TBA/Invent site controversy - council stalling answers?

Councillor William Hobhouse

Wain Homes, Rochdale Council Planning Officers, representatives of all political parties, a representative from Friends of Healey Dell and a representative from Save Spodden Valley (SSV) were invited to attend the latest meeting of the TBA Working Party on 31 January. It may not be too surprising that Wain Homes did not attend, however, that no representative of the planning department attended surprised and disappointed members of the TBA Working Party, and Councillor William Hobhouse is to meet with Council Chief Executive Roger Ellis later this week to seek an explanation.

Following the highly controversial decision at the Rochdale Township Planning Meeting on Tuesday 24 January:

www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/News/news.asp?ID=2777

...to approve the planning application by Wain Homes to demolish the former Turner Brothers Asbestos (TBA) Research Block, most recently known as the 'Invent' site, and build 48 dwellings on the Shawclough Road site, Councillor Hobhouse, Chairman of the TBA Working Party called a meeting of the TBA Working Party for 31 January to discuss the issue. 

Though no Planning Officer attended, the Contaminated Land Officer's response to the SSV submission regarding the Wain Homes planning application was presented to the Working Party. It was noted that although it was a full response giving much detail about the past two years of the Invent site planning application, it did not mention the Atkins Report at all. 
 
It also appears that RMBC planning opinion is that the Atkins Report has no real relevance to the Invent Site - if this is so, that would represent an extraordinary viewpoint.    

Rochdale Online has been seeking clarification from the Borough Solicitor regarding the legality of the vote and despite initially promising a speedy reply, three emails and almost two weeks later no answer has been forthcoming to the question:

• A vote was taken at the Rochdale Township planning meeting on Tuesday and it went 3-2 against granting permission for houses to be built on the old TBA Research and Development block. After the vote against one Councillor warned others of potential surcharges should the decision be lost on appeal, a vote was then taken on the amendment – is this correct procedure? Once it has been turned down is it correct that an amendment can then be proposed and the decision overturned, should the amendment not have been put before the first vote?

With no answer forthcoming to the question sent on 24 January and a second email two days later (26 January) requesting a prompt answer resulting in a request for more time to answer, our reporter waited a further five days before sending a third email on 31 January to the Borough Solicitor asking:

• My previous understanding was that a vote on a substantive motion is final; it cannot be reversed at that meeting. An amendment may be moved only before the vote and must be a true amendment or variation.
  Is this the case or am I mistaken?

With still no answer to the question forthcoming we have now asked Councillor Hobhouse to take these questions to his meeting with Roger Ellis and to seek an explanation as to why it appears that a legitimate question is being stalled.