From: Paul Campbell [mailto:
Sent: 11 November 2012 23:50
To: David Barling
Subject: Olive Branch
Dear Mr Barling,
I want to try to offer an “olive branch”.
I realise that the battle over the MPF has given rise to personal antipathy. I do assure you that a personal battle is not what I seek; I ask you to accept that I am simply fighting for what I believe to be best for the long-term benefit of Steyning. I know that is your aim too.
I do believe that it was an honest mistake that the PC chose the MPF location. This mistake came about because initially the Parish Council was unaware of the National Park boundary and of the Village Green status and of the Historic Asset status of the MPF.
Now the Parish Council has been made aware of these things, I think it needs to have the confidence, moral courage and leadership to accept this, to take the hand of cooperation offered by the objectors, and to work with them on the renewed opportunity which changes to the educational open spaces regulations now present to give our young people a skatepark in the best location. A classic "win/win situation" which will help to reunite our community.
An indicative plan has been sent to you showing a skatepark next to the swimming pool on land owned by HDC which would require the school to provide just a modest area to replace lost parking spaces rather than to host the skatepark itself. I hope that this will commend itself to you and maybe even to the governors themselves.
While I will certainly not give up this fight if the PC remains committed to the MPF site, I have a sense that my continued involvement is now causing heels to be dug in when every logical argument suggests that the PC should now be actively pursuing a graceful exit from the MPF project and should be working with the whole community to persuade the school to cooperate. I would be very happy to stand aside if the PC can be persuaded to seize this opportunity and drop the MPF site. If you thought it would help to defuse the situation I would be happy to meet with you to discuss any aspect of this. I hope you might find that I am not as unreasonable or unpleasant as you seem to think I am. The reverse may well be true too!
This is an entirely personal communication which I have not discussed with my fellow objectors or copied them in to. I do not mind whether you wish to keep this confidential or to share it with your colleagues. Equally, I would not be embarrassed if it found its way back to my colleagues. I will leave you to decide what is preferable on that score; my sole aim is to do my best to ensure that ill-feeling from the PC towards me is not prejudicing the quality of the decision making in Steyning’s best interests.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Campbell
5 Charlton Street
Steyning
West Sussex
BN44 3LE
Source – letter SPC to HDC 7th February 2013
“Threats”?
From: Paul <
To: Cllrs Barling and Lloyd
Sent: Monday, 15 April 2013, 9:47
Subject: Suggested meeting re judicial review
Dear Councillors Barling andLloyd,
Judicial Review of Skatepark Planning Application
I am writing to suggest an urgent private meeting in an attempt to seek solutions to problems which could otherwise continue to escalate the tensions in our community. Something I am sure we all wish to avoid.
I am more than happy that the Clerk and/or any other member(s) of SPC should attend, however I am addressing this to you alone in the first instance as I think you are best placed to decide who to involve.
One reason for suggesting this meeting is that I think I have unearthed fundamental procedural problems for the Parish Council. I am not yet sure of this as all the necessary documentation is not available to me. If I am right, the consequences of pointing out the error could be very serious for SPC, however I have absolutely no wish to bring this about and it should be avoidable. These procedural problems mean that, at the very least, judicial review of the lodging of the skatepark planning application last May would be appropriate - in addition to the judicial review already formally notified to the Parish Council regarding the car parking on the MPF.
If the current application was withdrawn to avoid the expense of judicial review, then it could always be re-submitted at a later date, however a "cooling off period" in the meantime might mean there was some healing of the divisions in the community and an opportunity for other options for the skatepark to be considered in a spirit of cooperation. This cooling off period would also give the opportunity for reflection by everyone as to whether the MPF site is best for our community.
The major procedural problem for SPC is as follows. In preparing for the judicial review of SPC's recent decision to vary the planning application to apply for car parking on the MPF I have checked the documentation which is available on the SPC website. This documentation confirms the common law position that the powers of the committees, sub-committees and working groups all lapse at the May annual meeting of the Parish Council. This is made explicit at 3aiii of the current standing orders.
The committee powers expired at the 14th May 2012 annual meeting and it does not appear that since then the membership, terms of office (if less than a year) or terms of reference of the various committees have been dealt with by a meeting of the full Parish Council as is required by standing order 2jiv and common law. Committee Chairs were subsequently elected at the first meetings of the committees but there is no documented process showing how councillors found themselves on these committees and with what powers and duties in the first place. As a consequence of this apparent oversight every decision made by a committee, sub-committee or working group since 14th May 2012 appears to have been ultra vires and unlawful.
The problem may go back further. I do not know the terms of the standing orders prior to the current edition on the website and nor do I have access to minutes for earlier periods but if this procedural irregularity occurred in 2012 it seems likely it happened in earlier years too.
The problem may also be more extensive. I cannot see any record that the mandatory declarations of acceptance of office by the Chair and Vice-Chair took place at the 14th May 2012 annual meeting. If they did not, then the office lapsed. S85(4) Local Government Act 1972. If these offices lapsed then this would appear to make all decisions and acts of the Parish Council ultra vires and unlawful.
If the situation is as serious as it seems then among all the ultra vires decisions and actions is the lodging of the skatepark application. This occurred on 9th May 2012. There are no minutes available on the website which will enable me to check whether there was a resolution by the full parish council authorising this, but anecdotally I am told there was no such resolution and so I assume it must have been done under purported delegated committee powers. If, as seems likely, the committees had not been properly constituted after the May 2011 annual meeting, in the same way as they appear not to have been properly constituted after the May 2012 annual meeting, then it follows that this lodging of the planning application was ultra vires, as was every other decision and action based on a decision by a committee after May 2011. The same may be true for earlier years too.
Ordinarily an application for judicial review must be made within three months' of the cause of action arising, however the case precedents show that in a case such as this, where the cause of action was not apparent, then time runs from when it becomes apparent or ought to have become so. It will be necessary to apply for leave to proceed and the three months is probably now running and so there is urgency about our proposed meeting if resolving this without litigation is going to be possible.
I will send this letter by email as well. If you are operating a filter because you have become tired of my copy correspondence then you might wish to turn the filter off. This will make it easier for you to forward this letter to any of your colleagues you may wish to discuss it with.
Yours sincerely
Mr Paul Campbell
NO RESPONSE FROM ADDRESSEES – FOB-OFF FROM CLERK
(See 23rd April below)
From: TE LLOYD
Sent: 15 April 2013 10:15
To: Paul Campbell
Cc: SueBooth
Subject: Re: Suggested meeting re judicial review
Hi David, An interesting point! Is he right? I think this is partly to do with the faux pas they have made over the by-election - he is likely to be even more conscious of tensions within the community as a result - but he has raised an interesting legal point that no doubt is rooted in fact. However, we should check this out with HDC legal before even responding to this letter. This is a departure from his normally threatening letters, he is merely stating what he believes to be the facts and is a I feel a step in the right direction, albeit a backhanded criticism of the way the PC is run. Having read the Standing Orders it would appear that he is correct that we have in fact, not re-affirmed the terms of reference. However, HDC will be able to advise whether this is necessary each year - the SOs would seem to say it is. If he is correct, it may well be that we will have to pull the application, re-affirm the terms of reference and make all the decisions again but lawfully. I feel that before we even think about a meeting we should be clear of our legal position. If he is incorrect and we have nothing to fear from a judicial review then nothing changes. If on the other hand he is correct then we will know from HDC what we must do. We may well have to pull the application, but whether a meeting will be be appropriate is another matter. I am intrigued by his comment about 'other options' on the skateboard park - does this mean that the Leisure Centre site is a non-starter?
Before we make any hasty decisions I feel we should get the response from HDC to the letter and dependent on that, call a Chairs Meeting post haste to discuss the way forward. We cannot pull the application without full council consent, which would have to be on the 13th May. Unless we hear today from HDC, it would be better not to discuss this in great depth tonight, if at all. See you later. Tim
From: PauL Campbell [mailto:
Sent: 16 April 2013 11:03
To: TE LLOYD
Cc: David Barling; 'Sue Booth'
Subject: RE: Suggested meeting re judicial review
Dear Mr Lloyd,
I am sure you have now noticed that your message accidentally came to me rather than to Mr Barling. I think I can imagine you holding your head in your hands! Pleased to see that it is rather restrained in all the circumstances! Hopefully this bodes well for a productive meeting if one takes place.
Speaking of faux pas (!) may I just take this opportunity to point out that while the potential cost of a poll for the election is very much in my mind, the faux pas was not made by those who called the election. There are three causes, none of which those calling the election are responsible for. The first was the setting of the time-table by the PC and in that connection I would be grateful to know when Cllr Carman resigned, please; was it just unfortunate timing or could the PC have started the clock ticking a day, or even more, earlier so that the two elections would have coincided?
The second is that HDC appears to have misinformed Cllr Barling about when they received the notice. I was not personally involved, however I have been passed a copy of the receipt for the delivery of the notice calling the election. This is attached. The Herald quotes HDC as saying the document was received on 27th March which was a day too late. You will see from the receipt that in fact it was received on the morning of the 26th which would have been within time had someone at HDC been on the ball and ready to react – which should have been the case given that they report to me that they had been aware of the potential difficulty since 7th March - “The parish clerk rangme on 7 March, so that was the day I knew about the vacancy. At that stage we discussed the fact that the notice would run out one day after the final date for combining any election. Regards Maxine Mears” . Perhaps there is a case for HDC funding the election given this situation? Is this something SPC might feel it appropriate to pursue?
The third is that when it published the notice of vacancy SPC could have accompanied it with an advisory note and/or a press release advising of the problem and pointing out that it would save the taxpayer a significant sum if any calling of an election was lodged a day or two earlier than the strict legal time limit. After all, the Clerk had known of the problem since 7th March. It seems to me rather unfortunate that this was not done.
Those calling the election, who are not politicians and who have no previous experience of being involved in one, I think were entitled to assume that complying with the time limit set down by SPC which is professionally represented and advised, would be sufficient. Although I was not one of the signatories I have enough knowledge of what was going on to be able to give you the firm assurance that there was no deliberate late lodgement and that it was assumed that compliance with the published time limit would be sufficient. In fact you do not have to take my word for this - the closing date had not expired when the notice was handed in and so the signatories could not have been guilty of manipulating events in the manner Mr Barling has claimed. Mr Barling impugned the integrity of those who called the election when he said that the signatories had deliberately handed in their document after the closing date for the county council elections had expired. I think they are due a public apology from Mr Barling. Mr Barling in turn appears to be due a public apology from HDC.