Questions remain over controversial Crowborough planning decision

The discussion came at a meeting of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee on Monday, November 16, where members had the opportunity to question cabinet member for planning and development Ann Newton. 

As part of her report to the committee, Cllr Newton laid out how member training has been arranged to cover a number of planning matters. 

However, the topic of training saw some questions raised by Cllr Patricia Patterson-Vanegas, leader of the council’s Green Party group.

She said: “I can see that plenty of training for planning will be offered to councillors in the near future. As welcome as that is, there is still in the conversation questions, at least for me, [about] the process of decision making.

“If we don’t talk about this, I think it becomes bigger and bigger. I’m not necessarily holding Wealden to any misbehaviour, all I’m finding is the more I ask questions, the less information I receive. Of course as an elected councillor, my duty to scrutinise is important for me.

“Let me give you an example of what I mean. You, two top officers and I, had a meeting over the summer where I raised three specific questions about a particular planning decision that has been very controversial. 

“To those three questions, you and the two other officers said you can not reply and could not give me that information because it was confidential. You also said it was confidential because you needed to protect the council and the councillors.

“However, later that same day I discovered that the answer to my three questions had been published in the Sussex Express. So there is information that is confidential to elected councillors, even though it has already been in the news.

“I find that a little bit confusing.”

She went on to ask Cllr Newton to comment on why the information had been considered to be confidential when it had already been disclosed.

While not mentioned by name, Cllr Patterson-Vanegas appeared to be referencing the circumstances surrounding an application to build up to 119 homes on land off of Eridge Road in Crowborough.

The scheme had initially been refused at a planning committee meeting held in March, but was brought back for a second hearing at a committee in July, where the application was approved.

At the time, a Wealden District Council spokesman said the second hearing had been called after “concerns were raised about the decision-making process”. What these precise concerns were have not been made public nor, opposition parties say, shared with councillors.

In response to Cllr Patterson-Vanegas’s comments, Cllr Newton said: “The substance of what you are talking about is not within my report, so it seems to be a separate question which I don’t really feel is appropriate for this meeting today. 

“You comment on something which appeared in the Sussex Express, which I think was as the result of a Freedom of Information request. 

“I don’t govern Freedom of Information requests, nor do I publish or am the publisher of the Sussex Express. So I am not quite sure how I have any jurisdiction over that at all. 

“The training that will come up over the foreseeable few weeks, will cover many topics and I am sure you can ask for anything else to be added at the appropriate training session, you can see there are going to be many.

“Other than that I really have nothing else to add.” 

Cllr Newton had previously been asked by councillors to comment on the circumstances surrounding the application at a full council meeting in July. She declined to answer, saying she does not respond to questions about individual planning applications “in the public domain.”

However, Cllr Newton is correct that the information published in the Sussex Express – as well as other titles – was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

The FOI request had sought the release of all correspondence between the council and the developer, on the dates between the two committee meetings.

The correspondence showed a representative of developers Fairfax Acquisitions Limited complained that the reasons given for refusal had not been discussed at a previous meeting in February and cited “potential procedural errors”.

The representative also “urged” the council not to formally issue the decision notice.

While the council released much of the correspondence, there was an indication within the documents that the developer had intended to write further to the council laying out its views on what potential errors had occurred.

When challenged on whether all the requested information had been released, the council confirmed that some the correspondence had been withheld on the grounds its release would “adversely affect the course of justice.”

This decision to withhold this information had not been made explicit in the initial response to the LDRS request.

The LDRS has challenged this decision through an internal review, which the council was required to respond to by November 9, in order to meet the statutory timeline. As of November 16, no further response has been received. 

The topic of FOI requests were touched on later in the meeting, with Cllr Patterson-Vanegas asking council leader Bob Standley to comment on why the council did “not deliver Freedom of Information requests on time”.

She said she was aware of “at least two” FOI requests that had not been answered within statutory timeframes. 

In response, Cllr Standley said: “We do try to deliver on time [but] it depends on how much work is involved in getting the information together. 

“If the councillor would let me know which ones she is referring to, I will see where we are up to with them, if they haven’t already been published.”