Councillor criticises colleagues for risk created by planning decision
08/06/2026
Appeal costs shouldered by council tax payers might have been substantial
The councillor who was in charge of planning at Cherwell District Council until May has taken the Council’s current leader, deputy and former leader to task for ignoring advice given to them when making a planning decision.
Liberal Democrat Councillor Jean Conway was the Portfolio Holder for Planning last year. She is no longer a member of the Executive.
In an email exchange between a number of councillors Councillor Conway criticised her fellow Liberal Democrat Councillors Lesley McLean, Chris Brant and David Hingley for going against an officer recommendation by refusing three applications for warehouses at Baynards Green, thereby placing the council at substantial financial risk should the applications be appealed, which they were.
The council has announced it won’t be defending the decision to refuse permission at appeal.
Councillor McLean wrote to her colleagues in May, informing them of the decision. She said: “I want to reassure members that the Council arrived at this position based on sound expert and legal advice, which has strongly indicated that this is the Council’s best option to mitigate further risk.
“I appreciate that this may be unwelcomed news.”
Last week Councillor Conway replied, highlighting what she believed was the bigger issue and what should be done to avoid a recurrence of the problem. She wrote: “The cold fact is that unlike other aspects of Council business where councillors can decide matters having regard to political ideals, the wishes of the electorate they represent or even personal feelings, determining planning applications cannot be dealt with similarly.
“Planning applications can only be determined in accordance with the Local Plan policies and the [National Planning Police Framework], and if an application has planning officer recommendation for permission to be granted, it means that the planning officer is satisfied that the application is policy compliant and so it should be approved.
“Planning applications simply cannot be decided having regard to personal/electoral preference because if they are, in the event of the planning committee deciding to refuse a planning policy compliant application, in the event of the refusal being appealed … the outcome is equally likely to be a substantial costs award against the Council.”
In terms of the Baynard’s Green application Councillor Conway directly criticised her colleagues for the situation, writing: “Councillor McLean makes reference in her email … to having now taken professional advice. But the planning committee that decided to refuse the applications of Tritax and Albion, of which committee she was a part, had professional advice. In both cases they had the benefit of detailed reports from planning officers which confirmed that the applications were Local Plan etc compliant and that permission should be granted.
“Yet the same Councillor McLean along with I believe Councillors Hingley and Brant chose to refuse the applications.
“It is to be noted that there were other councillors that also voted to refuse these applications but perhaps they were led to think that they should do so not realising the financial risk to the Council in doing so.”
It is unclear what costs the council would incur if it fought and lost the planning appeal over the Baynard’s Green applications, but Councillor Conway estimated it would be in the excess of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Published: by the Banbury FM News Team
Reader's opinions
