4 EMAILS ASKING THE AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROTOCOL’S EXTENT STATUS & SHEDULE (23- 25th March 04)
RESULT: NO REPLIES FROM THE AUTHORITY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1-
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:26:12 +0100
To: <publicspeaking@breconbeacons.org>, <chris.gledhill@ >, <eric.bowles@>
Cc: <meirion.Thomas@ >, <kirsty.Williams AM@ >, < Roger Williams MP@>, <Nicholas.Bourne AM@>, <Lord Livsey@>, <Helen-Mary.Jones AM@>, <Rhodri.Thomas AM@>, <Cllr G Jones@>
Subject: PLANNING PROTOCOL/ Brecon
Beacons NPA
Dear Sir/ Madam/ Mr Gledhill and Mr
Bowles,
Having received prompt replies to my
initial queries (below) about the content of the protocol, it now seems that
the answer to my last two emails of the 23rd & 22nd March for specific
information is not forthcoming.
More importantly and in addition to
this, there is confusion about the protocol document itself and its status. Is
it ADOPTED or is it at the APPROVED stage? Your web site announcements and the
document say both.
Therefore:
When will it be adopted?
Or when was it adopted?
When did the public consultations
begin?
Where was it announced?
Have the consultations ended?
I look for to your reply ASAP.
Yours sincerely
Niel Bally
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
From: "Nat Parks" <national_parks_reforms@>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:35:43 +0000
To: publicspeaking@breconbeacons.org, Chris.Gledhill@ Meirion.Thomas@, Eric.Bowles@, Jackie Charlton@
Subject: RE: PARKS PROTOCOL/ TABLED
ASSEMBLY QUESTIONS
TABLED QUESTIONS FOR MINISTER CARWYN
JONES re BBNPA Planning Protocol.
ANSWERS for 31 MARCH 22004
Lisa Francis (Mid and West Wales); In
respect of the Brecon Beacons National Park new Secondary Legislation/Planning
Protocol, on what date did the Public consultation start and in what media
context. (WAQ34023)
Lisa Francis (Mid and West Wales); When
is the public consultation in
Respect of the Brecon Beacons National
Park new Secondary
Legislation/Planning Protocol going to
finish. (WAQ34030)
Lisa Francis (Mid and West Wales); if
the Brecon Beacons National Park new
Secondary Legislation and Planning
Protocol is awaiting adoption, what date
Will the adoption be on? (WAQ34031)
Lisa Francis (Mid and West Wales); In
respect of the Brecon Beacons National Park new Secondary Legislation/Planning
Protocol, how would members of the public submit proposals for amendments.
(WAQ34025)
Lisa Francis (Mid and West Wales); In
respect of the Brecon Beacons National Park, is the new Secondary
Legislation/Planning Protocol yet approved or adopted. (WAQ34029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-3-
From: "Nat Parks" <national_parks_reforms@>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:08:41 +0000
To: publicspeaking@breconbeacons.org, Angela.Magee@, Chris.Smith@, and Meirion.Thomas@
Subject:
PROTOCOL/LEGISLATION/Brecon Beacons NPA
Consultations?
FOR YOUR ATTENTION & REFERENCE
Dear Sir/ Madam,
BBNPA PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS?
We are writing on our behalf and for
the notification of the above listed politicians whose electoral areas and
constituencies crossover or adjoin the Brecon Beacons National Park. We are
concerned about the new Secondary Legislation / Planning Protocol, the seeming
lack of public consultations for it, and whether it has been adopted or not. We
would like a chance to contact others and make some formal representations
concerning its content.
Could you please first answer the following:
1.4 of the protocol document (attached)
says it has been ADOPTED. A previous web page of yours said the same. HOWEVER, the front page of the document says
it was APPROVED on the 30th January 2004. Obviously there is a contradiction.
Is the protocol approved or adopted?
On what date did the Public
Consultations start and in what media context?
Have they finished?
If the document is awaiting adoption,
then what date is the adoption on?
How do we submit proposals for
amendments?
We would be grateful of your reply ASAP
Yours faithfully NPA <national_parks_reforms@>
<http://www.nationalparksreforms.co.uk>
-------------------------------------------------------
-4-
From: niel.bally
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:29:42 +0100
To: <publicspeaking@breconbeacons.org>
Subject: PROTOCOL CONSULTATION
Dear Sir
I notice you have withdrawn references
to the proposed Planning Protocol from your website. Is there any reason for
this?
Yours sincerely
Niel Bally
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEMS B.
E-MAILS FROM TO AND FROM Chief
Executive MR GLEDHILL.
Prompt replies
(NB. Fault: missing ‘L’ in Chris
gledhill email address, which means all messages back to him do not arrive.
Therefore the CEO gets the last word)
------------------------------------------------------------------
-1-
on 19/3/04 8:13 am, Chris Gledhill at chris.gledhil@ wrote:
Dear
Mr Bally
I
thank you for your recent e-mail about our Planning Protocol.
The
LGA advice is quite clear - a planning authority may decide to have accompanied
or unaccompanied site visits. In other words it is for the planning authority
to decide which sort of site visit it will adopt. Members of the public,
through our Public Speaking scheme have the opportunity to speak at our
Committee meetings and put their point of view across.
I
note your comments on lobbying. You will find that many planning authorities
take a stand on this issue that is similar to the Authority's. I do not agree
that the provisions "could be used as an instrument to silence or neuter a
member unfairly": members have the opportunity at all times to seek guidance
from the Authority's monitoring officer or solicitor who will provide impartial
and practical advice to members.
Christopher
Gledhill
Chief
Executive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
From: niel bally ]
Sent: 17 March 2004 15:14
To: publicspeaking@breconbeacons.org
Cc: meirion.thomas@, chris.gledhill@
Subject: PLANNING PROTOCOL
Sirs/Madames
OBJECTION TO NEW (proposed) PLANNING
PROTOCOL
OBJECTION 1
I object to clauses 4. 5 (bullet 3)
& 4.7 (bullet 4) on the grounds that it is a departure from the official
Local Government Assoc. (updated) guidelines known as “Probity in Planning” As
you know this was the blue print you were working from.
This is a departure because your
proposed protocol has eliminated the choice of having site meetings that
include objectors and applicants being present.
If you read the LGA clause it was never
prescriptive and says that “such an
inspection could be unaccompanied” see quote below
13 Committee site visit
13.2
Site visits consisting simply of an inspection by a viewing
subcommittee, with officer assistance, is in most cases the most fair and
equitable approach as between applicant and objectors; and such an inspection could be unaccompanied (i.e. without applicant and
objectors) or accompanied but run on the strict lines of a planning inspector's
site inspection.
Presumably the authority should give
reasoned justification when it proposes to depart from guidelines?
OBJECTION 2
The clauses concerning “Lobbying” are
too prescriptive and could be used as an instrument to silence or neuter a
member unfairly.
I will reserve my final conclusion of
this objection to this part of the protocol upon reading some background papers
and legislation.
Yours faithfully
Niel Bally, Taflod, Wernfawr, Talgarth,
Brecon LD3 ODY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-3-
From: "Chris Gledhill" <chris.gledhil@> (fault)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:15:52 -0000
To: "'niel
bally'"
Subject: RE: OBJECTION /PLANNING PROTOCOL/ /BBNPA
Dear
Mr Bally
Thank
you for your response. I believe that this Authority has been given the best
legal advice and that the interpretation of the LGA guidance is correct. This
Planning Protocol was introduced as a result of an Ombudsman’s finding against
this Authority. The protocol relates to both Members of the Authority and
staff. It is based on legal advice to the Authority.
Yours
sincerely
Christopher
Gledhill
Chief
Executive
Brecon
Beacons National Park Authority Tel 01874 620469
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-4-
From: niel bally
Sent: 19 March 2004 19:19
To: publicspeaking@ , <chris.gledhill@> , <meirion.thomas@>
Subject: OBJECTION /PLANNING PROTOCOL/ /BBNPA (RESEND)
From: niel bally
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:31:58 +0000
To: <chris.gledhil@> (fault)
Cc: <meirion.thomas@>, <jevans@>, <williamsr@>, <nicholas.bourne@>, <livseyr@>, <national_parks_reforms>
Dear Mr Gledhill,
Thank you for your reply and opinions
(below). However, I believe the issues are still about the LGA guidelines and
how they have been interpreted and whether the members of your authority have
been fully advised or not, as to where these proposals have derived from and
for what purpose. I am sure you realise the importance of what matters when
proposed legislation is being formulated - that its implications are looked at
from all angles. Obviously everyone has to anticipate how it could be used for
the good or be plainly abused. If there is reasonable doubt then those fears
should be fully aired.
I will pass on your message, and see
what others think of this correspondence, but for the moment I will have to say
I beg to differ with you. I still
stand by my objection on "lobbying" and that the LGA guidance 13.2
does not give a prescriptive choice to choose one or the other method. The
operative word in the clause is
"could". This can be interpreted as meaning - that given the circumstances and or
material considerations of a particular case - either method could be chosen.
Is it the role of a protocol to pre-empt all cases and put the cart before the
horse?
As the authority is proposing the
elimination of choice in this matter, then I believe in the interest of
"openness and transparency”, the Authority should now offer
clarifications as to why this decision
is necessary. I am afraid your reply
has not explained this and I feel it is of public importance that we should
know and be informed.
You’re sincerely
Niel Bally
PS To clarify my point in paragraph 2
of my last email. (below)
Generally speaking guidance is not
designed to be prescriptive. As you say the 13.2 of the LGA guidance clearly
gives authorities a choice. However, you and your authority seem to have
interpreted this "choice" as being the right to make legislation in
favour of one of LGA suggestion at the expense of the other. A more "fair
and equitable approach”, (which the LGA document proffers in 13.2), gives
authorities the choice to choose the kind of meeting for a given situation.
This is quite different from your authority's proposal, which eliminates that
choice before the application has even been proposed. Therefore your
authority's proposal could well be seen by any reasonable minded person as
"driving the cart before the horse".
My objection also stretches to
"openness and transparency of decision making"- something your
authority has pledged to uphold .I believe the public should be the witness to
probity and decision making throughout the planning processes. The closed site
meetings could well be used as another method for predetermining an
application. Independent witnesses need to be there even if it is to observe
only.