The bare facts are these: this afternoon, the planning and development committee of Neath Port Talbot CBC voted to grant planning permission for a replacement access road across farmland opposite the Old Star on the A474 north of Gelligron. More details of the application, P2011/0522, may be found at http://www.npt.gov.uk/_npt/PSVS-040811-REP-EN-GW.doc, the document provided for the site visits sub-committee.

The bare facts conceal confusion and, some would say, undemocratic proceedings. First, chairman Councillor Stan Mason (Margam) called a vote on the recommendation (for approval) from the site visits sub-committee without hearing any discussion. Backtracking on that, he called Linet Purcell (Pontardawe) to state her views, but insisted that she speak narrowly on the access road only, without reference to the wind-farm which it would service. At the outset and conclusion of her address, and in a later reply, Cllr Purcell requested a recorded vote. She supported the strong feelings of local residents against the application.

There was then a lively discussion, punctuated by outbursts from the public gallery. Several Labour members, including councillors Warman (Cimla), Williams (Gwaun-cae-gurwen) and  Woolcock (Lower Brynamman) spoke passionately against the development, implying as it did passage of abnormal loads through Pontardawe Cross and Gelligron during the construction of the wind-farm.

The chairman repeated the official line which was that there was an existing planning consent, granted in 2006, which would allow turbine components to be taken onto the site via an unsatisfactory entrance. The application before us would provide better and safer access. The A474 was already a designated route for abnormal loads and nothing we could do in planning committee could change that. It was up to the police to determine whether it was safe for these particular loads. Moreover, if we rejected the application in the light of evidence provided by officers, we risked having the decision overturned on appeal and having to pay all the legal costs, our own plus the  applicant’s.

A vote was eventually taken, which was at first reported as 14 for, 14 against, with 3 abstentions. The chairman then used his casting vote in favour of the officer recommendation, whereupon he was told that there had been a mistake in the count and that actually 15 had voted in favour, so that there had been no need for the casting vote.

When councillor Purcell asked what had happened to the recorded vote, she was told that there had to be a vote of at least six members (one-sixth of those present, rounded up) for a recorded vote to take place. As the committee had already voted on the substantive motion to approve the application, they would have to move on to next business.

A bad taste

It was not made clear to councillor Purcell at any time that there had to be a separate vote to determine whether the main vote should be recorded. Surely the chairman should have called for a seconder and a vote on her motion immediately after she had concluded her introductory remarks?

As soon as it transpired that the numbers in the substantive vote did not add up (there were 32 members present), why  was not the vote retaken to eliminate all doubt?

Why did the occupants of the Old Star (the nearest other property) not receive notification of the planning application? The planning officer’s explanation was that notification was sent to 358 Pontardawe Road, which was the address registered on Google Maps. Surely the council should have used its own records, or at least those of the Royal Mail?

Consequences

It is to be hoped that the police, who are able to assess alternative routes, unlike the planning committee, will think twice before permitting 5.5m wide vehicles to authorise the route through Pontardawe and Gelligron. Even though the application was given consent, the overwhelming feeling of the planning meeting was that these were loads too abnormal for the local roads.

   Leave a comment