Planning Consent
(without the consent of the community)

Change of use to a non-residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre (Use Class D1) - 46 Roundwell Street and 40 Forster Street, Tunstall (SOT/50522)

The above application was approved by the Development Control Committee of the City Council on 2nd June 2010. Our sources claim that there were six Councillors present of the thirteen on the Committee. When the discussion about this application took place, it has been claimed that three of the Councillors were asleep! We have not been able to obtain independent confirmation of this fact.

The application for change of use drew a furious reaction from the local community, with, according to the Council's own website, 146 comments received, of which one was in "favour", 143 against and two were petitions against. 145 against, 1 for, yet the Case Officer recommended approval.

The one comment in "favour" was from Peter A Hall, Chief Inspector, Stoke-on-Trent Division, Staffordshire Police. One interesting fact that was not reported by the Case Officer is that this comment was sent on 18th May 2010. The consultation period ended on 26th March 2010. This letter of support should be inadmissable. Why was it allowed in the report? Some conspiracy theorists might suspect that the Case Officer "worked" on some of the higher ranking police officers in the City to try to overrule what the local officers had written. Others might think that the outcome of this application had been pre-determined.

The text of this communication is reproduced below:

The report by the Case Officer states "The Area Command Team supports the proposal." HAVOC contends that this cannot be construed as being "in favour", but rather as being "conditionally favourable" or "supportive with conditions". "I would favour a similar approach here ..." This opinion was not reported in the Case Officer's report to the DCC. The odd thing here is that the local police objected to the application ("He represents the local community views and feelings"), while the Command Team supported it. Yet, a contradiction is plainly visible later in the text of CI Hall's letter:

"Putting the citizen at the heart of all that we do ..." It could be construed that the local bobbies remembered the Mission Statement in this case,  while the Command Team forgot.

Local Coppers 1 - 0 Higher Ranks

This is the text of the objection from the Tunstall police:

"... we do have grave concerns over the chosen location."
"We believe that the inclusion of the centre within the locality will lead to an increase in anti social behaviour ..."
"We believe that the inclusion of the premises into the surrounding environment will have a negative effect on community cohesion and will become a crime generator."

These three statements are in black and white in the letter of objection, yet the Case Officer chose to almost completely ignore them: "Notwithstanding, the local Police Units comments, the view from Command Team level is one of support as evidence shows there is a need and demand for the facility which will directly serve the local community." But the whole basis of the local police's objection was not that the centre was not necessary, but that it was in the wrong place - a view that is probably held by almost all of the local residents and businesses.

Another communication to the Case Officer came from the Senior Urban Design Officer:

The interesting part of this is number 3. The original planning application stated that there were four parking spaces available for the building. In fact there is one (see the photo at the top of the page). Should this fabrication not be grounds for rejection of the application? The Case Officer's report states: "The plans indicate that 4 car parking spaces would be available within the site. However, the site would only realistically accommodate one useable minimum standard car parking space." In other words, the applicants dreamed up three parking spaces, but it really doesn't matter. Or does the Urban Design Officer's submission indicate that there are firm plans to create further parking spaces that we, the public, don't know about? Going on the past record of the Council, probably the latter. The Council's Planning Application - Engineering Checksheet states:

Funny how this was completely ignored.

According to Directgov "The council is unable to issue a decision before the end of this consultation period as the views of those consulted are taken into account in planning issues." and "The case officer is the person allocated to deal with the application and ... will ... liaise with the applicant and other interested parties to try and resolve any problems." Tunstall Chamber of Trade objected to the proposed location of the centre:

Reason 3: "We believe that there are other, nearby, and more suitable premises that would be a more viable and less contentious location than this one." Was the Chamber consulted about alternative locations? We do not believe so. This is from a letter to the Case Officer from CRI dated 16th February 2009.

So, CRI looked at one other location in Tunstall. Hardly exhaustive! The views of those consulted, in particular the Tunstall Police and the Tunstall Chamber of Trade, were not taken into account at all. No liason with other interested parties in the community happened. The problems between the centre and its future neighbours are extant, although swept under the carpet.

This was was sent by the Safer City Partnership on 14th May 2010:

The attached document can be found here. It fails completely to address the Police's objection that the centre is in the wrong place:

"... we do have grave concerns over the chosen location."
"We believe that the inclusion of the centre within the locality will lead to an increase in anti social behaviour ..."
"We believe that the inclusion of the premises into the surrounding environment will have a negative effect on community cohesion and will become a crime generator."

and the Chief Inspector's

"Whilst we do have a number of other centres in Stoke-on-Trent it is perhaps fair to say that none are in quite the same position as the Tunstall venue in their proximity to the Town Centre."

 However, it seems to have been used as a sop to override the public's concerns.

HAVOC has doubts about the legality of the approval of the application due to the Council's failure to properly notify adjoining neighbours about the proposed change of use. We believe that this may invalidate the whole process. Directgov (here) states "The council is required to notify any neighbours adjoining the site or other interested parties of the proposed development. A period of 21 days is allowed to receive any comments." We know of at least one adjoining neighbour who was not informed, despite the Council's website, in its list of Neighbours and Representatives for this application, claiming that a Consultation Letter was sent on 26/02/10 (see here). This particular neighbour only found out about the application when the statutory notice was posted on lampposts.

Directgov: "The case officer's recommendation will be based on national planning guidance, council policies contained in local development plan and any representations received." It is our belief that the report supplied to the Committee by the Case Officer was deficient in taking into account material considerations, i.e. the public's misgivings. [A material consideration is a process in Planning Law which the decision maker, when assessing an application for development, must consider in deciding the outcome of an application. The fears of affected residents can be considered as material (House of Lords in Great Portland Estates vs Westminster City Council, 1985).] The Report Summary states "The proposal is generally supported in principle by planning policy and would be easily accessible to people with problems that already live in the area. The proposal is recommended for approval." Almost as an afterthought the "Reasons for referral to Development Management Committee" state "A significant number of representations have been received that raise material planning considerations." This application for change of use received 145 objections and two petitions against. These were ignored, or, more charitably, assumed not to be relevant.

The Case Officer's Report is, we believe, in parts misleading and shows a certain bias.  Please read it and make your own mind up before you read our conclusions.

"The consultation event was attended by 24 people and represented homes/businesses in the local area. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire on entry and rate on a scale of 1-10 whether they agree or disagree the a Community Drug Service should be opened in Roundwell Street, Tunstall. They were then asked the same question again on leaving and over half of those changed their viewpoint to say they were more in agreement with the proposal." This event was held in the Floral Hall in Tunstall Park on 10th May 2010. Attendees were asked to rate their feelings towards the centre on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being totally negative. A totally unscientific straw poll was taken by one of the attendees as people were leaving. We believe that fourteen people were asked. Every one said that they agreed that the CRI were doing a good job, but that the proposed centre was in the wrong place. This leads us to believe that the above statement is, at best, misleading, as it fails to demonstrate any degree of being "more in agreement", e.g. a movement from a score of 1 to a score of 2 can be counted as being "more in agreement", but still truly represents disagreement. A better measure would be to say what proportion of the attendees now approved of the location, i.e. moved from a score of 1-5 to a score of 6-10. This could easily be a case of statistics being manipulated to suit the author.

Many of the people present at this exercise also voiced the feeling that the result of the application was already a given. Interestingly, the initial target date for a decision on the application was 14th April 2010. Had the decision been made then, we consider it probable that the application would have been rejected due to the overwhelming negative reaction of the public, to the support given to the public's view by the police and a sitting Councillor (who was subsequently voted out of office in May), and to the lack of any  support at all. There were Development Control Committee meetings held on 14th April and 28th April. Conveniently not on the Agenda. However, between 28th April and the decision date (2nd June) the required supportive letter had appeared, and all the residents' objections could safely be ignored.

This bit was very eloquently written: "The premises are in close proximity to residential properties and businesses and would be on direct routes to local schools, shops and the town centre. There is strong concern from local residents that the Centre would encourage people to hang about and bring criminal activity and anti-social behaviour into the area. The local Tunstall Policing Unit has similar concerns to local residents but accept there is a need for such a facility to serve the community. The Unit executes the highest number of drug warrants in the City as a result of community engagement. However, the Unit has concerns about the inclusion of the Centre in this particular locality as they state that their evidence shows that Tunstall town centre, and its immediate residential environs, already suffers from the highest levels of antisocial behaviour in Stoke-on-Trent. Tunstall is perceived, by existing residents, as a problem area and there are concerns that this proposal may exacerbate the situation. The Policing Unit considers that the proposal would lead to an increase in anti-social attracting criminals to the area who would abuse those attending the Centre in an attempt to encourage drug use purchase. The Unit also considers those same criminals may also engage in other criminal activity frequently associated with drug use including burglary and shoplifting. The Policing Unit considers that this particular premises is inappropriate for this particular proposal and that an alternative premises should be considered in an area that is less residential in character".  Why was it all ignored?

Sentences beginning "The applicant has stated ...", "The applicants state ..." lead to "Given that there are other similar centres and facilities operating throughout the City and that no evidence has been presented to confirm that these increase incidence's [sic] of crime and anti-social behaviour within the local area, it is considered that it would be difficult to the refuse the proposal on the assumption that the proposal would be to the detriment of local residents." This is extremely misleading. Similar centres? Chief Inspector Hall wrote "Whilst we do have a number of other centres in Stoke-on-Trent it is perhaps fair to say that none are in quite the same position as the Tunstall venue in their proximity to the Town Centre." Also "... where similar concerns were expressed, they were granted a temporary (12 month) consent and the centre was evaluated throughout that period. I would favour a similar approach here ..." Yet, in Tunstall, full permission was granted. WHY? The statements given by the applicants have been given far more weight than the fears of the residents. We believe that this statement in, and the general tone of, the report shows a true bias towards the applicant. It seems to have been very easy to approve the application on the assumption that the centre will not be to the detriment of local residents.

"Concerns have been expressed about the impact on local businesses and that people would not want to shop in the area. The applicants state that such projects are discreet and would not be detectable from the outside by visitors or other businesses." Did the Case Officer do any research into the proportion of shoppers in the area who are local against those who are from outside the area? The locals will all know what this building is being used for, and may stay away. Again, bias being shown in favour of the applicant.

"The proposed rehabilitation centre is generally supported in principle by both agencies and planning policy but it is acknowledged that there is a significant level of objection to this particular site." The telling comment here is that there is a SIGNIFICANT level of objection to this PARTICULAR site. In other words, the local people, as well as the local police, were telling the Case Officer in a very loud voice that they did not want the centre in its proposed location, not that they did not want the centre. As has become common in Stoke-on-Trent, the wishes of the people have again been ignored.

"Material 3rd Party Comments Received [Please note that these have been classified as "material" in the report so must by legal precedent be considered in deciding the outcome of the application.]
A 42 name petition and 145 letters have been received including one from former Councillor Wanger raising the following planning objections:
1. Fear of increased crime and personal safety; [Not properly considered in the report. The initial application states that centre staff will be issued with personal alarms. Why not immediate neighbours?]
2. Lack of parking; [Not adequately considered in the report. The Planning Application - Engineering Checksheet seems to have been completely ignored. Or has the Senior Urban Design Officer's report inadvertently let something slip?]
3. Inappropriate location for local residents, businesses and the potential clients; [It seems that the Case Officer made a concerted effort not to address this issue at all, as the question of alternatives is only approached rather facetiously: "It should be borne in mind that the project could operate from the existing nearby Dunning Street Health Centre without the need for planning permission." Why should anyone need to bear that in mind? The Health Centre would not have the room to host the project. Besides which, CRI appear never to have looked at it!]
4. The facility would attract drug dealers; [Report assumes that it will not. One of life's little golden rules comes into play here: "Assume nothing, question everything. Assuming things makes a (first three letters of assume) out of (fourth letter of assume) and (last two letters of assume)" The consideration that it might seems to have been dismissed out of hand.]
5. The facility would attract the wrong type of people; [Report assumes that it will not.]
6. The facility would have a detrimental impact on local businesses; [Report assumes that it will not, even after considering the Chief Inspector's words. Dismissed out of hand.]
7. The facility would not make a positive contribution to the regeneration of the town centre." [Report assumes that it will.]
The minimal rebuttal of all these fears is based on total assumption. The assumptions have always seemed to have been made in the favour of the applicant while the justifiable concerns and fears of residents and businesses have been brushed aside.

The Council’s Local Code of Conduct for Dealing with Planning Matters (view here) states on Page 2, paragraph 1.3:

“The public’s views and their perception of probity within the planning system are of considerable significance in maintaining confidence in the operation of the planning process and, importantly, avoiding allegations of malpractice.”

Unfortunately, suspicions have already been voiced. We suspect that this matter will not quietly disappear.