Agenda and draft minutes

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and also to those watching online as the meeting was being live streamed on YouTube. He explained that the Panel had been convened following the call-in of Executive Member decision 21/22 DP 130 Appropriation of open space to planning purposes: land south of The Uplands, Nailsea.

The purpose of the meeting was to debate the decision and the reasons for   the call-in, at the end of which, the panel would agree either: to recommend to the Executive Member that the decision should be reconsidered or; not to recommend that the decision should be reconsidered.

The subject of the decision was specific to the appropriation of the land, which was a legal process distinct from any matters relating to planning for that land.

The Council’s power to appropriate was detailed in the decision notice and was an independent process to that of planning.

The Council needed to be satisfied that a) land was no longer required for the current purpose, and b) the purpose for which the Council was appropriating was authorised by statute.

In respect of the use of the land The Executive member needed to be satisfied that on balance the benefits to North Somerset residents and the wider community would be greater for the proposed use than for the existing one.

To receive and hear any person who wishes to address the Panel.  The Chairman will select the order of the matters to be heard. 

Members of the Panel may ask questions of the member of the public and a dialogue between the parties can be undertaken.

Requests to speak must be submitted in writing to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, or the officer mentioned at the top of this agenda letter, by noon on the day before the meeting and request must detail the subject matter of the address.

Ms Angela Love, local resident, addressed the Panel.

Ms Love stated that she believed the council had not provided compelling   evidence demonstrating that it had properly addressed the issue of whether the land south of the Uplands, Nailsea was no longer needed for its current purpose – public open space. She stated that no robust and recent Public Open Space Assessment (as required by both NPPF & NPPG) had been carried out prior to inclusion in the SAP, the planning application, or the Appropriation Decision.  She also stated that evidence of claimed benefits, which genuinely outweighed its current benefit to the community, were not substantiated by the EIAs for both Appropriation and Development Proposal and in particular with regard to the impact on disabled people, people in particular age groups and on health and wellbeing.  She added that sufficient scrutiny had not been given to public concern about the change of public use with negative impact on between 3000 to 7000 existing residents of Nailsea.  She concluded that it was clear from much documentation, including the Business Case, that the motivation to develop the ‘Land South of the Uplands’ was financial, with council processes and timings including the Appropriation Decision, being made to fit this predetermined aim.

The Chairman asked members if they wished to question Ms Love. There were no questions.

The Chairman thanked Ms Love for her address. 

Mr Anthony Evans, local resident, addressed the Panel

Mr Evans stated that he was in favour of retaining the land to the south of the Uplands as green public open space for which it had been for many years and for which there was documentary evidence dating back to 1966. He noted that it was widely felt in the community that this had not been sufficiently taken into account.  Far from presenting truly compelling evidence for the case, in his opinion, the council had stretched points to suggest that it was surplus to requirements without any suggestion that the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location.

The Chairman asked members if they wished to question Mr Evans.

The Chairman asked Mr Evans if he felt that the alternative areas of open space were sufficient.  Mr Evans replied that these were small and too far away.

The Chairman thanked Mr Evans for his address.

Ms Jo Duffy, Town Clerk, Nailsea Town Council, addressed the Panel.

Ms Duffy informed the Panel that Nailsea Town Council believed that North Somerset Council had not carried out due diligence when looking at the land that was no longer required for the current purpose. The land was identified in 1966 as public space and had been under the local authority jurisdiction since 1997 for the purposes under the Community Land Act.  It had been planted, had fencing and a footpath.  It had been used as a football pitch in the past and for football, recreation and play for as long as people could remember.  She noted that it had not been shown in any evidence that the land was no longer required.  There was limited space in Nailsea and during the current pandemic this space was in even greater demand.  The Uplands was special to the local community and evidence could be provided to show the land was genuinely valued by the local community and held a particular local significance for its recreational value, its tranquillity and for the richness of its wildlife.  No alternative had been offered by North Somerset to replace this much-loved space.  Ms Duffy concluded that without the evidence from North Somerset the land could not be shown to be no longer required for the purpose for which it was currently used.

The Chairman asked members if they wished to question Ms Duffy. There were no questions.

The Chairman thanked Ms Duffy for her address

A Member must declare any disclosable pecuniary interest where it relates to any matter being considered at the meeting.  A declaration of a disclosable pecuniary interest should indicate the interest and the agenda item to which it relates.  A Member is not permitted to participate in this agenda item by law and should immediately leave the meeting before the start of any debate.

If the Member leaves the Chamber in respect of a declaration, he or she should ensure that the Chairman is aware of this before he or she leaves to enable their exit from the meeting to be recorded in the minutes in accordance with Standing Order 37.

None

A copy of the Executive Member decision no. 21/22 DP 130 is attached.

Councillor Crosby, as proposer, explained his reasons for the call in. He felt that there was little that described the efforts in the report to assess the public value of the site and the social and economic contribution that public open space made towards the welfare and wellbeing of the public.  He stated that without compelling evidence he was not convinced that the proposed housing was a greater community benefit that outweighed the site’s value and use as public and open space. He pointed out that this was not the only site within the district that the Council may have to consider appropriating in response to the government’s demands for housing.  The Council would need to be able to demonstrate to its communities that the evidence put to them was assured and compelling and that the decisions taken were truly tested and balanced in their conclusions.

Councillor Crew, as seconder, explained his reasons for the call in, giving his full support to the comments made by Councillor Crosby. He stated that it was clear the Council had not convinced the residents of Nailsea, the town councillors and its own district councillors that the Council had given due diligence in the appropriation of the land and therefore he endorsed what had been said and that a recommendation be made by the Panel for the decision to be reconsidered.

The Executive Member for Assets and Capital Delivery welcomed the debate.   As a former Chair to the precursor of the Panel he respected and supported the role of elected members to test and challenge Executive member decisions.  He felt that it was a good report and he was very happy with the documents that supported it. He referred to the phrase contained in the report ‘no longer required for the purpose for which it is held’ which had been referenced from the Local Government Act 1972 Section 122 A and that the phrase needed to be contained in the report, but he understood why that would be questioned if taken literally. It had been considered in a number of legal cases and in particular the London Borough of Merton case which was referenced in the report.

He further added that he had taken everything into account when making the decision and in particular in relation to the land being used as public space during the pandemic and the increased use of public space that had been referenced in Section 4.4. He rejected the notion that it had been a financially motivated decision.  It was not a decision he had taken lightly and was one he had considered at great length, reading all the comments from those who responded to the consultation and visiting the site on two occasions. He noted that the site itself would not be fully taken up with the development as there was a small open area of woodland, and a bridleway. He pointed out that the council was the sole judge of whether or not the land was required  ...  view the full minutes text for item PCO6