Description:
There is a public perception that approval of the latest application, after earlier refusals, may have been influenced by developer financial contributions (e.g., S106/CIL) rather than solely by planning merits. This concern focuses on transparency and integrity of the decision-making process, without alleging wrongdoing.
Desired Outcome:
Clear, evidence-led decisions with full transparency of any financial obligations; each contribution demonstrably linked to specific, evidenced mitigation and compliant with the CIL Reg 122 tests.
What Could Go Wrong:
Erosion of public trust; increased risk of legal challenge or complaint; reputational damage to the authority; reduced confidence in future planning decisions.
Current Situation:
Third iteration approved following previous refusals; residents have raised questions about the role and disclosure of developer contributions and how they were weighed in the planning balance.
Action Strategy:
Publish full Heads of Terms and any viability summary; explicitly set out in the officer/committee report how the planning balance was reached independent of contributions; minute declarations of interest; invite Monitoring Officer/governance review of process compliance.
Concern Category:
Location:
Analysis: Open Mindmap for C00278
| Snapshot History |
|---|
| C00278_250921.pdf |