Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ted Fenton, Les Sibley, David Rouane and Robin Bennett.

Councillor John Howson substituted for Councillor David Rouane and Councillor Ian Middleton for Councillor Robin Bennett.

There were none.

There were 17 requests to address the Committee.

The speakers were as follows:

Charlie Hopkins (Neighbouring Parish Councils Joint Committee)

Debbie Davies (Oxfordshire Roads Action Alliance)

Mark Beddow (East Hendred Parish Council)

Victoria Shepherd

Caroline Baird (Read by Victoria Shepherd)

Richard Tamplin

David Pryor (Chair of Didcot First)

Sue Scane (Deputy Chair of Didcot First)

Iain Wallace (Head of Campus and Property Development – UK Atomic Energy Authority)

Peter Canavan (Partner Carter Jones) on behalf of CEG (promotors of allocated site STRAT9: Land Adjacent to Culham Science Centre)

Bethia Thomas (Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council)

David Rouane (Leader of South Oxfordshire District Council)

Cllr Charlie Hicks (Oxfordshire County Council)

Cllr Robin Bennett (Oxfordshire County Council)

Cllr Duncan Enright (Oxfordshire County Council)

Cllr Liz Leffman (Leader, Oxfordshire County Council)

John McLauchlan (Applicant)

Legal Advisor, David Mytton, read out the following statement:

“This meeting is for the Committee to decide how it wishes to respond to the Secretary of State’s decision to call in the HIF1 planning application for his own determination and the four questions the Secretary of State has asked to be informed about.

This is a new decision for the Committee in a new context. It is not a continuation of the meeting that took place on 17 and 18 July, nor is it a reconsideration of the application. For that reason, all Members of the Committee have been invited to this meeting in the normal way. It is not restricted to those Members who took part in the meetings on 17 and 18 July.

We have received legal advice that the call-in decision of the Secretary of State is valid unless and until there is a successful challenge to it and that the Council must comply with it.

We have also received legal advice that the Committee is entitled to revisit its earlier decision in the light of the new context and to consider afresh in the light of all material considerations whether it wishes to continue with the existing reasons for refusal and how it wishes to proceed.

We have considered the various legal points raised by the Parish Councils and others and have concluded that there is nothing in those points which requires any amendment to the report to committee or the recommendations in it.

The Local Planning authority is entitled to and is now required to reach a view as to how it wishes to proceed in the light of the call-in of this application. It is not bound by its earlier decision and can come to a different view if it wishes.”

Councillor Howson asked for clarification on the point at which a decision is made on an application. He also asked if there was a time limit for issuing a decision notice.

The Legal Advisor responded that in his view the point at which a decision was made was the point at which the decision notice was issued. The Secretary of State had called the application in under Section 77 and concluded that he had the ability to do so. Thereby the Council was bound by that decision and had to comply. There was nothing written in law on how long after a decision was made, a decision notice had to be issued. The Secretary of State decided that the decision notice was not issued and therefore he could call it in.

Councillor Middleton asked if the Council had queried the call-in with the Secretary of State as he did not understand by which auspices the Secretary of State can call-in a decision after a two-day meeting, a number of addresses from the public, a day deliberating the application and reasons given for the decision. Councillor Middleton felt that it set a dangerous precedent.

The Legal Advisor responded that the Secretary of State had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/23