Tameside planning chair insists no wrongdoing as games room refused – after initial approval

THE CHAIR of Tameside Council’s planning committee insists he did nothing wrong following the refusal of an application, months after it was approved.

Proposals to construct an outbuilding at Meadow Bank Farm, on Howarth Farm Road in the Littlemoss area of Droylsden, were initially given the go ahead in May, despite officers recommending it be turned down,

But on Wednesday, September 11, they were brought back before the Speaker’s Panel (Planning) group and refused by five votes to two, it went through with the same score four months’ previously.

And chair Cllr Vincent Ricci was adamant legitimate planning reasons, rather than perceived connections with the Labour Party as a man of the same name as applicant Geoffrey Howarth proposed Cllr Laura Boyle to stand in this year’s local election, resulted in its resubmission.

He admitted he knows Mr Howarth after sitting on the board of New Charter Building Company together – but told The Correspondent he voted against it.

Cllr Ricci, who saw vice-chair Cllr David Mills and panel member Cllr Susan Quinn leave the meeting after declaring interests, said: “I know Geoffrey. He was on New Charter Building Company when I was on.

“But I wouldn’t have thought that was why it was brought back as I had no discussions with him whatsoever.

“The only time I found out it was on was when I got the agenda. I haven’t discussed it with anyone.

“Our previous leader, Roy Oldham, had planning applications come up and I’ve been in the room then. You don’t declare your interest because he’s the leader, you only declare an interest if you’ve made a decision or spoken to someone beforehand.

“I hadn’t discussed this with anybody. All I know is it came back.

“My understanding, I might be wrong, is that it originally went against officers’ recommendation and they didn’t give a reason why.

“You have to have a reason why you refuse something or pass something.

“I believe it was because they didn’t give sufficient reason why they didn’t go with officers’ recommendation.

“I didn’t vote at the May meeting. There was no reason for me to. Whatever it would’ve been, it wouldn’t have affected the result. On this occasion, I voted with the officers’ recommendation.”

The outbuilding, which would have been used as a games room, was brought back because, according to papers: “The application has not been determined because of officer concerns regarding the robustness of the decision.

“These concerns arose from no planning-based reasons being given for resolving to determine the application against officer recommendation and with no suggested planning conditions.

“The application is therefore being represented to the committee to be considered afresh.”

Officers slammed it as being ‘visually prominent and would interrupt any views through the site’ and ‘there would be demonstrable harm to the openness of the Green Belt.’

They also said it did not meet the very special circumstances that exist for building in the Green Belt.

However, agent for the applicant, Jason Dugdale, was astonished, telling the meeting: “I’m a bit shocked and confused as to why I’m here.

“It was previously presented to the panel and despite objections, it was voted to approve it. This is democracy.

“Members are not duty-bound to accept officers’ recommendations. They used their democratic right to disagree with them.

“In all my time working in planning, if a recommendation is overturned, members aren’t qualified to provide lists of conditions.

“To actually suggest members should be putting forward conditions, I would strongly disagree.”