“Residents have evidence that 4,350 m² of the site was only actually grazed for a period of around 9 months over a 10 year period. Taking all of this information into account, it is crucial that the calculation within this application includes the amended value of 5 Kg/Ha for the part of the site not used for grazing (approx. 47%) not 13 kg for the whole site as claimed by the applicant.”
“There may be areas of a greenfield development site that are not currently in agricultural use and have not been used as such for the last 10 years. In these areas as there is no agricultural input into the land a baseline nitrogen leaching value of 5 kg/ha should be used. This figure covers nitrogen loading from atmospheric deposition, pet waste and nitrogen fixing legumes.”
“The land has most recently been used for grazing horses, therefore this use has been used to calculate the current levels of nitrogen produced by the site (or the levels that would be produced at the site in the event that planning permission is not granted) …”
“During the period from September 2012 until August 2015 land at 79 Greenaway Lane … was used to graze my horse.”
“The total site area used for the current use and future use is a critical calculation resulting in the net effect of Nitrate increase/decrease. The area described as “area B” of 8,203 m² has been used in full in the calculation for this application as lowland grazing. Residents have specific evidence that this is wholly inaccurate, and the correct area is just under half that figure (circa 4,350 m²) and for a very limited period of time (910 months). Residents will testify under oath that the land to the west [i.e. north west] of Greenaway Lane has not been used for grazing horses during the time that they can remember, up to 10 years ago.”
“Additional representations have been received since thecommittee report was published. The representations raise the following issues: -The evidence submitted does not prove that all the land has been used for grazing or that it has been used consistently for grazing during the last 10 years. -Documents relating to the application were not previously made available to the public online. These include the applicant’s evidence used to establish the existing land use, the Local Planning Authority’s most recent Appropriate Assessment and the Local Planning Authority’s calculation of the site’s nitrogen budget. Comment: Natural England’s guidance (4.51) states: “It is important that farm type classification is appropriately precautionary. It is recommended that evidence is provided of the farm type for the last 10 years and professional judgement is used as to what the land would revert to in the absence of a planning application. In many cases, the local planning authority, as competent authority, will have appropriate knowledge of existing land uses to help inform this process.”
“It’s a point that has been raised by the deputees the provision of late information. What I would say members is that the information that has been provided at a later point, is all information which amplifies information that is already made available to you and to members of the public in your committee report. None of that information undermines the information in the report, it supports the Council’s position in terms of the use of the land, the conclusions of Natural England and the inputs into the appropriate assessment, and therefore, members, I would say that the information that is set out in your report covers all the pertinent issues that you need to consider when arriving at your decision today. As you will have heard from the deputations they have made a number of comments on those issues that have been covered in further detail by additional information uploaded to the website. So they have already made representations about some of that information, such as the former use of the land and the conclusions of Natural England and the fit for purpose or otherwise of the Council’s appropriate assessment, so I would say members that there is nothing to prevent you from making this decision today because the information you’re relying on was already to a large extent set out in your officer’s report.”
“Q. Just going back at the history and this seems to be the subject of lots of correspondence going to and fro. If we accepted the objectors who said there’d only been a horse grazing on there for 10 months in the last 10 years would that still retain its status as being grazing land? A. I think the point to make is that we don’t have evidence from the applicants that is sufficient to counter the evidence that we have from the applicant. The applicant has provided a signed affidavit, that is evidence that we give a lot of weight too. We are content that the whole of that site could be used for grazing horses. I’m happy to confirm that not, in our opinion not all of the land has been used for horse grazing, we’ve not been given evidence to say that all of the land has been used, but we’re happy that as a local authority all of the land could be used for grazing horses.”
“This morning, by this morning, I had a stack of paperwork, I’ve run out of ink trying to print off all the documents from either the applicant or the objectors. I had an absolute pile of it around, I spent all the morning looking at the stuff from early, and I have to say that I’m not going to call anybody liars, either the applicant or the objectors but I’ve seen a series of photographs with no dates on them that claim fields being empty, sometimes occupied some people are suggesting so at the end of the day what you have to come down to is, if we voted to delay this application further, can we come out with anything different in say next month’s meeting or the following month’s meeting, or do we just go on delaying for day, month and so on? What we’ve got here is we’ve got professional officers. Each of us Councillors are lay people we’ve got some expertise in something we’ve done in our lives up to now. But at some stage or other you have to accept the fact that our officers are professional, they’re handling this nitrate issue as best they can, and the backup is, is that Natural England have approved the calculations and if we go on and on, the objectors saying no this isn’t right and our officers saying it is, Natural England saying it is, and then the objectors come back and say no, no, no, we’ve got to make a decision and today I see it as today. Keith Evans made a very good point. We need to decide now on the evidence that we’ve got, the professional advice we’ve had, the legal advice we’ve had and all the documentation I’ve seen which leads me towards saying the objectors are trying to make a point. Whether it’s right or wrong, that’s for some other time, but not here. We need to make a sensible based decision on officer’s recommendation and Natural England who have advised them that we have provided the right evidence, and that’s where I stand on it. Does any other member... Do you want to say anything further Rachael I can see you in the apprehensive, or does any member, any other member want to make any further comment?”
“100B Access to agenda and connected reports. (1) Copies of the agenda for a meeting of a principal council and, subject to subsection (2) below, copies of any report for the meeting shall be open to inspection by members of the public at the offices of the council in accordance with subsection (3) below. ... (3) Any document which is required by subsection (1) above to be open to inspection shall be so open at least five clear days before the meeting, except that — (a) where the meeting is convened at shorter notice, the copies of the agenda and reports shall be open to inspection from the time the meeting is convened, and (b) where an item is added to an agenda copies of which are open to inspection by the public, copies of the item (or of the revised agenda), and the copies of any report for the meeting relating to the item, shall be open to inspection from the time the item is added to the agenda; but nothing in this subsection requires copies of any agenda, item or report to be open to inspection by the public until copies are available to members of the council. ...”
“100D Inspection of background papers. (1) Subject, in the case of section 100C(1), to subsection (2) below, if and so long as copies of the whole or part of a report for a meeting of a principal council are required by section 100B(1) or 100C(1) above to be open to inspection by members of the public — (a) those copies shall each include a copy of a list, compiled by the proper officer, of the background papers for the report or the part of the report, and (b) at least one copy of each of the documents included in that list shall also be open to inspection at the offices of the council.”
“51. All these cases are relevant material consideration cases. The present case involves a breach of statutory duty to disclose information. However, the remedial test Maurice Kay LJ stated in Holder, taken from Simplex, is in line with the principle laid down by May LJ in R (Smith) v North Eastern Derbyshire CareTrust[2006] EWCA Civ 1291 ;[2006] 1 WLR 3315 , where there was a failure in the statutory duty to consult those affected by a change in medical services. Citing Simplex and other authorities, May LJ held that the probability that the decision after consultation would have been the same is not enough. The decision-maker must show that the decision would inevitably have been the same with proper consultation, if the claimant is to be denied relief. In my view this is the appropriate test in the analogous situation of a breach of right to know legislation: the claimant will be entitled to relief unless the decision-maker can demonstrate that the decision it took would inevitably have been the same had it complied with its statutory obligation to disclose information in a timely fashion.”
“A further brief observation is conveniently made at this point. It is abundantly clear from the aforementioned transcript, considered in conjunction with other items of related and surrounding evidence, that the PC made no attempt to grapple with 31 the IP’s request for deferral. Under the PC’s OP deferral is one of the optional courses. It is an elementary proposition of law that in cases where this is raised it must be considered. A further flaw in both the written and oral presentations of the Council’s planning officers is readily identifiable. No attempt was made to engage with the deferral request. The correct analysis clearly is that the PC, having failed to address itself to the deferral request, made no decision upon it. This is yet another ground upon which its refusal decision is vitiated.”