Complaints have been made over what has been described as the ‘shambolic’ handling of a controversial planning application in Finchampstead.
The application for homes at 31 Barkham Ride was eventually approved at a meeting of Wokingham Borough Council’s planning committee last week (June 12).
Several complaints have now been raised with Wokingham Borough Council, including one that is seeking to have the decision overturned. Possible legal action could result.
Emails copied to Wokingham Today suggest the decision by the committee chairman, Cllr Carol Jewel, to order one councillor to abstain from a vote, and to deny one speaker the opportunity to address the meeting, were in breach of the council’s code of conduct, and brought the council into disrepute in the eyes of residents.
Cllr Charles Margetts, a councillor representing Barkham Ride, said: “In fairness to Cllr Jewell, she received little support from the democratic services officer present.
“He sat apart from her and said very little. It was her first meeting as chair, and with two controversial applications on the agenda she should have had more support.”
More than 25 Barkham Ride residents were present to witness the meeting.
Cllr Margetts added: “31 Barkham Ride is a controversial application.
“It was important that the democratic process was handled correctly so they had confidence and faith in the decision.
“The reality was that the meeting was run very badly, and they left feeling that objection reasons were ignored, and that officers were allowed to make factually incorrect remarks.”
Cllr Moses Iyengunmwena was prevented from voting on the first proposal – which was to refuse the plans.
Immediately before the application was due to be heard, the chairman called a comfort break.
Cllr Margetts said: “She did not say how long this break was for, or what time the meeting would resume.
“Several councillors and residents left the room at this point.
“After a short gap, Cllr Jewell restarted the meeting. She did not check that all members were present, or call for order.
“She did not wait for missing members to return, and made no effort to ensure all were included.
“The democratic services officer did not intervene, or remind her to do this.
“The restart of the meeting was chaotic.
“The officers started their presentation, and between 60 and 90 seconds into the presentation, Moses entered the room and took his seat.
“When the officer’s presentation ended, the council’s legal office spoke and mentioned that Moses had not been in the room, and therefore had missed the presentation.
“This was his first meeting as a member of the planning committee, so he could not have known the consequences.
“He had not been told to be back at a certain time, or what time the meeting would restart. “Cllr Jewell could, at that point, have brought Moses up to speed, however she did not do this, and continued the meeting.
“The conclusion was that he was not allowed to vote.”
The vote to refuse the application was tied four-four. Cllr Jewel used her casting vote against the motion.
Immediately after the meeting, Moses told Wokingham Today that had he been allowed to vote, he would have voted in favour of the motion to refuse the application.
Cllr Margetts added: “It is my belief that a new councillor, in his first planning meeting, had his voice silenced on a controversial planning application by incompetence and poor process by the chair.
“The democratic services officer made no intervention.
“The residents were dismayed by this action. If Moses had been allowed to vote the outcome of the application would have been different.
Cllr Joseph Barley, a fellow local councillor, was also prevented from speaking to the committee.
Speakers are allowed three minutes to address the committee.
Cllr Margetts said; “31 Barkham Ride was the fourth application on the agenda, and Cllr Jewell had been consistent throughout the evening in her approach to the three minute speech rule.
“She had allowed the three minutes to elapse, and then invited the speaker to wrap up.
“However, when it came to this application her actions were different.
“The speaker for the applicant was allowed to run over her three minutes by at least 20 seconds.
“Cllr Barley and I had agreed to share three minutes. I spoke first. I finished my speech and received no warning from Cllr Jewell that I was close to three minutes.
“However, when Cllr Barley came forward to read out his 30 second speech he was prohibited from speaking on the grounds that we had used the three minutes.
“No warning or overrun time was offered.
“Cllr Barley showed the chair the 10 lines of text he wished to read out, but she did not allow him to speak.
“This was a different approach than was taken with every other speaker.
“This looked terrible to the residents in the room who saw an objector representing their views being silenced.
“ My complaint is that this discretion was not applied equally.
“Residents want to have faith in the democratic process, but saw this as Cllr Jewell restricting debate and objections on this application.
“Other speakers were treated in a different way.
“The net effect of this was that Cllr Barley was silenced, and unable to represent his residents due to the actions of the chair.
The complaint is also highlighting what are alleged to have been “partisan and factually incorrect” comments from planning officers.
Cllr Margetts said: “Two senior planning officers spoke on this application.
“They made comments after the speakers had finished when there was no right of reply m- and which were factually wrong.
“This had the effect of misleading the committee.
“It is my belief that this part of the meeting was not run as per procedure by the officers, and therefore could be subject to legal challenge.
“If the process had been run properly, the planning committee would have rejected this application.
“The reason the application was approved is that correct procedures were not followed.”
He said he believed that the only correct remedy will be to run the application again, with a different chair.
“If the approval of this application is allowed to stand, it will send out very bad signals to our residents over the impartiality of WBC over housing applications.”
Former councillor Gary Cowan has also raised his concerns.
He said: “As a former councillor of 27 years standing, and also having been a long-time member of the planning committee, including holding the executive role, I believe I have a reasonable understanding of the planning process.
“I would like to formally complain about the conduct of the chair of planning at last Wednesday’s Committee when the barkham Ride application was discussed, and ask that my complaint is investigated by the Borough Councils Standards Board.
“I watched the meeting on YouTube as I had submitted a comment to this application when I was a councillor, and I was interested in the outcome.
“The shambolic meeting, and the actions of the chair, brought the council into disrepute.
“My major concern is was the committee’s decision vitiated by procedural impropriety, and therefore unlawful?”
A spokesperson for Wokingham Borough Council told Wokingham Today: “The council is aware of the public interest in last week’s planning committee meeting, specifically the consideration of a planning application for 31 Barkham Ride, which was deliberated by the planning committee in line with the council’s constitution.
“We have received enquiries and correspondence about this matter and will be considering, addressing and responding to those enquiries accordingly.”
