Daws Hill residents to pull Wycombe District Council up before judge

5:00pm Friday 12th October 2012 in News By Simon Farr

Daws Hill residents to pull council up before judge Daws Hill residents to pull council up before judge

A NEIGHBOURHOOD Forum will pull a council up before a judge over its decision to remove key sites from the area it will serve - with residents to pay £10, 500 from their own pockets to do so.

Residents last night voted in favour of the Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum taking Wycombe District Council to a Judicial Review.

The row centres on the area the forum will cover – it was designated in September but council chiefs refused to include the former RAF Daws Hill and Wycombe Sports Centre sites on its patch after taking legal advice.

The ruling was ‘called-in’ by the council’s Improvement and Review Commission but Cabinet upheld its original decision – leaving the forum with “no option” but to put their case before a judge.

Chair of the forum, Stewart Armstrong, believes the judgement flies in the face of the Localism Act and said it was imperative Daws Hill residents had a say in the proposed major developments on the two battlegrounds.

He said: “None of this makes sense. How can we have a Neighbourhood Area which excludes two of the biggest planned developments in Wycombe when they are on our doorstep and part of our neighbourhood?

“We must have an input and recent legislation says that we are entitled to have one - to give us a chance to shape what is best for the area and all of Wycombe.”

DHNF’s Angus Laidlaw added: “This part of Wycombe is already gridlocked and these developments will affect the town and the surrounding area.

“The road infrastructure, utilities, schools, healthcare and the town will not cope with these developments unless there is sensible local input.”

Daws Hill residents need to club together £10,500 for a Protective Cost Order - which puts a limit on how much a party can be liable for, regardless of the result - with the council’s PCO likely to be in excess of £30,000 in a winner-takes-all scenario. An appeal can be logged against the judge’s decision.

Barristers have agreed to work on behalf of the forum on a no-win no-fee basis, as they chase the kudos of creating Localism Act case law.

DHNF committee member Roy Carlisle said: “It’s ridiculous residents have to fund legal fees out of their own pockets because the WDC doesn’t want to give us the right to set out a Neighbour Plan to have a say over what could be built in our area.

“These proposed developments - and their impact on the infrastructure - do not seem to have been properly considered. It’s hard to see the long term commercial gain if Wycombe becomes one giant car park.”

The forum’s fundraising appeal began in earnest at last night’s inaugural meeting, with residents and ward councillors pledging to dip into their pockets and tell neighbours about the plan.

Cllr Trevor Snaith of the adjoining Ryemead ward said he would chip with money out of his budget as it would be “to the benefit of the wider town”.

Catherine Spalton, spokesman for Wycombe District Council said today: “Neighbourhood Planning is a new area of law, having come into effect under the Localism Act 2011.

“Prior to making a decision about the proposed Daws Hill Neighbourhood Area, the Council took legal advice which confirmed that we could reduce the Neighbourhood Area applied for if there were sound planning reasons to do so, which there were.

“We will await formal notification of a judicial review of the Cabinet decision(s). Once we have received that, we will make a considered decision on how we will respond.”

For more information about the Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum’s fighting fund, click here.

Comments (7)

5:56pm Sat 13 Oct 12

KTinBucks says...

Its interesting that WDC comment that their legal counsel advised they could unilaterally reduce the Neighbourhood Area – given sound “planning” reasons. The point is that none of the published reasons given were in any way related to “planning” matters. Hence, residents provided advice - in advance of the Cabinet meeting - that to act as WDC have done would amount to legal error. But WDC went ahead anyway! WDC now faces an avoidable legal challenge, when a more consensual, co-operative approach would have served well. And the consequence of this WDC action? Precious tax-payers’ money spent on legal fees!
Its interesting that WDC comment that their legal counsel advised they could unilaterally reduce the Neighbourhood Area – given sound “planning” reasons. The point is that none of the published reasons given were in any way related to “planning” matters. Hence, residents provided advice - in advance of the Cabinet meeting - that to act as WDC have done would amount to legal error. But WDC went ahead anyway! WDC now faces an avoidable legal challenge, when a more consensual, co-operative approach would have served well. And the consequence of this WDC action? Precious tax-payers’ money spent on legal fees! KTinBucks

9:00am Tue 16 Oct 12

Power2thePeople says...

If a council can simply gerrymander the boundaries of a Neighbourhood Forum to suit itself, then what power can a Neighbourhood Forum really have under the Localism Act?
P2P
If a council can simply gerrymander the boundaries of a Neighbourhood Forum to suit itself, then what power can a Neighbourhood Forum really have under the Localism Act? P2P Power2thePeople

10:11am Tue 16 Oct 12

KTinBucks says...

It is the new (April 2012) legislation itself which empowers the Forum to avoid this problem. That is why this is such a game-changer that needs to be fought for. It’s so important to have the Neighbourhood Area reinstated, to allow residents to influence (in law) the general planning policies applied to both RAF Daws Hill and Handy Cross developments and ensure residents get what they want, rather than accept what is imposed. Once a Neighbourhood Plan is in place, this gets translated into Neighbourhood Planning Orders, which in turn set the context for WDC and developers; WDC would have a legal duty to accommodate the orders and ensure that all planning applications are compliant. No longer will they be able to “consult” without listening!
It is the new (April 2012) legislation itself which empowers the Forum to avoid this problem. That is why this is such a game-changer that needs to be fought for. It’s so important to have the Neighbourhood Area reinstated, to allow residents to influence (in law) the general planning policies applied to both RAF Daws Hill and Handy Cross developments and ensure residents get what they want, rather than accept what is imposed. Once a Neighbourhood Plan is in place, this gets translated into Neighbourhood Planning Orders, which in turn set the context for WDC and developers; WDC would have a legal duty to accommodate the orders and ensure that all planning applications are compliant. No longer will they be able to “consult” without listening! KTinBucks

10:18am Wed 17 Oct 12

Power2thePeople says...

WDC's reply sounds like they are hiding behind a barrister's technicality.

They would have more credibility if they actually gave their reasons for changing the Neighbourhood Areas boundaries to suit themselves to keep total control.
P2P
WDC's reply sounds like they are hiding behind a barrister's technicality. They would have more credibility if they actually gave their reasons for changing the Neighbourhood Areas boundaries to suit themselves to keep total control. P2P Power2thePeople

1:05pm Wed 17 Oct 12

williamjames says...

It is such a shame that the shortsighted, we know best, paternalistic appproach of WDC has lead to this. More expense for everyone and the lawyers gain.
This is the first Neighbouhood Forum and Area in Bucks. It would have been wonderful if WDC had taken the opportunity offered to them and jointly established the forum and its area. The could then have been leaders instead of being probably held up to ridicule when they lose.
But there again what do you expect from a part time leader!
It is such a shame that the shortsighted, we know best, paternalistic appproach of WDC has lead to this. More expense for everyone and the lawyers gain. This is the first Neighbouhood Forum and Area in Bucks. It would have been wonderful if WDC had taken the opportunity offered to them and jointly established the forum and its area. The could then have been leaders instead of being probably held up to ridicule when they lose. But there again what do you expect from a part time leader! williamjames

8:33am Thu 18 Oct 12

gpn01 says...

It's a pity that your reasoned, and reasonable, thoughts on this debacle are undermined by your jaundiced remarks about WDC's Leader being part time. You've harped on about this previously yet fail to demonstrate any rationale for why you think it would make a difference. Councillors are not employees and they give up their time to help direct and shape the District.
It's a pity that your reasoned, and reasonable, thoughts on this debacle are undermined by your jaundiced remarks about WDC's Leader being part time. You've harped on about this previously yet fail to demonstrate any rationale for why you think it would make a difference. Councillors are not employees and they give up their time to help direct and shape the District. gpn01

2:26pm Thu 18 Oct 12

williamjames says...

It is quite simple.
The leader cannot be devoting enough time if is late for meeting and has not read the papers. Thus he is part time.

It is true that Councillors are not supposed to use the allowance as a main source of income but under the Cabinet system the responsibility allowances indcate that there is significantly more work which will take up a lot of time.
I thought that Cllr Collingwood would be a good leader and a breath of fresh air. His performance to date has shown that my belief was misplaced.
It is quite simple. The leader cannot be devoting enough time if is late for meeting and has not read the papers. Thus he is part time. It is true that Councillors are not supposed to use the allowance as a main source of income but under the Cabinet system the responsibility allowances indcate that there is significantly more work which will take up a lot of time. I thought that Cllr Collingwood would be a good leader and a breath of fresh air. His performance to date has shown that my belief was misplaced. williamjames

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree