Home   News   Article

Subscribe Now

Council officers 'misled planning committee'




Confusion over London Road Industrial Estate regeneration after inspector's ruling

West Berkshire Council planning officers have been accused of misleading councillors in their decision to reject plans for a regeneration of the London Road Industrial Estate, the Planning Inspectorate has said.

Upholding an appeal from developer Faraday Developments Limited (FDL), the Government inspector found that the planning committee was misled by comments made in a report to councillors on FDL’s application to redevelop the site.

The ruling also means that the cash-strapped council could be forced to pay out tens of thousands of pounds in costs.

FDL, which owns a portion of the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE), lodged the appeal following the council’s decision to throw out its renewal of a lapsed application in 2014.

Around the same time, West Berkshire Council announced St Modwen as its chosen developer to carry out its own regeneration scheme of the London Road estate.

FDL’s application to redevelop part of the LRIE had previously received unanimous approval from the council when first submitted five years earlier.

However, West Berkshire’s planning committee rejected the renewal, claiming the application conflicted with a number of the council’s core policies.

On Tuesday the Government’s Planning Inspectorate ruled that the resubmitted plans were made in exactly the same terms and for exactly the same use, thus awarding costs to the developer.

In his report, government inspector David Cullingford also points out that the redevelopment of the LRIE is a long-held vision of West Berkshire Council and accuses the council of “perversely” misunderstanding or misapplying procedures applicable to the application.

FDL director Duncan Crook said: “It squarely says in black and white that the council has used the planning system for its own reasons, which is unlawful.

“There is something very wrong going on at the council which is costing the community dear.

“We will be following up on the inspector’s observations that there is something wrong, something that involves additional investigations.”

Leader of the opposition Alan Macro (Lib Dem, Theale) also slammed the council’s actions, claiming that the decision was made as FDL’s development affected the council’s own plans for the site.

He said: “The whole thing smells to be quite honest. The inspector says that the planning committee was misled by the officers.

“Now it’s going to cost tens of thousands of pounds to pay the applicant costs while they are proposing to close children’s centres and libraries and stop bus services – it’s really unacceptable.

“The application affected what the council wanted to do with the LRIE.

“I think someone should be held accountable.”

The decision to uphold the appeal now also grants FDL outline planning permission to carry out its regeneration project, throwing the council’s own plans to develop the site into doubt.

FDL’s plans for the development, dubbed Faraday Plaza, include 150,000sq ft of office space, a 100-room hotel, residential units, a crèche, care home and community and health care facilities, as well as an access road from the A339.

The council, however, is still set to start work on a new access road on to the industrial estate from the A339 seen as essential to its redevelopment plans.

Despite this Mr Crook says FDL will now push ahead with its redevelopment of the site.

He said: “It’s a very important decision.

“It is regrettable in the extreme that for several years the council has blocked the development but one hopes now that the council will stop blocking the scheme and allow us to deliver the redevelopment.

“The council is about to start work on the junction and is committing public funds to works that at the moment it has no prospect of completing. We will be submitting plans to the council within the next few months.”

Mr Crook declined to put a figure on the amount of the costs FDL will receive, saying only that it would be “substantial”.

West Berkshire Council declined to comment saying only that it is currently considering the decision.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More