2nd April 2014
*** AS WE KNOW SO YOU KNOW ***
- We
have submitted that the ERYC has misled (twice) the Planning Inspectorate as to
the suitability of our Village Hall for holding the Inquiry in its entirety;
- The
Respondent ERYC is NOT representing residents in these matters (for either
appeal);
- At
the Inquiry residents/you only have an opportunity to ask questions of the
public servants of ERYC and also the evidence from the developer through
ourselves. In order for that to happen
you have to be able to attend and pass our Counsel a note of what you want
asked, and in addition you can make your own statement and have your own say
but SOF (Rule 6 party) are the only
means by which you get to ask
questions of the ERYC and developer.
Unless the venue is the Village Hall we cannot see how this can happen;
- Neither
the Ward nor Parish Council are a Rule 6 party and are therefore in the same
position as any lay person making a statement but they cannot ask questions
within the Inquiry;
- SOF
are a party (Rule 6) to the first appeal but were prevented from becoming a
party to the second because our evidence opposing it would not be ready in
time. The appeals were conjoined by a
Case Officer at the Planning Inspectorate solely on the basis of the
developer’s submissions and knowing both ERYC and SOF opposed it;
- The
Public Inquiry timetable was set by the developer, St Modwen;
- Both
appeals are due to be heard together at County Hall, Beverley starting 29th
April 2014;
- All
parties exchanged evidence on 1st April 2014 including SOF (SOF
received two boxes of further evidence from both the developer and ERYC and are
waiting to hear about a third box from ERYC which they appear to have failed to
serve three weeks ago);
- As
of Friday 28th March 2014 (see previous News Update and red SOF
files at PO and Dr Mitchell’s surgery) both ERYC, Hull City Council and Lord
Haskins of Skidby of Humber Local Enterprise Partnership wrote to the developer
asking them to withdraw the appeals within 7 days and enter discussions
following the Siemens announcement last week – this has been followed by
further correspondence from Hull City Council today. Therefore, SOF pruned our evidence in case
the Inquiry does not continue but we also have to submit rebuttal evidence by
15th April 2014 so can submit further evidence then (which will also
take into consideration the evidence served on us 1st April 2014);
- Today
we have submitted to all parties that we consider a stay (postponement) of
these proceedings to be necessary in order for us to become a Rule 6 party to
the second appeal and be able to obtain our evidence to oppose it and have
said:
- “We seek parity with
the other parties whose resources, as we have pointed out in our covering
letter with our statements, are disproportionately greater than our own, and
who are both only doing their jobs - in the case of one we are funding them and
in the case of the other it is a tax deduction. We are all doing
considerably more and in an environment, as you will see from our statements,
unsupported by both Ward and Parish Councillors and you will have noted the
Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation for a report to the Local Government
Ombudsman about their conduct.
- We assert our right to
be properly heard, just as we are properly represented by Counsel (acting under
the Direct Access scheme, as is Counsel for the developer Appellant).
- You will further note
that in the event the appeals are discontinued we have requested wasted costs
for and on behalf of the Access to Justice Foundation which is the normal
course for pro bono cases”
- “We seek parity with
the other parties whose resources, as we have pointed out in our covering
letter with our statements, are disproportionately greater than our own, and
who are both only doing their jobs - in the case of one we are funding them and
in the case of the other it is a tax deduction. We are all doing
considerably more and in an environment, as you will see from our statements,
unsupported by both Ward and Parish Councillors and you will have noted the
Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation for a report to the Local Government
Ombudsman about their conduct.
- Today
the Planning Inspectorate has emailed to confirm that they have yet to appoint
an Inspector for the Inquiry.
- We
have copied in both the Leaders of ERYC and Hull City Council and Lord Haskins
of Skidby Chairman of Humber Local Enterprise Partnership on our evidence which supports SOF continuing
to be informed, included and involved on behalf of us all in any discussions,
negotiations or considerations about Melton Fields/ old Capper Pass site and
development which may affect us all in North Ferriby notwithstanding Parish or
Ward boundaries.
- Please note there is another Public
Inquiry into the whole of the East Riding of Yorkshire Strategic Development
Plan
(you may have come across it as DSP – Draft Strategic Plan – or as Forward
Planning) later in the summer and we
have put in our paperwork to be heard and included as it will affect us all
until 2029 (it is the development plan for the whole region for the next 15
years).
- As
you will have seen from our previous News Update the developer St Modwen is pushing for North Ferriby to be developed into a Town and the ERYC are saying that this is “progressive”
but should be considered in with the, currently, Draft Strategic Plan at the
later Public Inquiry in the summer (that means decided by Central Government).
This concerns us as Elloughton-cum-Brough became a Town via the “backdoor” and
we do not want the same happening to us.
- We
are working on our website situation but please contact us and keep in touch
via our Facebook page and email.