Dear Mr Webb, Re: Stage 1 complaint in relation to the handling of planning application 15/02030/OUTEIS by Development Control Committee (DCC) I am writing to you in my position as Development Management Manager in specific response to your formal complaint dated 03 October 2017. In summary of your complaint you have commented that the DCC have neither 'listened or taken advice from Historic England and have completely ignored all objectors and the Council's own heritage advisor. You raise further concerns that the facts about the site offered by the applicant, St Modwen, are wrong with 'proven' mistakes which should not have therefore been debated at the DCC meeting. You feel that the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the harm caused by the substantial demolition and you consider that the Council, in granting planning permission, will no longer be able to enforce planning law as a result of precedent. You consider that the potential for contamination, and particularly asbestos, has not been considered and you conclude by suggesting that the DCC 'should be investigated for gross misconduct and non-compliance with planning laws'. In response to your concerns about the comments of Historic England and the Council's Conservation Officer please note that the Officer report to DCC clearly sets out the concerns of those individuals. The Officer report identifies substantial harm as a starting point but considers the identified harm to be necessary in order to achieve significant public benefit which would outweigh that harm. The operational aspects of the business were set out by the current occupiers of the site Knor-Bremse and these factors were accepted by Members. The officer who wrote the report was present at DCC, spoke of the report and answered Members questions. I note that a large part of the evening was spent debating these matters. I cannot therefore agree with you that DCC 'failed to listen' or take account of objecting parties. By granting planning permission you are concerned that a precedent will be set whereby the Council 'will no longer be able to enforce any planning laws'. In that regard I would comment that the Wolverton Railway Works is a unique site, proposed to be developed in a unique way. It is not therefore directly relatable to any other proposals that may come forward in the remainder of the Wolverton Conservation Area. Each case must be considered on its own merits and I would therefore contend that the Council will maintain control over any future development whereby it will retain its ability to enforce planning law. I share your concerns about asbestos. The National Planning Policy Framework requires development plan policies to adequately consider whether application sites are appropriately located for their intended use in relation to ground contamination and Policy D1(iv) of the local Plan states that planning permission will be refused for development where unacceptable levels of pollution are identified. I would refer you to section 7.13 of the Committee report in this regard which states that 'the previous railway land use is considered to be potentially contaminative and the site is considered to be of high sensitivity which could present potential pollutant/contaminant linkages to controlled waters'. The report identifies that the site contains evidence of contamination and as such the appropriate bodies were consulted as part of the planning process. This led directly to the recommendation to impose a condition if permission was granted. The condition refers specifically to asbestos and I have copied it below for clarity and completeness: Prior to construction works (including demolition) commencing on each development phase the developer shall carry out an investigation of on-site contamination (including chemical, radiochemical, flammable/toxic gas, asbestos, biological and physical hazards and any other form of other contamination). The results of this survey detailing the nature and extent of any contamination, together with a remedial strategy deemed necessary to bring the site to a condition suitable for its intended use, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction works commence on the respective phase. Any remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved strategy and validated by submission of an appropriate verification report prior to first occupation of the respective phase. Should any unforeseen contamination be encountered the Local Planning Authority shall be informed immediately. Any additional site investigation and remedial work that is required as a result of unforeseen contamination will also be carried out to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the site is fit for its proposed purposed and any potential risks to human health, property, and the natural and historical environment, are appropriately investigated and minimised. The planning team takes great pride in providing a professional service for the Council. Under no circumstances would the planning team accept incentive bonuses for planning applications. I respectfully disagree that the process was flawed. The meeting was held in accordance with the Council's constitution and there is no question of gross misconduct by officers or a misapplication of planning law. I appreciate the outcome of the DCC meeting was not as you would have hoped but I am sure you will appreciate that this particular planning application was and is a complex case that has inevitably led to differences of opinion. As the planning authority we are of the view that the decision to grant planning permission was correct. We are also of the view the proper procedures were followed when making this decision. Yours sincerely, Catherine Lycett Interim Development Management Manager - West Team