23.07.01 - Letter to the Members of the Operational Services Board, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
The reasons which could lead to a successful challenge of the inspector's appeal decision in the High Court
THE TELEPHONE HOUSE NEIGHBOURS ASSOCIATION
37 Church Road
Royal Tunbridge Wells
Oliver-Smith, Veitch, Lynes, Noakes, Weeden, Cload, Cunningham, Catt, Neve, Young, Blackburn, Poile, Rusbridge, Paulson-Ellis, - Price, Scholes
cc: Member of Parliament: Archie Norman
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Town Hall TN1 1RS
23 July 2001
Operational Services Board Meeting 26 July 2001
- Agenda Item 12 (OPS/01/07/09)
TELEPHONE HOUSE Development
We understand that at the Operational Services Board Meeting on Thursday, 26 July, the public is excluded and we have no possibility to do a presentation to you. For this reason we urge you to give this letter your utmost consideration concerning Item 12 of the Agenda (Telephone House).
You might be advised by officers that it is impossible or even unconstitutional to take out Policy H6(a) from the Local Plan Review at this stage. It certainly can be taken out in a full Council Meeting. On 17 July, we had asked Rodney Stone, Chief Executive, to support and arrange such a meeting.
For various reasons, Policy H6(a) should not have been integrated into the Local Plan. Please refer to our letter which was addressed to you before the Meeting on 23 May.
The consequences of leaving such a controversial item in the Local Plan are now well known, as, contrary to Rodney Stone's advice to Councillors, the Inspector made Policy H6(a) part of his reasoning for allowing the Crest Homes appeal.
23.05.01 - THNA letter to all Councillors prior to the extraordinary Council Meeting :
We asked Rodney Stone for clarification about Policy H6(a) on 6 June. These are the questions to which we are still waiting for answers:
15. The Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy, dated May 2001, on pages 122 & 123 deals with the Telephone House site.
If you are minded to allow Policy H6(a) to stay in the Local Plan Review for the time of the Public Consultation, this, according to the Government Office for the South East, would ultimately lead to another Public Inquiry.
(This possible second Public Inquiry has nothing to do with Crest Homes Appeal, but with the unresolved objections of residents concerning this policy.)
With regard to the Inspector's report we believe the followingReasons could lead to a successful challenge in the High Court:
The reasons in the Appeal Decision are given by the Inspector under Sections 14 to 31:
2 years after the appeal, April 2003 - What is the nature of the negotiations between TWBC and Crest Nicholson?
There are more discrepancies in other sections which are technical and one can go into at a later stage.
We trust that we prove to you that there are sufficient grounds for a judicial review, and that you will support this move. The deadline for a submission to the High Court is 13th August.
The Telephone House Neighbours Association
|Could the Inspector's decisions have been challenged ?|
Bizarrely, Policy H6(a) allocated for Telephone House was identical to the two refused planning applications for the Telephone House development.
[1st: refused at delegated officers' level - 2nd: refused by the Councillors of the Western Area Planning Committee].
Policy H6(a) is the most controversial document, produced by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, leading to the Telephone House Debacle.
The Telephone House Neighbours Association, Tunbridge Wells
The aims are to heighten peoples' awareness and concern for the controversial planning permission of the high density development of Telephone House site, Church Road / York Road, Tunbridge Wells.