Agenda item

At the time of publication no notifications had been received.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson addressed the Panel, a summary of her statement is set out below and a full copy can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book.

She said that dealing with B&NES Council seems to be like standing on a sandcastle as the tide inexorably rolls up the beach, you dig as hard as you can to defend one side while another side crumbles away. She stated that she was greatly concerned about the bus services to Radstock and the amount of heavy traffic because of the ill conceived Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) which will result in two way traffic in The Street.

She added that Don Morris, CEO of RADCO had also contacted her to complain about the loss of takings.

She concluded by calling upon the Panel to ask the current administration about their failure to respect the principles of the Localism Bill as local people in their hundreds had objected and signed the petition against the road scheme.

Amanda Leon addressed the Panel on behalf of the Radstock Action Group, a summary of her statement is set out below and a full copy can be found on the Panel’s Minute Book.

She wished to draw their attention to what she felt were the undemocratic and unprofessional practices of the Council’s approach to the many planning applications and associated papers relating to the Norton Radstock Regeneration project.

She called for steps to be taken to reverse recent decisions which are apparently being driven by a set of undisclosed objectives at odds with democracy and transparency. 

·  The proposal to divert the A362 through the town centre has been taken out of the original planning application and is now being dealt with under the powers B&NES has as Highways Authority. This allegedly permits the road scheme to be started prior to any final decisions being made on the development plans for Radstock.

·  Additionally, it apparently gives the authority the right to assume financial responsibility for a scheme in which the developer was identified as being responsible for paying for road changes.

·  An application from the current would-be developer and the NRR requests renewal of the previous planning application. We believe that renewal applications can be new planning applications in disguise and that original aims and permissions may be modified and subverted by subsequent follow ups and may, therefore, be at odds with the strategic objectives that governed earlier decisions.

·  B&NES, whether acting in its capacity as a highways authority, a unitary planning authority, an environmental enforcement agency or other, has a responsibility to adopt transparent consultation procedures. It has an overriding responsibility to reflect the needs and aspirations of the electorate to whom it is accountable. We have found it increasingly difficult to obtain any information as to who is in overall control of the planning situation in its many forms in Radstock, with officers and elected councillors giving opposing views and interpretations of what is going on.

She urged the panel to step in to ensure that planning processes are not brought into disrepute and that public confidence can be restored in all areas of consultation.

The Chairman asked for the statement to be passed to the Director of Development & Major Projects and the Divisional Director for Planning and Transport for them to respond.